T
That's a pretty simplistic and misleading statement. Frequency of punishment/discipline alone does not cause deviant behavior. It's more the relationship between the parent and child that is the critical factor. If a child has a negative relationship with one or both parents, he or she is more likely to resent their authority. And then, depending on the degree of resentment, the individual involved, and existence of any other number of cognitive dissonances, you have someone who seeks other 'rewarding systems,' thus creating the potential of becoming a societal "deviant."
A positive relationship with a parent, on the other hand, usually entails that the child understands exactly why he or she is being punished, or barring that, trusts the parent enough to want the best for them. They also must feel, on some level, that the "punishment" fits the "crime." If that's satisfied, they are more in line with expectations and more readily socialized into the rest of society.
So what it really comes down to is the individual's perception of these punishments. There's no universal 'correct' way to discipline a child. Effective discipline requires that a) the child understands that this is punishment b) that they (sometimes grudgingly) accept that this is the just consequence of breaking the rules that have been established earlier, and c) that they hold respect and trust toward the authority that establishes these rules.
Authority, of course, has to contend with the more informal rules set out by society that is aggressively reinforced by peers. And an unhealthy home life can definitely tip the scales in a critical manner. Each child/adult has to decide on either a healthy balance between the two (rebellion vs. conformity), or sway too far in either direction. Any number of factors, however, can be responsible for that decision.
A resounding yes! But not because of punishment alone, but also because the expectations of what makes a virile male toe a very fine line between violence and personal power. Boys are formally taught that "violence doesn't solve anything," but any kid worth his salt on the playground knows that doesn't hold true at recess. If someone throws a punch at you, you hit him back, twice as hard. If you don't stand up for yourself, you're a 'loser.'
And how many fathers, off the record, teach their boys how to do the ol' one-two? How many boys instinctively know, from watching other boys, that playing 'nice' doesn't apply universally?
If you think about it, boys have a more confusing time of it because they have two opposing messages coming their way. Play nice vs. Hit 'em hard. Often, it comes down to a choice: do you play by the rules of the establishment, or do you play by the rules of the street? Which is right? Which is more gratifying? And often, getting mixed messages from their authority figures does not help.
Girls don't have that problem. Their 'deviant' behavior (stereotypically, let's say gossip) is less apparent, and often flies under the teacher's radar. For all intents and purposes, they do essentially 'play by the rules.' After all, you see a black eye more readily than you see a gradual psychological melt down. So yes, boys get the brunt of the discipline. And overtly so, because their 'unspoken rules of masculinity' readily clash with the formal expectations of the establishment.
Last edited:
So if a boy and girl were both to misbehave 10 times then the boy would be punished, say 9 times and the girl only 8?
I wonder if they tracked type of misbehavior. There are some types of behavior that seem to trigger a harsher response, while some types of behavior (the quieter types) seem to be easier for an adult to overlook. Will have to read the article more carefully.
I am guessing there is a lot of nature mixed in with that nurture.
Is this article for real? I thought if you had extra chromosomes it would cause serious health problems. Are you sure this article is not a hoax? (runs off to read more....)
T
The Jester
TDHT, the authors of the psychology book meant that if punishments are handed out incorrectly, that they can lead to deviant behaviour.
Incorrectly:
Punishments are often not handed out fair. (I think we can all relate to situation where one has more advantages than an other, because he/she is more liked by the one who has authority, and they'll be easier on them. I think of elementary school, where one person who was more liked by the teachers because of his good grades (that was me :$) was able to get away from punishments. This changed in high school though
)
This can also be because of prejudices towards men, women, black people, asian people, arabs, ...
Do you see what Billy said? He said that men are dangerous, agressive animals.
Has anyone seen 'The Crash'?
Btw, there are other types of handing out punishments incorrectly, but I can't see how they'd be directly related to this.
Incorrectly:
Punishments are often not handed out fair. (I think we can all relate to situation where one has more advantages than an other, because he/she is more liked by the one who has authority, and they'll be easier on them. I think of elementary school, where one person who was more liked by the teachers because of his good grades (that was me :$) was able to get away from punishments. This changed in high school though
)This can also be because of prejudices towards men, women, black people, asian people, arabs, ...
Do you see what Billy said? He said that men are dangerous, agressive animals.
Has anyone seen 'The Crash'?
Btw, there are other types of handing out punishments incorrectly, but I can't see how they'd be directly related to this.
TDHT, the authors of the psychology book meant that if punishments are handed out incorrectly, that they can lead to deviant behaviour.
Incorrectly:
Punishments are often not handed out fair. (I think we can all relate to situation where one has more advantages than an other, because he/she is more liked by the one who has authority, and they'll be easier on them. I think of elementary school, where one person who was more liked by the teachers because of his good grades (that was me :$) was able to get away from punishments. This changed in high school though
This can also be because of prejudices towards men, women, black people, asian people, arabs, ...
Which is exactly what I outlined above. The critical factor is the perception of punishment and perception of authority (just vs. unjust). This is what I meant when I was talking about a child's healthy vs. unhealthy relationship with a parent. Your OP did not specify this; it kind of left the interpretation rather open-ended (to me, anyway).
But I'm a stickler for clarification.
What is the psychology book you're reading from? Care to cite it in full?
Sorry, can you explain what you mean by this?
Last edited:
T
The Jester
I meant that there are other ways of how we can punish incorrectly, like:
-Do it in a way that the person who gets punished can't concentrate anymore on the accepted behaviour. e.g.: a child just came home with a test, he failed on it and his parents got very angry. The child is in such shock that he can't concentrate on studying harder. (That's an example from my own environment.)
- Punishments which aren't related to the bad behaviour which led to the punishment.
- Punishing for having a certain personality and not for the behaviour
- ...
The book is called: 'Psychology, an introduction' by Philip Zimbardo, Robert Johnson and Vivian McCann.
I need to study some chapters for my criminology course.
These still fall into the category of individual perception of the punishment.
If a child cannot concentrate on his homework because his parent's reaction has rattled him to the core, the implication is that the child believes that a failed test should not warrant such a reaction. His expectations of parental authority (shaped by any number of sources, such as television, friends, society on the whole) are not in line with what he experiences at home.
On the other hand, in a culture where grades are universally hailed as very important, such an angry reaction from a parent may be expected. Thus, the child in such a culture may accept such a punishment as "just" because that is what is sanctioned by the norm, therefore, possibly minimizing the potential for psychological trauma.
So "correct" and "incorrect" ways of punishment are entirely relative. What's universal is that the individual feels that the punishment is either just or unjust in accordance to his societal conditioning.
Ah, I found the e-book. I see.
Last edited:
T
The Jester
What do you mean by 'yelling?' We're still describing things in very relative terms here. For example, some children are more sensitive than others and will react very strongly to the smallest demonstration of upset, while another child will simply take it in stride. It still comes down to what the child expects of his parents, and how parents tailor their choice of discipline for each unique child.
There's no easy way of slotting all discipline into 'correct' or 'incorrect' categories. It depends on the child, it depends on the parent. There needs to be a harmony and understanding between the two of them. That's the only mandate.
I've read books about serial killers, mainly about Antisocial personality disorder, a disorder that is pretty much slapped upon every murderer. I've also read about childhood trauma and studied it.
The big question is whether it is nature or nurture. I believe it is both. There are genetic correlations, and it has been hypothesized there is a 'killer gene' that can be passed down from person to person in a family. I could buy into this, slightly, if it is taken into account that while if a person is naturally more aggressive than other beings, if raised in the proper environment it can be tamed considerably. I think that a lot of people who commit crimes do so because a shitty living enviornment and were raised in an improper way- but there are people who grow up with a perfectly fine childhood and commit crimes. There has to be a combination of nature or nurture.
As on the question about men vs women, it is true that women commit less violent crimes- however, that is because the way an antisocial woman would commit a crime is quite different than the way an anitsocial man would. Women are generally less violent and more controlled with their crimes- I once read a case about a woman who worked in a nursing home and killed old, dying patients just when they were recovering from an illness. She would also whisper into patients' ears who had personality disorders such as Paranoid Schizophrenia and cause them to become suspicious of their care takers- telling them things like, "Your mother told me that she wants to kill you. She's put you in this home to wait until you die. I'm telling you this because I care about you, if you tell her I told you this she'll be very angry." Just things like that. Now, that's probably a whole lot worse than the kind of crimes a lot of dudes are committing. It's a psychological murder.
The big question is whether it is nature or nurture. I believe it is both. There are genetic correlations, and it has been hypothesized there is a 'killer gene' that can be passed down from person to person in a family. I could buy into this, slightly, if it is taken into account that while if a person is naturally more aggressive than other beings, if raised in the proper environment it can be tamed considerably. I think that a lot of people who commit crimes do so because a shitty living enviornment and were raised in an improper way- but there are people who grow up with a perfectly fine childhood and commit crimes. There has to be a combination of nature or nurture.
As on the question about men vs women, it is true that women commit less violent crimes- however, that is because the way an antisocial woman would commit a crime is quite different than the way an anitsocial man would. Women are generally less violent and more controlled with their crimes- I once read a case about a woman who worked in a nursing home and killed old, dying patients just when they were recovering from an illness. She would also whisper into patients' ears who had personality disorders such as Paranoid Schizophrenia and cause them to become suspicious of their care takers- telling them things like, "Your mother told me that she wants to kill you. She's put you in this home to wait until you die. I'm telling you this because I care about you, if you tell her I told you this she'll be very angry." Just things like that. Now, that's probably a whole lot worse than the kind of crimes a lot of dudes are committing. It's a psychological murder.
Last edited:
T
The Jester
Yea I edited my post.
Well, it's just one of the cases where punishment doesn't work, but you're right that it depends on the perception that the child has.
T
The Jester
I know I'm just picking out one sentence, but I believe this too.
I may be a bit extreme, but I believe that nurture can influence the foundations (nature) of the child.
I believe that nature has something to do with it, but with the right nurture you can change most things. (I'd say anything here, but it's impossible to prove)
I am also fascinated by serial killers, I want to know how their mind works.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you would be absolutely fascinated by Bruce Lipton's "Biology of Belief: Conscious Parenting." It's marketed towards parents, but the brunt of his lecture is concerned with how environment influences psychological make up and in turn, awakens dormant genes while stifling others.
That is sometimes the case I think, but there isn't really any hard evidence that men are more likely to be suspected for crime then women. If you have such evidence I would be genuinely interested in seeing it. Plus the difference in the prison populations is really to high to have that be the only reason for the difference.
Thats from about.com it is in the article I posted.
I understand your suspicions that men are more likely to be accused of crime then women. However the idea that counts for the bulk of the difference is a little to paranoid even for me.
O sure, but I only said that because that seems the type of crime that the research was referring to. One would think that to understand the point of the study one would have to take there definition of crime when determining the validity of the argument.
Last edited:
As an upcoming criminologist, I would say no, or that that correlation is far to simple.
Theories which address something in line to what you are suggesting would be Cognitive, Differential association, or Cultural theory.
Cognitive theory- mind develops patterns through social experiences that would cause underdevelopment of the mind.
Differential association- criminal behavior is learned through interaction between intimate personal groups (the learned behavior is techniques and drive for crime). When there are more favorable definitions for criminal behavior than not, crime happens.
Cultural theory- it’s pretty self explanatory, one’s culture would affect one’s role, behavior, attitudes, and definition of crime, similar to Differential association except the experiences are gathered from the general society at large instead of intimate personal groups.
My personal favorites are neutralization, rational choice, psychological, biological, and learning theories.
Theories which address something in line to what you are suggesting would be Cognitive, Differential association, or Cultural theory.
Cognitive theory- mind develops patterns through social experiences that would cause underdevelopment of the mind.
Differential association- criminal behavior is learned through interaction between intimate personal groups (the learned behavior is techniques and drive for crime). When there are more favorable definitions for criminal behavior than not, crime happens.
Cultural theory- it’s pretty self explanatory, one’s culture would affect one’s role, behavior, attitudes, and definition of crime, similar to Differential association except the experiences are gathered from the general society at large instead of intimate personal groups.
My personal favorites are neutralization, rational choice, psychological, biological, and learning theories.
Last edited:
T
The Jester
Cog, I know that it is too simple. If it'd be only on factor, crime would be easy to prevent.
Silly persons.
I was just asking, is there a possible connection?
Silly persons.
I was just asking, is there a possible connection?
I was just making sure such was the case.
I did some researching through my schools database, and came up with this. I read a few more peer reviewd journals that had similar results as well.
European Journal of Criminology
European Journal of Criminology 2007; 4; 161
van der Laan, Jan R. M. Gerris and Judith Semon Dubas
Machteld Hoeve, Wilma Smeenk, Rolf Loeber, Magda Stouthamer-Loeber, Peter H.
Delinquency of Male Young Adults
Long-Term Effects of Parenting and Family Characteristics on
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://euc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/4/2/161
Abstract:
Drawing from the criminology literature and family studies, we investigated the long-term effects of established family risk factors and parenting styles on male young adult delinquency. We used data sets from two longitudinal studies, the Pittsburgh Youth Study (N = 474) and the Child-Rearing and Family in the Netherlands Study (N = 128), each with assessment periods covering at least 10 years. The lack of orderly and structured activities within the family during adolescence was a strong predictor of delinquency in young adulthood, once prior aggression and demographic variables were considered. No evidence was found for a relationship between authoritarian and authoritative parenting styles and later delinquency. Furthermore, previously identified family factors such as socioeconomic status, supervision, punishment, and attachment were not related to delinquent behavior in young adulthood.
Last edited:
T