Yes, my suggestion was tongue-in-cheek. Biting is dangerous. (I once had
a hospital roommate who was in danger of losing his hand owing to a human
bite.) One could not do this in a daycare center. And my evidence for its
effectiveness is purely anecdotal (but I have reason to believe that the
practice of biting back _by parents_ is fairly widespread). I am amused,
however, by the moral high dudgeon of some of the respondents. Yes,
Piagetian theory says it can't work. But, as Stephen says, Piaget isn't the
last word, and empiricists should at least consider the evidence. And thanks
to Stephen for his balanced discussion of the ethics of the situation.
don
Donald McBurney
Stephen Black wrote:
> In reference to Don McBurney's suggestion (which I suspect was made
> more facetiously than seriously) that a parent bite a biting child
> back, Beth Benoit replied:
>
> > Isn't one of the basic tenets of a young child's egocentric cognition
> > that he/she can't put herself in another's shoes? That's one (of the
> > many) reasons why "showing a child how it feels" to be bitten won't be
> > effective. She won't take the next step and think, "I won't bite that
> > child because I know how it feels."
>
> This may be peripheral to the main event here, but the current view
> is that Piaget badly overestimated egocentrism in the young child.
> Neo-Piagetian research has established that even pre-schoolers are
> able to appreciate the point of view and emotional experience of
> others, and can empathize (or not) with their the pain and suffering.
> Try banging your finger with a hammer (no, don't!) when a preschooler
> is around, and see how they react to your pain. So I think it's an
> unwarranted assumption that the biter doesn't know how the bitee
> feels after an attack. In fact, as some have pointed out, that may be
> what keeps the game going.
>
> The main problem with the suggestion is that biting is a nasty and
> especially painful health hazard, whether administered by child or by
> parent. Its use as a punishment seems to be based on the premise
> that an aversive which imitates the crime has some particular
> effectiveness. I doubt this. As I understand it, a punishment can
> be any arbitrary event, provided it can be administered easily,
> consistently, rapidly, with minimal side-effects, at the least degree
> of intensity which will be effective, and which is not illegal.
> Biting back flunks most of these requirements.
>
> I also want to say that while I've enjoyed the discussion, I've noted
> an unfortunate air of moral superiority among some of the responses
> of those opposed to the use of punishment. This makes me
> uncomfortable. So let me say a few words about ethics.
>
> Punishment of little kids is bad. Giving them lots of love is good.
> Finding out what troubles them is good. But often neither of those
> suggestions works. What do you do then? According to Spiegler &
> Guevremont (1998), we have to consider the _principle of utility_,
> which "holds that an action is morally right if, when compared with
> alternative actions, it produces more benefit than harm". So consider
> if the following applies to our case:
>
> -the problem child bites often and causes great distress to her
> victims
> -the biting carries a serious risk of infection
> -other parents threaten the day care with the legal responsibility to
> take action to stop the biting
> -the biter's parents refuse to allow their child to be removed from
> the day care
> -gentler techniques such as time-out don't work (unrealistic, because
> in the case we're considering, I'd expect that time-out would work if
> given a chance and used appropriately)
>
> What do you do then? Given that the parents, the day care staff, and
> all regulatory agencies give full informed consent, I'd invoke the
> principle of utility, and say the harm of a few squirts in the face
> with the equivalent of a water pistol, when compared with alternative
> actions (e.g. doing nothing, removing the child from school),
> produces more benefit than harm. Ethically appropriate, I'd say.
>
> Spiegler & Guevremont (1998) cite an interesting story from
> Goldiamond to make this point. As they note, the case is deficient in
> the staff not seeking prior approval which, in those days, wasn't
> required. But aside from that deficiency, it makes a powerful point.
> According to Goldiamond:
>
> "A colleague...showed us a deeply moving film. The heroine was a
> institutionalized primary-grade girl. [Because she head-banged] "a
> padded football helmet was put on her head. Because she could take it
> off, her hands were tied down in her crib. She kept tossing her head
> and tore out her hair... She accordingly had a perpetually bruised
> face on a hairless head, with a neck almost as thick as that of a
> horse".
>
> [In desperation, she was slapped on the cheek for self-injury]. "My
> colleague reports that less than dozen slaps were ever
> delivered...Its use was shortly down to once a week and was
> discontinued in a few weeks. In the meantime, the football helmet was
> removed and the girl began to eat at the table. She slept in a
> regular bed. Her hair grew out, and she turned out to be a very
> pretty little blonde girl with delicate features and a delicate neck.
> In less than a year, she started to move towards joining a group of
> older girls...She smiled often."
>
> [The parents found she had been slapped]. "They immediately withdrew
> her from the custody of my colleague's staff. The last part of the
> film shows her back at the institution. She is strapped down in her
> crib. Her hands are tied to a side. She is wearing a football helmet.
> Her hair is torn out, her face is a mass of bruises and her neck is
> almost as thick as that of a horse."
>
> Stephen
>
> Spiegler, M., & Guevremont, D. (1998). Contemporary behavior therapy,
> 3rd ed. Brooks/Cole.
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470
> Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661
> Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Lennoxville, QC J1M 1Z7
> Canada
>
> Dept web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy
> TIPS discussion list for psychology teachers at
> http://www.frostburg.edu/dept/psyc/southerly/tips
> _________________________________________________________
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
