Are You Insane?

Scientifically--Yes! Psychology is a science!--insanity does not really exist, and neither does sanity. These are not actual psychological terms, although many people throw them about as if they are. The idea of insanity is a legal term. Even though it's not a true psychological concept, I will still try to explain it so that we can clear up this confusion and stop asking every psychologist or psychology major whether or not someone is insane.

Insanity is not actually a simple term to define. I am familiar with its use in the United States, so if you happen to know how it is observed in other countries, cultures, or legal systems, please leave a comment and educate me. I love learning!

In the United States, insanity is used solely as a defense in a court of law. It may be used in a civil case to determine whether or not a family member should be institutionalized for their (or, rather, the family's) own good. In this case, a judge takes testimony from psychological or psychiatric experts [a future blog post on psychologist vs. psychiatrist will be forth coming, I promise] on the mental state of the individual in question. There are no real set rules, that I know of (remember, I'm stepping a little outside my arena here, so please fill in my gaps, legal experts, if I miss something), to determine the requirements for institutionalization. Most judges in these cases will decide for themselves if the individual poses a harm to themselves or others, which is usually the primary concern when talking about removing someone's basic civil liberties due to a mental disorder.

I am sure that most people are more familiar with the use of insanity as a defense in a criminal case, thanks mostly to the popularization of this idea as a plot point in way too many television programs, movies, and novels. In reality, the idea of insanity is left up to a judge or a jury (depending upon the state and the offense) to determine. Each state in the United States has its own rules or criteria for determining whether an insanity defense is valid. These usually boil down to one of four basic rules. Some states use a combination of rules, some states have completely eliminated the defense all together, and some states allow a verdict of "guilty but insane" (never "not guilty by reason of insanity" in these states) in order to pass sentence. The four basic rules are as follows (paraphrased for simplicity; more information can be found at several other sites, including the Encyclopedia of Everyday Law and a 2006 article on the history and possible future of the insanity defense by Carol A. Rolf, JD).

The M'Naghten Rule:  Basically, the defendant, because of some mental or psychological defect, did not know that criminal act was in fact wrong--they could not distinguish between right and wrong--at the time the act was committed. That's the kicker there. By the M'Naghten rule, at least on the surface of things, you could be "sane", i.e. tell right from wrong, before stabbing your lover 50 times and "sane" after stabbing them 50 times (that's why you ran, after all), but while wielding the knife you had no concept of morality. It's no surprise that this test is difficult to prove and you can see how it actually led to defense attempts at the idea of "temporary insanity."

The Irresistible Impulse Test: In this instance, a defendant may or may not know the difference between right and wrong, but because of some mental disorder the defendant could not help themselves while committing the act. [BTW, psychologists rarely use the term "mental disease" any more, instead preferring to think of them as disorders.] The responsibility for the theft or murder or what have you lies at the feet of the disorder, not the person, based on this rule. They just couldn't help themselves because the disorder was ruling them. Unfortunately, this rule makes it easy to fake a disorder and, from my perspective, does not give the individual responsibility for their own actions. It's hard for me as a philosophical humanist to accept the idea that someone "just couldn't help themselves" when committing a crime. I can understand functioning under misinformation, such as when a hallucinating schizophrenic smacks a person that they thought was a giant mosquito, but the person still had the choice the smack that "giant mosquito" or to walk away from it.

The Durham Rule: This rule is overly simplistic, which might be why it is not really used (except in New Hampshire). It's so simple that it's really hard to paraphrase. Essentially, according to this rule, a defendant is not responsible for the crime if the crime was caused by a mental disease/defect. Again, it's tough to buy this argument, as it's giving the power of action to a condition. Conditions don't "do" anything besides exist. People "do" things; people are capable of actions. Defects and diseases are not. This rule did indicate that a medical diagnosis (the specific use of "disease or defect") was a necessary requirement, rather than evaluating one's cognitive abilities or more abstract mental state.

The Model Penal Code Test: This is a combination of the previous rules. A defendant may be seen as not responsible for the crime if they do not a) understand the right/wrong aspects of the act, or b) could not control their behavior at the time of the criminal act, as a result of a mental disease. So, someone would have to have a mental illness per a medical diagnosis and either lack the cognitive capacity to understand their actions or the will power to avoid the action.I'll let you fill in the gaps and loop holes on this one for yourself.

Well, that's a little insight into the legal definition of "insanity." Psychologists do not really use this term in any technical sense, as it's not one of ours. Insane has been used and abused by popular vernacular, thus many people seem to think it is a true psychological concept. The only time a psychologist or psychiatrist is involved in these cases is to question whether the individual exhibits symptoms of a mental disorder (disease or defect) and to judge the person's cognitive capacity for moral understanding. Okay, so maybe you're neither sane nor insane from a psychological standpoint. Can you be crazy? Once again, this is not a psychological term. Crazy is a popular or common word not used in scientific circles.

Crazy: mentally deranged, demented, insane; senseless, impractical, unsound; mad, foolish, foolhardy. Gee, based on the dictionary definition, this is an extremely versatile word. It's no wonder there is so much confusion and it gets thrown around so often. Demented is technically a mental state in which the brain does not function in full capacity--loss of memory, confusion, difficulties thinking or problem-solving, problems communicating or understanding--due to a biological deterioration of the brain itself. Mad is similar to insane in that it is more of a common usage term than a scientific term. As for the rest of the synonyms for crazy, many of them indicate a lower intelligence (see my earlier post on RETARDATION for more on that subject] rather than an inability to function. Most individuals suffering from (or living with, depending on your perspective) a mental disorder have normal intelligence levels.

So, do psychologists use any "real" terms to describe people with mental disorders? Absolutely. Psychologists look at abnormal behavior to determine one's mental health. Abnormal behavior is classified as having one or a combination of the following three criteria:

1. The behavior represents a significant feeling of distress to the individual, i.e. the person is uncomfortable about the behavior and/or the results or consequences of the behavior, such as a person who washes their hands so often that the skin is usually scrubbed raw. They don't like the raw skin, but find it difficult to resist the impulse to constantly wash their hands.
2. The behavior interferes with the daily activities of the individual. Daily activities include normal grooming, hygiene maintenance, work, play, socialization, etc. An example of a behavior that falls under this criteria would be keeping yourself locked in your house and never venturing outside because of a fear of something bad occurring once you leave your threshold. This would make it difficult to hold down a job or attend school.
3. The behavior poses a danger to yourself or others. In most cases, individuals suffering from a mental disorder are more of a danger to themselves than to anyone else, primarily through self-neglect or anxieties that raise their stress levels. The exception would be the personality disorders. Unfortunately, stereotypes lead people to fear someone who is "seeing a shrink" so many people are reluctant to seek the therapy they need because they fear social ostracizing.

Are you nuts, crazy, or insane? If you are, a psychologist/psychiatrist won't officially tell you. Besides, you may just be a little weird and sometimes the people who call you mad just can't handle the unconventional. Sanity is possibly overrated anyway.

Let Your Conscience Guide Conscious Behavior

This week's entry is to help clear up some confusion for a couple of "spelling" words from your typical psychology class. The three terms, all associated in some way with personality, are: conscious, conscience, and conscientiousness. They do not all mean the same thing and they are only loosely related.

Conscious: a mental state in which your thoughts are clear, organized, and easily focused; (alternatively) one's awareness of all that is going on around them at any given time. Your conscious is, according to Sigmund Freud, the part of the mind that is currently being accessed, the part containing all the information of which you are aware at the moment. When you are "conscious" of something you are aware of it. Consequently, most behavior is conscious in that you made a decision to act in that manner and you are aware of what you are doing as you are doing it. Unconscious behaviors occur when we do not stop to think about our actions and simply react (almost instinctively) to the current situation. These automatic responses could be under our control, but we choose to not think about them.

Conscience: one's inner guide and standard for right and wrong, moral and immoral behaviors. This is equivalent to Sigmund Freud's concept of the superego, which houses (in the conscious, unconscious and preconscious) our internal standards for behavior. This is that "little voice" that tells us if what we're thinking about is a no-no or if it's okay. Remember Jiminy Cricket from Pinocchio. Incidentally, individuals without a conscience have no internal limitations on their behavior and often-times exhibit antisocial personality disorder. We don't really concern ourselves too much with someone who has an overactive conscience, however, though this does lead to greater strictures and limitations on their choices.

Sigmund Freud never identified a "subconscious" part of the mind. This is a more modern term that is not used in most psychological research literature. The "subconscious" that many people speak of is really what Freud called the preconscious. This is a layer of awareness between the conscious and unconscious levels. It is just below current awareness, but it is not buried so deep as the unconscious. The preconscious consists of information that we can easily access if we need to, but that we are not thinking about currently. It is kind of like your address book in your cell phone or email. You don't have everyone memorized, but the people you saved can be brought up easily to call them or send them a message. Sigmund Freud did not see this part of the mind as having as much of a direct impact on behavior as either the unconscious or the conscious mind.

Conscientiousness: one of the Big Five personality traits from the work of Costa & McRae (based on many other personality theories, including the work of Carl Jung). Like all personality traits, this is measured on a continuum from high to low. It reflects your internal motivation, organization, and reliability. A person scoring high on conscientiousness is the kind of person that the boss can give a very important client to and walk away with the confidence that the employee will do a stellar job and hand it in on time. This person reliably comes in on time, turns in consistent work, and their thoughts and work space are organized and orderly. A person scoring low on conscientiousness is not very predictable. They may come in to work early or late at times. They are not strictly organized, yet they may claim that "there is a method to their madness" in their work. They are less conventional in their results, sometimes producing work that is amazing and creative, but also sometimes producing poor-quality work. This is the type of employee that confounds the boss because the boss never knows if the work turned in will be spectacular or sub par and the boss may feel the need to watch over the employee's shoulder to keep them on task, otherwise the employee could become too distracted to complete the work.

The other Big Five personality traits are Openness to New Experiences, Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Agreeableness. Look for a future post on Neuroticism, as it is often confused with psychological disorders, specifically anxiety disorders.

Masculine, Feminine, Androdynous & Sexual Orientation

Continuing the previous post on gender and sex and how we are identifies, I though I would tackle the personality side of the issue. Oftentimes people are classified by others based on their behaviors more than their actual biology. This is an important aspect of our social nature, as behavior is all we can really see on the outset of things. The rest is all inferred from there. Sometimes the inferences are wrong, though. So, let's take a look at personality from a gender perspective.
Sandra Bem is the main researcher to credit here. I highly recommend looking up her work for more details beyond my explanations in this relatively limited post.

Masculine: in essence this is what we think it means to be male. It is often used synonymously with maleness or anti-feminine. It is a personality term encompassing a variety of characteristics and traits that our western, androcentric, society typically assigns to male humans. Among these traits are (from a version of Bem's androgyny scale):

• self-reliant
• defends own beliefs
• independent
• athletic
• assertive
• strong personality
• forceful
• analytical
• has leadership abilities
• willing to take risks
• makes decisions easily
•  dominant
• masculine
• willing to take a stand
• self-sufficient
• aggressive
• acts as a leader
• individualistic
• competitive
• ambitious

You can probably see a pattern here. In most western societies, it is considered masculine to be dominant and forceful, defensive and aggressive, and an individualistic independent leader. Students of personality psychology can probably identify other personality theories mapped on to this idea, though those theories did not see personality through a gendered lens. Perhaps that's why The Big Five theory is so enduring. But I digress.

Feminine: in essence this is what we think it means to be female. It is often used as a direct antonym for masculine and is typically thought of as inferior between the two, even for females. Again, this is primarily in the androcentric western cultures. Among these traits (from the same version of Bem's androgyny scale):

• yielding
• cheerful
• shy
• affectionate
• flatterable
• loyal
• feminine
• sympathetic
• sensitive to the needs of others
• understanding
• compassionate
• eager to soothe hurt feelings
• soft-spoken
• warm
• tender
• gullible
• childlike
• does not use harsh language
• loves children
• gentle

Again, I bet you can see a pattern here. This list tends to emphasize the nurturing, submissive expectations placed on womanhood. Also notice that there seem to be a couple more descriptive phrases instead of single word traits in this list. Typically, these tend to be seen as lesser characteristics on the desirability scale.

To be complete, the other third of this particular scale is made up of gender-neutral terms that can be applied to either a male or a female.

• helpful
• moody
• conscientious
• theatrical
• happy
• unpredictable
• reliable
• jealous
• truthful
• secretive
• sincere
• conceited
• likable
• solemn
• friendly
• inefficient
• adaptable
• unsystematic
• tactful
• conventional

Feel free to argue the inclusion of any particular word from any list to generate your own masculine/feminine/neutral scale. My point is still made, however. When it comes to behaviors and personality characteristics, we have certain expectations for each of the genders. Once an individual is identified as a male or a female, we expect them to also fit the prescribed personality typology. So what happens when someone has strong characteristics from BOTH the masculine and the feminine? Well, this is what we call androgyny.

Androgynous: having high levels of many masculine traits, along with high levels of many feminine personality traits. The androgynous individual tends to be more adaptable to the slings and arrows, the trials and tribulations that life throws around. Why? Well, the idea is that they pull from their known resources of independence and understanding in order to foster greater social support networks and a willingness to roll up the sleeves and get down to work.

Okay, what happens if you are low on all these characteristics? In other words, what do we call your personality if you have neither masculine nor feminine traits? This is known as undifferentiated.

Undifferentiated: An individual who shows low levels of masculine traits, coupled with low levels of feminine traits. This person is usually not thought of along gender lines due to the fact that their behavior does not typically fit any expectations for either gender.

Cross-gendered: an individual who shows high levels of personality characteristics from the opposite gender and low levels of personality characteristics from their own level. For example, a cross-gendered male would be male in sex, male in gender (identifies himself as male), and yet exhibit mostly feminine traits, such as being affectionate and tender and yielding, while not exhibiting very many masculine traits. In my experience, I have come across more cross-gendered females than cross-gendered males. Part of this is due to the fact that an androcentric society values male characteristics over female characteristics, so we discourage our boys from crossing over but accept our girls for doing so. After all, what parent does not want a strong and independent child with leadership potential?

Okay, does personality affect sexual orientation? Absolutely not necessarily. Remember (from my previous post), sexual orientation is a matter of who draws you romantically, emotionally, and physically/sexually. Your personality does not necessarily affect your gender identity, either. You can have a male who is feminine in his behaviors who happens to be attracted to females. He would still be heterosexual, albeit one who would often be questioned because he doesn't fit standard expectations. The same thing goes for masculine females. Not every woman who is strong and forceful is a "butch lesbian" in nature. She may simply naturally behave in a way we expect most males to behave, forgoing expected feminine behaviors, and yet be attracted to males. Androgynous is NOT synonymous with bisexuality, either. Having personality traits and exhibiting behaviors from both genders does not automatically mean that you are attracted to both genders. Sexual orientation is a separate issue from personality typology.

This may be the last I post on this subject for a while, unless I receive comments or requests to the contrary. There is still much to explore or clarify, I'm sure, but I hope this is a good start for many who may have been confused.

Sex, Gender, Sexual Orientation

There is quite possibly nothing more confusing, and yet so many people think they know all there is to know, as the topic of sex. Much like the human brain, sex is something that is relatively simple, at yet extremely complex at the same time, especially when you through a psychologist at the subject. Let's start by taking apart some of the terms, and then perhaps complicating the issue slowly. This may end up being the beginning of a series of blog posts, or just a REALLY long one. Either way, it's time to begin.

Sex: from a relationship perspective, this is an activity that takes place between, usually, two, preferably consenting, adults. Many people hear the word sex and envision some act of copulation that runs the gamut from mundane missionary coitus to kinky to erotica and any point in between. Sex in this respect is one of those topics that we try the hardest in many modern societies, despite many movements to the contrary, to keep hidden and mysterious from the "innocents" (mostly children). but "sex" also has another meaning.

Sex: the biological characteristics of being male or female. The genotypes XX (female) and XY (male). The physical appearances of primary and secondary sex characteristics that tells the rest of the world what Nature decided you were supposed to be. When you fill out a demographic survey and they ask for "sex," they are asking about this feature, not whether you've been recently active in the boudoir.

Gender: the psychological and social properties of being male or female. On the surface, sex and gender seem to be the exact same thing. For the majority of the population, they are the same. Most individuals classify themselves as either male or female and this personal classification matches with societal expectations and the person's biological make-up. For a small percentage, however, their sex and gender are not aligned. There are cases in which a person feels they were "born into the wrong body" or that "nature made a mistake" when it assigned their sex. These individuals have the potential to become transgender.

Transgender: an individual whose biological sex does not coincide with their psychological gender and who subsequently, through medical therapies and/or surgery, corrects this miss-match  by changing the physical biological sex to the gender. In other words, a biological male becoming a biological female to match her gender identity as a female or a biological female becoming a biological male to match his gender identity as a male. A transgender should not be confused with a transvestite, however.

Transvestite: an individual who becomes aroused and/or can only achieve orgasm when wearing clothing intended for the opposite sex. Most transvestites are well aware and comfortable with their gender identity as male or female. They simply show a preference for masculine (if they are a female) or feminine (if they are a male) clothing when involved in sex. This should not be confused with a cross-dresser.

Cross-dresser: an individual who wears the clothes of the opposite sex for, primarily, comfort reasons. Some males simply feel that female clothing is more comfortable and they would much rather wear a skirt than a pair of pants. Our society, unfortunately, shuns this form of fashion and many cross-dressers feel the need to hide their preference because it is considered abnormal. Unless there is any sexual arousal involved with the cross-dressing, that's all it is--dressing across gender lines. In modern society, primarily western and American culture (these are what I am most familiar with), it is more acceptable for a woman to cross-dress in male clothing than for a man to cross-dress in female clothing. Personally, I could be considered the occasional cross-dresser, as I find some of my husband's shirts to be more comfortable than the tighter, form-fitting styles meant for most women. I even had a few pairs of "boys" jeans and jean shorts when I was younger because I liked the fit better than the "girl" equivalents. Cross-dressing does not usually lead to transvestism or transgendered individuals, although it could be a precursor.

Now, here's where things can start to get confusing. So many people start to mix gender with sexual orientation. Sexual orientation relates to one's attraction, physically and romantically and erotically, to an individual based on that other individual's gender/sex. Labeling of one's sexual orientation is partially dependent upon one's own gender and the gender of one's love interest.

Heterosexual: being attracted (emotionally, romantically, physically, erotically, sexually, etc.) to someone of the opposite sex/gender. That means that if your sex is male and your gender is male and you are attracted to primarily females, then you are a heterosexual male. If your sex is female and your gender is female and you are attracted to primarily males, then you are a heterosexual female. [Note: I use the word "primarily" in deference to the ideas of Kinsey, who postulated that very rarely is an individual exclusively heterosexual or homosexual.]

Homosexual: being attracted (etc. as stated above) to someone of the same sex/gender. That means that if your sex is male and your gender is male and you are primarily attracted to males, then you are a homosexual male. If your sex is female and your gender is female and you are primarily attracted to females, then you are a homosexual female.

Bisexual: being attracted (as stated above in the etc.) to someone regardless of gender/sex. A bisexual tends to be pulled, throughout their lives, almost equally by both males and females. In this case, one's own gender and sex does not particularly affect the classification, as there is mutual attraction to both sexes anyway.

Now, it is possible to have an individual's gender and sexual orientation to require a more complex examination in order to determine actual sexual orientation. Consider the case of the "male lesbian," for example. This would be an individual whose sex (biology) is male, but whose gender (psychological identification) is female, who is attracted to females. On the surface, this individual might be considered a heterosexual male. However, because one's gender is more important to psychologists in determining how one is identified, the homosexual orientation is actually more accurate. In true technicalities, this person is not actually a "male lesbian," but rather a (potential) transgender homosexual female.

If you've come this far and your head has not exploded, then I congratulate you for your efforts to understand. I will leave you here, hopefully with much food for thought and a little more understanding of what I did warn you was an incredibly complex topic. I will continue this topic, in a subsequent blog post, with the concepts of one's personality as defined along gender lines (masculine, feminine, androgynous, undifferentiated). Needless to say, any time we talk about one's gender or sex it conjures up a world of complexity that is too often muddled via attempts to oversimplify and stereotype things.

Sociopath vs. Psychopath

This post is actually coming from a direct question from a student in one of my classes. I felt I didn't answer her as best I could, so I thought I would take the time, after gathering my thoughts correctly, to put this topic to rest. First of all, "sociopath" is an actual psychological term used my clinical psychologists, whereas psychopath is not.

Sociopath: the more common label for an individual with antisocial personality disorder (see post on ANTISOCIAL). This is an individual who acts with no conscience. While most people think of serial killers and the sick, twisted individuals portrayed on shows such as Criminal Minds or and of the Law and Order franchises, they are not necessarily homicidal. Most sociopaths are simply extremely selfish--Freud might say they were almost 100% id-driven. They have a tendency to say and do whatever they want without a care for the impact on others. They may borrow or steal money without batting an eye. They may injure someone and not think twice about it. They may impose their will and/or bully someone else into submission for their own convenience. Yes, they may resort to killing and/or torture for the pleasure it brings them, but this type of behavior represents only a small proportion of the sociopaths out there.

Psychopath: using the term psychopathology as a springboard, a psychopath is just a person who exhibits abnormal behavior of any kind. Psychopathology is the study of abnormal behavior. This can include any type of psychological disorder (anxiety disorders, mood disorders, psychotic disorders, dissociative disorders, etc.) or even just someone who "acts weird" in comparison to a subset of the population, such as someone who dresses differently or has an odd way of speaking. Popular media would have you believe that all psychopaths are homicidal as well, but this simply isn't the case. In fact, much like the term "insanity," psychopath is more an invention of culture than an actual scientific, psychological term. The majority of behaviors that fall under psychopathology are actually self-inflicting harmful behaviors. Individual psychopaths very rarely represent harm to others. The greatest chance of being hurt by a psychopath is either a schizophrenic currently experiencing a psychotic episode that incorporates others in some form of delusion or hallucination, or a sociopath with homicidal tendencies, as mentioned above.

That brings me to a "bonus" term for this entry--psychotic.

A psychotic disorder is one in which an individual has a break with the shared view of reality. Organic psychoses such as dementia are caused when parts of the brain begin to deteriorate, leading to malfunctioning of reason and a person's difficulty with sorting out fact from fiction. In the case of schizophrenia (this is NOT multiple personalities!), the individual may suffer from hallucinations--inaccurate or false sensations and perceptions--and/or delusions--false beliefs that are held even in spite of evidence to the contrary. There are other symptoms such as disordered speech patterns, personality disintegration, and disorganized emotional responses that can be found in some forms of schizophrenia. Unlike a sociopath (or antisocial personality disorder), however, most schizophrenics generally do not pose a direct intentional threat to others around them. In fact, they do not live the majority of their lives in one solid state of a psychotic episode, but rather, tend to experience moments to true lucidity between psychotic episodes, especially when under the care of a physician with medical treatment. While schizophrenia is one of the most severe psychological disorders, the actual percentage of the population who can be diagnosed with it is extremely small. In addition, medical and psychological science has come a long way in helping individuals with the disorder control some of the more severe symptoms so that they are able to function in "normal" society on a day-to-day basis.

Behave!

How many times were you told to "behave" by your parents or teachers? How many times did you use the same or similar phrase with someone else? The funny thing is, no matter what a child is doing he or she is behaving.

Behave: to do something. EVERYTHING you do is a behavior. Thinking, sleeping, dreaming, screaming, sitting--if you can use it in a sentence as a verb of some sort, then it is behaving. As such, behaviors are observed, measured, described, explained, predicted, controlled by psychologists of every fashion. Our whole science hinges on overt (readily observable) behaviors and covert (not readily observed and often inferred) behaviors. To us, everything a human can conceive of, even thinking and emoting, is a behavior subject to study and potential control--especially for the behaviorists.

So, any time a parent tells their child to behave, I cringe a little and the snark in me wants to inform them that the child is behaving, albeit perhaps not in the way desired. Instead of telling your child to behave, try giving them specific directions. Even "behave well" or "behave better" gives a smidgen more direction that simply "behave yourself." Giving children, or any human for that matter, such vague directions leads to a myriad of miscommunication and misinterpretation, which leads to frustration and upset.

Do yourself and others a favor and instead of demanding that someone "behave" themselves, give them specific desirable behaviors to achieve. You can even give specific behaviors to reduce or avoid. Even Dr. Tess Coleman's (Disney's remake of Freaky Friday) edict to her daughter to "make good choices" is better than "behave."

Discipline

Let us begin with what discipline is NOT. It is not beating the stuffing out of your kid. It is not molding your children (or employees) into mindless robot drones who obey any and all commands without question to the point that they no longer think for themselves. Discipline is not punishment--it includes potential punishment, but also reinforcement, rules, guidelines, consequences.

Discipline is a SYSTEM. Every parent, from the authoritarian to the overly permissive, has a discipline system in place. Some systems are more effective than others, sometimes the effectiveness is dependent more upon the child than the system itself. As a system, discipline is neither inherently "bad" or "good." It is effectively neutral. The resulting behaviors [see a future blog post on BEHAVIOR/BEHAVE] can be interpreted with these affective labels, but the system itself should be seen as either effective--does it accomplish the goals it was designed for--or ineffective--does it fall short of expectations. As a system, many parents and teachers and bosses (and anyone else in a position of authority over another person or animal) choose to use both punishment and reinforcement to direct (or guide) behavior. Let us clarify these terms now. But first, the word "consequence" needs to be defined for you so that you understand the rest of this post.

Consequence is anything that follows an action (i.e. behavior). Consequences never come before a child acts. If you yell at your child before he/she hits their sibling, then you are employing an antecedent. These are used for classical conditioning and are mostly effective for reflexes, but not for conscious or voluntary behaviors. So, I will focus on consequences for the duration of the explanation of "discipline" as a system.

Punishment: this is a consequence that results in the reduction or cessation of a behavior. If yelling at a child when they spill something leads to that child never spilling again or reducing the frequency of spilling, then you have instituted a punishment. If you remove a toy from a child when they argue with their sibling and they stop arguing, then you have used punishment.


Reinforcement: this is a consequence that results in the repetition or increased frequency of a behavior. If thanking a child for cleaning up their mess results in them cleaning up more messes, then you have used a reinforcement. If you hug a child when they are sad and they come to you more often for hugs when they are sad, then you have reinforced the behavior (not sadness, but seeking your comfort when sad).

Important Note: These consequences--punishment and reinforcement--are defined by the individual receiving the consequence, NOT by the person doling them out. For example, if you yell at your child for spilling their drink and you find them spilling liquids much more frequently, then you have actually reinforced the spilling behavior. There is something about your yelling that the child desires, hence they will continue to behave in such a way that will allow them to receive more yelling. If you give your child candy for cleaning their room and they stop cleaning their room, then you have actually punished them. Perhaps you should ask them if they like the candy.

Now, as a teacher I don't like to leave things incomplete if I can help it. However, the complete ideas of punishment and reinforcement as discovered by B.F. Skinner and other behaviorists is a little more complex. Included in this area of psychology are positive punishment (giving something to the person that they do not like so that they won't repeat the behavior), negative punishment (taking something away from the person that they like so that they won't repeat the behavior), positive reinforcement (giving something to the person that they do like so that they will repeat the behavior), and negative reinforcement (removing something from the person that they do not like so that they continue the behavior). There are also ideas of schedules of reinforcement (fixed interval, variable interval, fixed ratio, variable ratio, continuous) as well as types of reinforcers (primary, secondary, and social). Anyone who has ever taken a well-taught introductory general psychology class or a class on behaviorism or learning and conditioning will know more of these details. If you haven't, then pick up a psychology textbook and peruse the chapter on learning.

When you "discipline" your child or your employee or your student or anyone else, you are shaping behavior, not merely punishing them. Incidentally, decades of research has found that reinforcement of wanted behaviors is much more effective in shaping behavior than punishment of undesirable behaviors. And, if you do choose punishment as part of your disciplinary system, then you really need to 1) explain why that behavior is being punished so that it can be avoided in the future and 2) let the individual know an alternative, acceptable behavior that they can pursue to replace the undesirable one. Otherwise, a person ends up with a gigantic list of "don't" and has no idea what the "do" might be. Another key component to any discipline system is consistency. Without consistency people will not know what you expect from them and life will become one big dice game that is completely unpredictable.