The Concept of Internalization

Aronfreed, Justin

doi:10.1016/b978-1-4831-9895-8.50006-6

Cited by 37 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There were many pairings of warnings and shocks and many responses and people involved. Nevertheless, the objective of internalized control (Aronfreed, 1967) was not achieved. Designing and maintaining a program which takes advantage of the opportunity that shock punishment may provide remains an important practical challenge to behavior therapists.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Generalization of Punishment Effects—a Case Study

Birnbrauer

1968

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Response-contingent electric shock was evaluated in a laboratory and criterion situation before using it to eliminate infrequent and unpredictable biting and destructive acts from the repertoire of a retarded adolescent. Although the initial results were dramatic, the effects of shock were highly discriminated and the therapeutic objectives were not accomplished. The study demonstrates the power and some limitations of shock punishment and is presented so that others will be better prepared for problems that may arise before the goals of a program involving shock punishment will be realized.Response-contingent aversive events have been used by several investigators to decelerate problem behavior of children (Bucher and Lovaas, 1967;Lovaas, Freitag, Gold, and Kassorla, 1965;Risley, 1968;Tate and Baroff, 1966;Wolf, Risley, and Mees, 1964; Wolf, Risley, Johnston, Harris, and Allen, 1967). Punishment, together with positive reinforcement of other behavior, was applied to protect the patient from himself or to protect others. The results in each study were dramatic and no undesirable "side effects" were observed. But these investigators also found that the results were situation-or response-specific, a common finding in the punishment literature. (See reviews by Azrin and Holz, 1966;Solomon, 1964.) How to maintain improvements and to achieve generalized suppression is a practical problem of formidable dimensions. (Feldman, 1966;Feldman and MacCulloch, 1965) and "office treatment" of behavior assumes transfer to the patient's natural environment, an assumption which hardly conforms to the available data.The subject used in the present study presented an opportunity to study generalization effects because the nature of the problem behavior required an indirect approach. The target behavior, biting other children, did not occur in the presence of observers and occurred very infrequently (eight times in the 125 days preceding this study). The patient was continuously restrained in isolation and release was contingent upon a treatment program that entailed minimal danger and showed promise of success.The study continued for 16 months and included treatment and recording of results in a laboratory a criterion situation, and the patient's ward. Since the patient did engage in a variety of other undesirable acts, such as destroying furnishings and tearing clothing when observers were present, the approach taken was to threaten shock for such responses, administer shock response-contingently when the threat was insufficient, and repeat the procedure with other responses. In other words, controlled conditions were arranged to establish that shock would suppress behavior and to establish warnings-"Don't!", "No!"-as generalized conditioned aversive stimuli with the 201 NUMBER 3 (FALL 1968) 1968, 1, 201-21 1

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Generalization of Punishment Effects—a Case Study

Birnbrauer

1968

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Over the years, several reviews of the literature have concluded that corporal punishment is associated with increases in children's aggressive behaviors (Becker, 1964;Patterson, 1982;RadkeYarrow, Campbell, & Burton, 1968;Steinmetz, 1979). Corporal punishment has been hypothesized to predict increases in children's aggression because it models aggression (e.g., Aronfreed, 1969;Bandura & Walters, 1959;Eron, Walder, & Lefkowitz, 1971;Walters & Grusec, 1977); promotes hostile attributions, which predict violent behavior (Dodge, Pettit, McClaskey, & Brown, 1986); and initiates coercive cycles of aversive behaviors between parent and child (Dishion & Patterson, 1999;Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992). Early experiences with corporal punishment may model and legitimize many types of violence throughout an individual's life (White & Straus, 1981), particularly violence in romantic relationships (Simons, Lin, & Gordon, 1998).…”

Section: Aggressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, in addition to its utility in inducing immediate compliance, pain from corporal punishment can initiate other unintended effects. Pain typically provokes a motivation to escape the painful stimulus (Azrin et al, 1965), which in the case of corporal punishment is the parent; thus, children who are corporally punished may be more likely to withdraw from or avoid their parents (Aronfreed, 1969;Parke, 1977). This response may be especially likely when a child realizes the parent intended for the child to feel pain (Lazarus, 1991).…”

Section: Emotional and Sensory Arousalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The same processes hypothesized to account for an association between corporal punishment and general aggression also are expected to account for a tendency toward violence against family members. Specifically, if parental corporal punishment leads individuals to view aggression or violence as legitimate (e.g., Aronfreed, 1969;Bandura & Walters, 1959;Eron et al, 1971;Walters & Grusec, 1977;White & Straus, 1981), make external attributions for their behavior (Hoffman, 1983;Lepper, 1983), and attribute hostile intent to the behaviors of others , they may be more likely to resort to aggression and violence during conflicts with their children and spouses. A tendency toward intergenerational transmission of aggression in close relationships is evident in a strong tendency for parents who were corporally punished to continue the practice with their own children (Fry, 1993;Herrenkohl, Herrenkohl, & Toedter, 1983;Holden, Thompson, Zambarano, & Marshall, 1997;Simons, Whitbeck, Conger, & Wu, 1991).…”

Section: Adult Abuse Of Own Child or Spousementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review.

Gershoff

2002

Psychological Bulletin

1,768

1,703

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the merits of parents using corporal punishment to discipline children have been argued for decades, a thorough understanding of whether and how corporal punishment affects children has not been reached. Toward this end, the author first presents the results of meta-analyses of the association between parental corporal punishment and 11 child behaviors and experiences. Parental corporal punishment was associated with all child constructs, including higher levels of immediate compliance and aggression and lower levels of moral internalization and mental health. The author then presents a process-context model to explain how parental corporal punishment might cause particular child outcomes and considers alternative explanations. The article concludes by identifying 7 major remaining issues for future research.Corporal punishment has been an integral part of how parents discipline their children throughout the history of the United States (Greven, 1991) and has been a focus of psychological research for

show abstract

“…For example, children can learn complex concepts (such as conservation, rules of games, categorization schemes, and rules of syntax) from modeled examples, without explanations (Zimmerman & Rosenthal, 1974). Although rewards are sometimes influential (Bandura, 1986), often children repeat an observed behavior privately over long periods of time without any reinforging consequences, after having observed an unrewarded behavior on only a few occasions (Aronfreed, 1969). For example, after exposure to models who were reading aloud, preschool children spontaneously picked up books and imitated the adult's reading (Haskett & Lenfestey, 1974).…”

Section: Pervasive Learning Through Observation and Listening-inmentioning

confidence: 99%

Firsthand Learning Through Intent Participation

Rogoff

Paradise

Mejía-Arauz

et al. 2003

Annu. Rev. Psychol.

661

357

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines how people learn by actively observing and “listening-in” on ongoing activities as they participate in shared endeavors. Keen observation and listening-in are especially valued and used in some cultural communities in which children are part of mature community activities. This intent participation also occurs in some settings (such as early language learning in the family) in communities that routinely segregate children from the full range of adult activities. However, in the past century some industrial societies have relied on a specialized form of instruction that seems to accompany segregation of children from adult settings, in which adults “transmit” information to children. We contrast these two traditions of organizing learning in terms of their participation structure, the roles of more- and less-experienced people, distinctions in motivation and purpose, sources of learning (observation in ongoing activity versus lessons), forms of communication, and the role of assessment.

show abstract

The Concept of Internalization

Cited by 37 publications

References 0 publications

Generalization of Punishment Effects—a Case Study

Generalization of Punishment Effects—a Case Study

Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review.

Firsthand Learning Through Intent Participation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About