For a research question that is unrelated to the current investigation, we further measured the number of bystanders present in norm violations. We then asked additional questions regarding the offender. We also measured the emotional closeness i. To assess the latter, we used a measure of welfare tradeoff ratio WTR own 29 , 43 toward the offender. Including both questions allowed us to explore the overlap between judgments of moral wrongness and harm in response to violations 56 , We also measured perceived interdependence with the offender, using three items from the Situational Interdependence Scale 58 , Only when participants indicated that they experienced an other-relevant norm violation, we asked them questions about the victim.
In this way, we measured five emotions anger, disgust, fear, sadness, and happiness. Finally, we included an open-ended question where participants could describe in detail how they behaved in response to the violation. In the follow-up phase, we presented participants with each of the descriptions of norm violations that they had reported in the 2 weeks of the daily assessment phase. We instructed them to read these descriptions and some additional information they had provided about the offender, i.
We also assessed emotional responses to violations with the same five arrays of emotional expressions that we used in the daily assessment phase, and the additional item measuring general emotional state. Then, we presented participants with the descriptions they gave about their behavioral responses to each of the violations from the daily assessment phase. We instructed them to answer questions concerning what they did on the days after the violation. Then, we assessed punishment behaviors i.
We again included an open-ended question where participants could describe in detail how they behaved on the days after the violation. We did not exclude any participants from the analyses, but we only analyzed data from completed daily assessments and follow-up surveys. In some cases, due to technical reasons, participants were able to complete the same daily assessment or follow-up survey more than once.
When they did so, we retained the first response. This was either the most complete response or, in few cases, one of multiple incomplete responses. All reported statistical tests are two-sided. In all analyses, we used models that account for the hierarchical structure of our data i. When predicting punishment behaviors binary DVs , we used binary logistic regression models run via Generalized Estimating Equations in SPSS , again nesting observations within days and subjects.
In both types of models—MIXED and GEEs—we specified an autocorrelation matrix, to account for the fact that measures taken closer in time can be more correlated than measures taken further in time. In models including continuous IVs, we tested for relationships between punishment and both within-person-centered variables and person-average variables. Further, in linear mixed models, we specified additional random intercepts and slopes for within-person-centered variables when IVs were continuous and for binary IVs without any transformation.
Finally, given well-established gender differences in direct aggression 61 , we controlled for participant gender in all analyses.
Further information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. A reporting summary for this Article is available as a Supplementary Information file.
Source data are provided with this paper. Hofmann, W. Morality in everyday life. Science , — Henrich, J. Costly punishment across human societies. Marlowe, F. B: Biol.
Google Scholar. Balliet, D. Trust, punishment, and cooperation across 18 societies: A meta-analysis. Psychological Sci. Krasnow, M. Looking under the hood of third-party punishment reveals design for personal benefit.
Raihani, N. The reputation of punishers. Trends Ecol. Evolution 30 , 98— Jordan, J. Third-party punishment as a costly signal of trustworthiness. Nature , — Barclay, P. Reputational benefits for altruistic punishment. Evolution Hum. Fehr, E. Altruistic punishment in humans. Boyd, R. The evolution of altruistic punishment. Natl Acad. USA , — The nature of human altruism. Rand, D. Human cooperation. Trends Cogn. PubMed Google Scholar. Rockenbach, B. The efficient interaction of indirect reciprocity and costly punishment.
Wu, J. Gossip versus punishment: The efficiency of reputation to promote and maintain cooperation. Feinberg, M. Gossip and ostracism promote cooperation in groups. Aktipis, C. Know when to walk away: contingent movement and the evolution of cooperation.
Yamagishi, T. The provision of a sanctioning system as a public good. Ostrom, E. Cambridge University Press, Reward, punishment, and cooperation: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bull. Guala, F. Reciprocity: Weak or strong? What punishment experiments do and do not demonstrate.
Brain Sci. Balafoutas, L. Direct and indirect punishment among strangers in the field. Nikiforakis, N. Punishment and counter-punishment in public good games: Can we really govern ourselves? Public Econ. What are punishment and reputation for? Cushman, F. Punishment as communication. Archer, J. An integrated review of indirect, relational, and social aggression. Campbell, A. Eisenberger, N.
Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Williams, K. McCullough, M. Cognitive systems for revenge and forgiveness. Hutcherson, C. The moral emotions: a social—functionalist account of anger, disgust, and contempt. Molho, C. Disgust and anger relate to different aggressive responses to moral violations. Pedersen, E. The unresponsive avenger: more evidence that disinterested third parties do not punish altruistically. Altruistic punishment does not increase with the severity of norm violations in the field.
Boehm, C. Egalitarian behavior and reverse dominance hierarchy. Fischer, A. Beat them or ban them: The characteristics and social functions of anger and contempt. Chaurand, N. What determines social control? Brauer, M. The relationship between perceived violation of social norms and social control: situational factors influencing the reaction to deviance.
Van Kleef, G. Breaking the rules to rise to power: How norm violators gain power in the eyes of others. Psychological Personal. Conner, T. Guilford Press, Punishment: one tool, many uses. Baumert, A. Interventions against norm violations: Dispositional determinants of self-reported and real moral courage.
Moral punishment in everyday life. When and why do third parties punish outside of the lab? A cross-cultural recall study. Sell, A.
Formidability and the logic of human anger. Foster, E. Research on gossip: Taxonomy, methods, and future directions. FeldmanHall, O. Fairness violations elicit greater punishment on behalf of another than for oneself.
Prepare ahead for difficult situations. When you know you are going to a place or event where your child is likely to misbehave, make sure to bring a small bag of interesting toys to keep the child entertained.
Make sure to select toys that are not only child-safe, but easy to pick up when it is time to leave. Provide a special box of toys for independent play. Select a few special or interesting toys that your child can play with alone and bring these out only at times when you need a few minutes to do a chore or make a telephone call, etc. Keep these special play times brief, and give the child praise for "working" well alone. Establish a few firm rules that your child can understand.
Decide which rules are most important to you, and make sure that your child understands them. Repeat the rules often, and praise the child for obeying them. Let the child know immediately when one of these rules has been broken. Do not change the rules from day to day, but add rules gradually as the child seems to be able to keep them well.
If your child needs to be punished more than a few times per day, this may be an indication that you are expecting a little too much, and you should remove the most difficult rules until the child can master the easier rules. Do not change your mind about what should be punished from day to day, but make sure that you do not have a long list of behaviors that require punishment.
A child who is punished frequently each day will learn to feel that he or she is a bad person. The child will continue to misbehave because punishment will seem unavoidable. To avoid this, make sure you do not start with too many rules or rules that are too hard. Choose appropriate, effective punishments. If possible choose a punishment that is a natural consequence of the misbehavior e. This kind of excitement may also contribute to the later development of adult perversions in which hurting and being hurt are a part of the condition necessary for gratification.
In conclusion, for a child to learn self-discipline and effective coping skills to deal with daily frustrations, stressors and tensions, this is best accomplished without physical punishment.
National Register Credentialed Since Search our database of licensed psychologists verified by the National Register to meet higher care standards. Go through a step-by-step search experience to access our database and explore your options.
The Good and Harm of Physical Discipline. By Barney Greenspan, PhD. Find a Psychologist for family therapy. Punishing a child by hurting their body may take many different forms and may be done for different reasons. It may be a slap, a spanking or beating by hand, a kicking, shaking or throwing down of a child, a whipping or flogging with strap, belt, hairbrush or other implement. It may be applied at random for different offenses or carefully graduated to specific wrongdoings.
What good and what harm can come from physical discipline? The basic concepts of control and mastery include:. Our personalities use many means for dealing with the world around us in an attempt to become our own masters. The child gradually acquires these means of control and mastery.
0コメント