The Ripple Effect in Discipline
Author(s): Jacob S. Kounin and Paul V. Gump
Source: The Elementary School Journal , Dec., 1958, Vol. 59, No. 3 (Dec., 1958), pp. 158162
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/999319
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Elementary School Journal
This content downloaded from
14.200.38.166 on Tue, 14 Feb 2023 23:37:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JACOB S. KOUNIN
PAUL V. GUMP
Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan
The Ripple Effect in Discipline
Discipline is a serious concerngartens
to
of twenty-six representative
many teachers, especially beginners.
Detroit schools. In the study reported
The teacher who seeks help in discihere, fifty-one undergraduates served
as observers. The students began their
pline is likely to get advice that draws
observations on the first days of the
heavily on lore. The counsel may carry
the name of a respected authoritynew
orschool year.
the prestige of a widely accepted edThe observers were carefully inucational philosophy.
structed on their assignment. They
But how much advice on classroom
were to note any incident in which
discipline, even advice offered under
a kindergartner watched the teacher
such auspices, meets the test of correct
ex- another child for misbehavior.
perimentation? How many widelyThey
ac- were to report in detail on three
cepted beliefs and practices have been
phases of each incident: the behavior
upheld by careful research?
of the watching child immediately be-
fore the incident, the behavior of the
In Detroit, we are studying classroom management (1). In one phase
teacher and the child who was being
of our study, we are paying special
corrected during the incident, and the
attention to the "ripple effect," behavior
or
of the watching child for
two minutes after the incident.
the influence that control techniques
have-not on the children who are
Four hundred and six such incidents
being disciplined-but on the otherwere analyzed. In our analysis, we
children who are watching and lis- classified the control technique itself,
tening.
Briefly, the problem may be put
in this way: While the teacher is
correcting Sally, what effect is the
disciplinary measure having on Ruth,
who is sitting nearby, taking in what
is happening?
Answers were sought in the kinder-
the behavior of the watching child
before the incident, and the behavior
of the watching child after the incident.
The control technique
Three dimensions of the control
techniques used by the teachers were
158
This content downloaded from
14.200.38.166 on Tue, 14 Feb 2023 23:37:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
DISCIPLINE 159
measured: clarity, firmness, which
and the teacher expressed hostility
roughness.
Clarity involved the teacher's direc-
tions to the children. How clearly
or exasperation. If the teacher touched
the child, the touch had more pressure
than was necessary. If the teacher
gave the child a warning look, the
havior the teacher wanted to bring look was angry rather than serious.
to an end?
The samples in the study showed no
did the directions define the misbe-
A teacher might say: "Tommy, stop extremely harsh techniques. No child,
it!" Or "Tommy, you can't do that!" for example, was shaken or spanked.
Or "Tommy, that will do!" However
emphatically uttered, these directions
The children's reactions
The children who watched while
did not make it clear what Tommy
was to stop doing.
a classmate was being corrected reA teacher who wanted to make
sponded in various ways, which we
sure that a pupil understood what classified
was
in five categories. Sometimes
expected of him might use one
of and girls showed no reaction.
boys
several approaches. The teacher might
They simply went about their busigive directions that defined the pupil's
ness, making no observable response
misbehavior: "Tommy, don't taketo
the
the episode. If the children hap-
blocks away from Johnny while pened
he's to be drawing when a classmate
using them." Or the teacher might
was adomished, they simply continued
give the child an acceptable standard
with their drawing.
of behavior: "Tommy, in kindergarten
At other times, children reacted
we ask for things. We don't grab."
sharply to the correction of a class-
Or the teacher might tell Tommy mate.
how They lost interest in what they
to stop the misbehavior: "Tommy put
had been doing and became worried,
those blocks down and look at the
picture books."
Firmness involved how much "I-
confused, and restless. This type of
reaction was classified under "behavior disruption."
mean-it" the teacher packed into theAt still other times, children redisciplinary technique. How did the
sponded with a special effort to be
teachers say "I mean it"?
good. They stopped a misbehavior of
By touching or guiding the child.
their own, sat up taller, paid closer
attention to the lesson, or tried in
By speaking emphatically. By walking
close to the child. Or by following
some other way to show that they
through, that is, by focusing steadily
were not misbehaving. These reac-
on the misbehaving child until he contions were grouped under "conform-
formed. If the teacher brushed over
ance."
the trouble lightly, the correction con-Sometimes the correction had no deveyed little firmness.
terrent effect whatsoever. Even though
Roughness described techniques in
a child had just seen a classmate cor-
This content downloaded from
14.200.38.166 on Tue, 14 Feb 2023 23:37:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
160 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL December, 1958
rected for misbehaving, he launched rough techniques were followed by
some mischief of his own. This re-
an increase in behavior disruption. Sesponse was classified as "non-conformvere techniques did not make for "bet-
ance."
ter" behavior in the watching child.
At times, children in the audience Severe techniques simply upset him.
vacillated between conformance and
Our study recognized that control
non-conformance. During the two techniques alone do not determine how
minutes after the teacher had corrected a watching child reacts. Other influa classmate, they both conformed and ences are also at work.
misbehaved.
We related the children's reactions
The impact of the setting
to the teachers' control techniques (2).
We investigated three possibilities.
When the teachers made it very clear First of all, we asked: "'What was the
what they expected of a child, the chil-watching child doing just before the
dren in the audience responded withincident?" Our next concern: Was the
increased conformance and decreased
watching child psychologically close
non-conformance. When the teachers
to the child who was being corrected?
did not make it clear what they expected of the child they were correcting, the effect on the young observers was reversed, that is, they
responded with less conformance and
Was the child in the audience watching
his misbehaving classmate with considerable interest? Finally, how long
had the watching child been in kinder-
garten?
Children who were themselves mismore non-conformance. The probabili-
ty level (3) for this difference, by
the chi-square test, was .01.
The clarity of the teachers' directions was plainly related to the responses of the children in the audi-
behaving-or even innocently related
to misbehavior-were much more re-
sponsive as they watched the teachers'
efforts to control than were the chil-
dren who were free of any connection
ence, but the firmness of the teachers' with misbehavior. Children who at
technique, the researchers found, only the moment were free of misbehavior
tended to be related to the reactions
were quite likely to show no reacof these children. In other words, the tion. Children who were misbehaving
knowledge that a control technique showed more conformance, more non-
was firm or lacking in firmness did conformance, and markedly more vac-
not enable us to predict how a watch- illation between conformance and non-
conformance (probability level .001).
Finally, we found a relation be- It was instructive to compare the
tween the roughness of the control effects of clarity and firmness on the
technique and the response of thevarious groups. The effects already
watching child. Roughness did notnoted for clarity were obtained re-
ing child would react.
lead to increased conformance and de- gardless of whether or not the watch-
creased non-conformance. Instead,
ing child was associated with mis-
This content downloaded from
14.200.38.166 on Tue, 14 Feb 2023 23:37:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
DISCIPLINE 161
formance and decreased non-conformbehavior. However, firmness affected
ance.
only groups that had some connection
with misbehavior. In these groups, If
high
the teacher's behavior con
firmness increased conformance and
firmness, the watching children
decreased non-conformance (probabil- times responded with increase
formance and decreased non-con
ity level .05).
ance.
This reaction occurrred if the
The length of time the children had
been in kindergarten, we found, af- watching children had been misbehavfected their reactions. On the first day ing or interested in a child who was
the children were highly sensitive tomisbehaving.
control techniques. They showed some
If the teacher used rough techniques,
outward reaction to 55 per cent ofthe children showed behavior disrup-
all control incidents. On the next three tion but not conformance or nondays they reacted outwardly to onlyconformance.
34 per cent of the incidents (proba- It should be kept in mind that clarity in the teacher's directions led to
bility level .001).
greater conformance and less nonAmong our findings
conformance in a new and unstructured
situation. When children are new to
To the extent that we can generalize
kindergarten or to the teacher, they
on cause and effect, the study indicates
may be especially sensitive to his dithat the reaction of watching children rections and desires. As the child feels
to a teacher's control of a misbehaving
more at home in kindergarten and
child is related to at least three factors.
more at ease with the teacher, we
would expect clarity to be less imOn the first day in kindergarten,portant. Several studies are now in
First, the newness of the situation.
watching children showed the strongprogress to check this expectation.
est responses.
Second, the behavior of the watch-Fact and lore
ing children. Pupils who were themWhat meaning does the study have
selves misbehaving or interested in
for teachers of children who are just
children who were misbehaving werebeginning kindergarten? It is clear that
more likely to show the strongest re- a ripple effect does exist. What a
actions; the particular response was teacher does to control children's bemost likely to be vacillation.
havior affects the children who watch
Third, the disciplinary technique it- as well as the children who are corself, that is, the clarity, the firmness, rected.
and the roughness of the technique.
The teacher who is interested in
When the teacher made it clear
controlling ripple effects can generally
what behavior she objected to or what
do so best by giving clear instructions
behavior she expected, the watching
to the child rather than by exerting
children responded with increased conpressure on him. However, some in-
This content downloaded from
14.200.38.166 on Tue, 14 Feb 2023 23:37:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
162 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL December, 1958
tensity or firmness is effective if the
children who are watching are them-
selves inclined to "deviancy."
The study does not support the notion that the teacher must "bear down"
on the first day or "make an example"
of a child. Such steps are not necessary to induce conformity in children
who are entering kindergarten. Nor
does the study support the contention that roughness and anger are simply firmness intensified. Firmness and
roughness are different qualities. Wit-
ness the different effects they have
on watching children.
NOTE S
of Education, Wayne State Unive
nancial support has been provide
National Institute of Mental He
tional Institutes of Health, Publi
Service, Grant 1066.
2. The inter-coder reliability on a
control technique code was 78 p
agreement; on a 34-item audience
code, 83 per cent. Since the for
collapsed to three dimensions and
to five categories, the functional r
would be even higher. To avoid
bias, different teams coded the con
niques used by teachers and the
of the watching children.
3. Probability levels refer to the p
that the differences obtained could
to chance. For example, a probabil
of .01 means that the difference o
occur by chance less than
1. The research is sponsored bywould
the Departin a hundred.
ment of Educational Psychology,
College
This content downloaded from
14.200.38.166 on Tue, 14 Feb 2023 23:37:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms