I agree with this to a certain extent. On the one hand, yes, explaining the moral depravity of something to a 2- or 3-year-old child is probably not really getting much comprehension after the word "bad." Unlike some of the other posters in the other threads, I go with the theory that sometimes you do have to just "condition" a kid until he or she gets older --i.e., when a toddler tries to pry out the outlet covers, stopping and explaining electricity to him really isn't going to prevent a recurrence. Tell him that's bad, spank, and he doesn't do it again. Sure, he "basely associates" pulling outlet covers with pain. But he's not doing it again --and this method works better if you don't spank all the time. Save it for the big stuff.

However, by like 5 or 6, a little explanation is more in order. (At least in my experience it was. Gotta love when you turn that "why" phase to your own benefit.) No, I don't think the reasoning part of their brains is fully functional yet, but they start to catch on by then. I never spanked much beyond that younger age. I sort of relied on the same thing my parents and grandparents used on us -- the understanding that, no matter what, I was the adult and in charge. Because, yes, sometimes the explanation was, in its entirety, "Because I'm the grown up and I said so." So by the time it was send-them-to-school time, they had had a little spanking, a fair amount of explanation as to the rights and wrongs in the world, and a firm understanding that there was an adult around and in charge.

Now, with the positive reinforcement approach in the article, yeah, I agree, but I just called that spending time with them regularly.

Note: I know that a few years later, in the teen years, the reasoning part of their brains gets deluged with hormones and shuts down for awhile, but that's a completely separate issue. And generally they're too big to spank by then anyway.