Pro Spanking = Anti Science

[StanBearclaw]

Creationists. Climate change deniers. Spanking proponents.

What do they all have in common? They all cling to their dogmatic beliefs despite the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence.


Here is the latest spanking study, published in April's Pediatrics

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/peds.2009-2678v1
Mothers' Spanking of 3-Year-Old Children and Subsequent Risk of Children's Aggressive Behavior

Catherine A. Taylor, PhD, MSW, MPH, Jennifer A. Manganello, PhD, MPH, Shawna J. Lee, PhD, MSW, MPP, Janet C. Rice, PhD

OBJECTIVE: The goal was to examine the association between the use of corporal punishment (CP) against 3-year-old children and subsequent aggressive behavior among those children.

Methods Respondents (N = 2461) participated in the Fragile Families and Child Well-being Study (1998–2005), a population-based, birth cohort study of children born in 20 large US cities. Maternal reports of CP, children's aggressive behaviors at 3 and 5 years of age, and a host of key demographic features and potential confounding factors, including maternal child physical maltreatment, psychological maltreatment, and neglect, intimate partner aggression victimization, stress, depression, substance use, and consideration of abortion, were assessed.

RESULTS: Frequent use of CP (ie, mother's use of spanking more than twice in the previous month) when the child was 3 years of age was associated with increased risk for higher levels of child aggression when the child was 5 years of age (adjusted odds ratio: 1.49 [95% confidence interval: 1.2–1.8]; P < .0001), even with controlling for the child's level of aggression at age 3 and the aforementioned potential confounding factors and key demographic features.

CONCLUSIONS: Despite American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations to the contrary, most parents in the United States approve of and have used CP as a form of child discipline. The current findings suggest that even minor forms of CP, such as spanking, increase risk for increased child aggressive behavior. Importantly, these findings cannot be attributed to possible confounding effects of a host of other maternal parenting risk factors.

Further reading on this report:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63B2XR20100412
http://tulane.edu/news/releases/pr_03122010.cfm
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/04/spanking_can_cause_children_to.html

[DallasDad]

One thing they don't control for (and it's hard to see how they could): Are the kids who get spanked the kids who would be more aggressive later anyway? That is, are the behaviors and attitudes that lead to a child being spanked the same behaviors and attitudes that would lead him to become more aggressive later?

I would also like to see some longevity on this study. From what I can see, they only studied three-year-olds initially, then compared rates of aggression when the children had aged two more years. Five-year-olds are a pretty bratty group, still learning about interpersonal interactions, still finding boundaries. What happens with those same groups in five years, ten, or fifteen? What reason is there to suppose that an aggressive five-year-old would not become less aggressive over time? Where is the data for how the spanking frequency changed during the two-year study period? What education were the parents given, and how were they and the researchers blinded?

Next, what reason is there to suppose that a less aggressive five-year-old won't become more aggressive over time? In short, where's the evidence to suggest that three-year-old behavior compared to five-year-old behavior is a good predictor of 18-year-old-behavior?

This study, while interesting, does not provide any of these answers, nor even hint at them. It should be lauded for attempting to control for variables, but we should note that it actually failed to do so.

Also, pulling numbers out of my ass, I'd think that most parents don't spank three-year-olds anyway. Spanking, when I was growing up, was reserved for deliberate violation of known and understood rules after the child was old enough to understand, remember, and predict consequences. That kind of understanding usually starts in the school years, no?

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Sorry, but the facts you cite don't support your conclusions.

Excessive spanking, and other forms excessive or innapropriate cp are clearly going to lead to emotional and behavioral problems. That is neither surprising nor something that most parents who utilize cp would deny. However, that is sufficient to account for the completely unsurprising result that frequency of use of cp is positively correlated with child aggression later in life.

In fact, this seems to me to be one of those "well duh..." kind of results. Of course more frequent use of spankings as punishment is correlated with higher levels of child aggression later in life. Who would have expected otherwise?

Dr. Stupid

[Trent Wray]

I know an RN ---- highly intelligent, etc and so forth ----- who actually believes that one of the reasons the butt is so muscular is because God designed it that way for spanking and punishment. I'm not kidding. We had a long argument about it one night.

[commandlinegamer]

I know an RN ---- highly intelligent, etc and so forth ----- who actually believes that one of the reasons the butt is so muscular is because God designed it that way for spanking and punishment. I'm not kidding. We had a long argument about it one night.

So people who have no arse are saints then? And J-Lo is destined for that fiery place downstairs?

[Malerin]

Devil's Advocate:

A study, which found that young children whose parents spank them perform better at school later on, isn’t winning high marks with child development experts.

http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/2010/01/04/2010-01-04_spanking_makes_kids_perform_better_in_school_st udy.html

[bluesjnr]

Devil's Advocate:

A study, which found that young children whose parents spank them perform better at school later on, isn’t winning high marks with child development experts.

http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/2010/01/04/2010-01-04_spanking_makes_kids_perform_better_in_school_st udy.html

Try again.

Not so much a "study" more (or should I say, exactly) like an interview of more than 2,600 people, including a core group of 179 teenagers who were asked for their anecdotal and subjective opinions.

[Malerin]

Try again.

Not so much a "study" more (or should I say, exactly) like an interview of more than 2,600 people, including a core group of 179 teenagers who were asked for their anecdotal and subjective opinions.

Studies are based on interviews all the time.

The study, conducted by researchers at Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital, surveyed almost 20,000 women and asked them about their drinking habits over the course of 13 years. The alcohol-free women gained the most weight
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/08/health/main6277208.shtml

[Brian-M]

I'd like to know what exactly constitutes spanking in this context. It's not defined in the article in the OP. Does it mean...

A non-painful tap or two on the bum
A single solid thump
Repeated slapping

While the last one is what most people think of when spanking is mentioned, the first two are also regarded as spanking by many.

I'd like to see a study comparing the long-term behavioral and psychological effects of all three before experts go around saying "spanking is bad for children" without bothering to specify exactly what they mean by "spanking".

[athon]

I'd like to know what exactly constitutes spanking in this context. It's not defined in the article in the OP. Does it mean...

A non-painful tap or two on the bum
A single solid thump
Repeated slapping

While the last one is what most people think of when spanking is mentioned, the first two are also regarded as spanking by many.

I'd like to see a study comparing the long-term behavioral and psychological effects of all three before experts go around saying "spanking is bad for children" without bothering to specify exactly what they mean by "spanking".

I agree completely as far as this study goes, however as far as 'spanking' itself goes, I don't tend to draw much of a distinction. Any time you physically react to a child's action, you're sending a clear message - if somebody acts in a way that you don't like, an appropriate consequence is to use physical intimidation. It can be a tap, a spank or a hiding, it's the same message (yes, I'm aware that a beating could have added trauma that isn't accompanied by a tap, but that's not my point).

Kids learn as much by your role-modeling as anything else. I've lost count of how many parents I've dealt with as a teacher who think the best response to their kid fighting at school is to give them a clip behind the ear. It amazes me. I can almost hear the justification they whisper to themselves - 'It's not like a beat them!'.

No, but the lesson for the day is straight forward. It's ok to respond with aggression when somebody does something you don't like.

Athon

[bluesjnr]

Studies are based on interviews all the time.

The study, conducted by researchers at Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital, surveyed almost 20,000 women and asked them about their drinking habits over the course of 13 years. The alcohol-free women gained the most weight
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/08/health/main6277208.shtml

If you want to rely on that kind of study as empirical, peer reviewed evidence then that's entirely up to you.

Perhaps the issue is mine and is one of semantics, that said I stand by my initial assertion.

[Malerin]

If you want to rely on that kind of study as empirical, peer reviewed evidence then that's entirely up to you.

I merely presented it as evidence. It's impossible to do a study on the effects on corporal punishment without interviewing either the parents or the kids.

[Mirrorglass]

I merely presented it as evidence. It's impossible to do a study on the effects on corporal punishment without interviewing either the parents or the kids.

It is a study, for sure, but since it's retrospective and based only on interviews, it's very open to bias. Compared to the cohort study in the OP, it simply doesn't have as much power.

[DallasDad]

It's a well-known fact that children who learn to avoid stoves by burning their fingers when young grow up to be arsonists.

[thaiboxerken]

It's a well-known fact that children who learn to avoid stoves by burning their fingers when young grow up to be arsonists.

Did you have an intelligent objection to the study? Perhaps snide comments are all you have.

[DallasDad]

Did you have an intelligent objection to the study? Perhaps snide comments are all you have.

Post #2 in this thread contains my more serious observations.

[thaiboxerken]

Spankings should not be used as punishment, but as rewards...for consenting adults.

[Trent Wray]

So people who have no arse are saints then? And J-Lo is destined for that fiery place downstairs? Thou shalt have no arse before me ....

[Ron Webb]

RESULTS: Frequent use of CP (ie, mother's use of spanking more than twice in the previous month)...
More than twice a month?? My parents probably spanked me twice in my entire life!

I have always believed, as I think my parents did, that corporal punishment was a last resort, a necessary but rarely used threat when all else fails. IMHO if you have to spank your child more than twice a month then something is seriously wrong, either with your child or with your parenting skills.

[JWideman]

Couldn't it be that the children who were more aggressive - for other reasons - got spanked more as a result of their behavior? Not every kid is the same, and some do misbehave more than others. Correlation does not equal causation.

[Skeptic Ginger]

There are a couple studies showing spanking is neutral and many showing it is harmful. But the important studies demonstrate that with a little parental skills training, spanking is unnecessary.

We've had this debate on the forum before. The spanking proponents come out to defend their parental practices against any suggestion they should feel guilty. They shouldn't feel guilty. But they should promote learning non-spanking parenting techniques. There is no good argument not to do that.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Couldn't it be that the children who were more aggressive - for other reasons - got spanked more as a result of their behavior? Not every kid is the same, and some do misbehave more than others. Correlation does not equal causation.It's not reasonable to assume that all parents would spank if their child required it. My parents didn't spank. I didn't spank. It wouldn't have mattered how my child acted, I still would have used non-spanking parenting techniques.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
I have always believed, as I think my parents did, that corporal punishment was a last resort, a necessary but rarely used threat when all else fails. ...How can "all else" possibly fail? If you are talking about a small child and you can't physically control their behavior without spanking, there is something wrong. And if the child is too big for you to physically control, spanking is not going to be an option.

[Soapy Sam]

Is it remotely possible that badly behaved children grow into badly behaved older children and perhaps even into badly behaved adults, whether they are spanked, or not?

[StanBearclaw]

Is it remotely possible that badly behaved children grow into badly behaved older children and perhaps even into badly behaved adults, whether they are spanked, or not?

Sure, but study (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=2540224), after study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2764296/?tool=pmcentrez&report=abstract), after study (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/161/7/805?ijkey=5ecceff672d8128717d871d9d6a0038e31d4b858 ), are proving that possibility ever more remote.

[Brian-M]

To play devil's advocate, what effect does spanking have on children who already have aggressive tendencies? If it turns out that parents are more likely to spank children who physically bully/hurt other children, then studies might show that spanked children tend to be more aggressive, even if it turns out spanking makes children with a pre-existing aggressive tendencies slightly less aggressive then they would otherwise have been.

Disclaimer: Statements made in this post do not necessarily represent my own views on the subject.

[StanBearclaw]

To play devil's advocate, what effect does spanking have on children who already have aggressive tendencies? If it turns out that parents are more likely to spank children who physically bully/hurt other children, then studies might show that spanked children tend to be more aggressive, even if it turns out spanking makes children with a pre-existing aggressive tendencies slightly less aggressive then they would otherwise have been.

I don't have access to the study in its entirety, but the Reuters article (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63B2XR20100412) seems to indicate that your concerns were factored in.

Earlier research had produced similar results, but most had not taken into account how aggressive kids were to begin with, and other factors could have biased the results.

[Soapy Sam]

What constitutes physical punishment ?
If a child chooses to sit, screaming loudly, in a shop doorway and an adult who wants past picks him up and puts him down somewhere less obstructive and possibly safer- is that physical abuse? It's certainly physical.

[StanBearclaw]

What constitutes physical punishment ?
If a child chooses to sit, screaming loudly, in a shop doorway and an adult who wants past picks him up and puts him down somewhere less obstructive and possibly safer- is that physical abuse? It's certainly physical.

Again, I have only the abstract for this particular article, but most sources define corporal punishment as "the use of physical force with the intention of causing a child to experience pain, but not injury, for the purpose of correction or control of the child’s behavior."

[Brian-M]

I don't have access to the study in its entirety, but the Reuters article (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63B2XR20100412) seems to indicate that your concerns were factored in.

Earlier research had produced similar results, but most had not taken into account how aggressive kids were to begin with, and other factors could have biased the results.


Cool. It's good to know that people are already thinking about these things.

[kellyb]

Sure, but study (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=2540224), after study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2764296/?tool=pmcentrez&report=abstract), after study (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/161/7/805?ijkey=5ecceff672d8128717d871d9d6a0038e31d4b858 ), are proving that possibility ever more remote.

First of all, I'm one of those somewhat radical anti-spanking people, tho for more moral/ethical "hitting other people is wrong" reasons...
But...
Assuming Sam's post was an allusion to the idea that there was a confounding factor responsible for the findings (like, more "aggro by nature" kids end up getting spanked more) how do those studies address that?

In my anecdotal experience, children raised with non-violent discipline methods tend to be less cool with hitting others after age 4 or 5 compared to their spanked peers, but I'm not seeing the research really demonstrating that there's a solid "spanking makes kids aggressive" effect. At least, not what's been linked so far.

I have 2 kids. One naturally very mellow, and one who as a 2-4 year old was a total hellion. Both were raised the same way. If I were a spanker, I TOTALLY would have spanked the hellion a LOT, and never felt the "need" to spank the easy one. (unless spanking "worked", which I find unlikely, given how awful my younger brother acted around the same age and how even daily spanking didn't "work" when we were kids. He eventually just got used to being spanked all the time and it didn't phase him. He'd actually try to taunt my parents into hitting him harder, as a battle of the minds or something.)

Anyway, I think the objections about confounding factors are valid, even if that doesn't mean spanking is fine.

[Bikewer]

I read a book some years back called "The English Vice", which was about the widespread prediliction for the erotic use of spanking and corporal stimulation in that nation.
The author was making the case that this was caused by the very widespread practice of public caning, flogging, and spanking in the English educational system, especially the "public" schools.
Of course, these children would be older; but during the time period studied the practice was generally accepted in society....Presumably the kids might have been so punished at home prior to entering school as well.

[Careyp74]

There are two issues here, one about correcting behavior in children, and one about contributing to that behavior.

First, correcting behavior. We already have effective, non-physical tools for correcting bad behavior and enforcing good behavior, through operant conditioning. Watch Super Nanny or Nanny 911 for excellent examples of use and results.

Next, we have contribution to violence. The famous Bo Bo Doll Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobo_doll_experiment) showed that children that observe violence from adults will replicate it. Why wouldn't spanking be viewed the same way? You hit a kid, he will hit you back, and hit other kids.

[Farsight]

Creationists. Climate change deniers. Spanking proponents. What do they all have in common? They all cling to their dogmatic beliefs despite the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence.This is propaganda, not an objective statement. Creationists are used as bogeymen by career-advancing self-publicists. There are many people like me who believe human activity affects the climate, but also believe we face other problems such as overpopulation, pandemic, energy security, nuclear terrorism, etc, and when I express reservations concerning relative priorites, I'm lumped in with the "deniers". When it comes to children, if a child persists in some dangerous activity I feel it's a parental right to retain an effective sanction in the form of a smack. I don't mean something that leaves a hand-shaped bruise, just a smack. This isn't "spanking". Spanking is an alarmist exaggeration that seeks to undermine this parental sanction. IMHO the people who use this term are the people with the dogmatic beliefs. I'd venture to say some have a vested interest in ensuring that young offenders receive no effective sanction.

[Cuddles]

The obvious question here is - is aggression really the only interesting factor? OK, lets assume this study is entirely correct and spanking young children definitely leads to them being more aggressive later in life. Is that necessarily a bad thing? What if they're only slightly more aggressive, but also get better exam results and are more healthy? What if the increase in aggression ends up being nothing more than swearing a bit more often as an adult with increase in actual violence or criminal behaviour?

I have no problem with the idea that corporal punishment is likely to lead to the subjects having less of a problem with physicality. The problem is that pretty much all the arguments I've seen seem to stop there and assume that if that's true, it must be bad. But what if the benefits outweigh the risks? What if the risks are so minor that they're not worth worrying about even in the absence of any real benefits? After all "aggression" could simply mean they're more likely to become rugby players.

Obviously this doesn't mean there's anything wrong with debating this particular point, but it seems rather silly to expect everything to be settled based on it when there's a whole lot more to the debate over corporal punishment than just this. And it seems particularly pointless to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being anti-science creationists when it's clear to absolutely everyone that not only is the science on this point not settled, but there are plenty of other points that aren't even addressed here that have hardly been investigated at all.

[Beerina]

Well, even the anti-spanking side developed much of their anti-spanking emotional attitude from a "hitting wrong!" type emotional development.

Few said, oh, hey, look at this. Non-spanked kids do better. I guess I shall be against it. I'm willing to bet they were against it already.

[StanBearclaw]

Well, even the anti-spanking side developed much of their anti-spanking emotional attitude from a "hitting wrong!" type emotional development.

Few said, oh, hey, look at this. Non-spanked kids do better. I guess I shall be against it. I'm willing to bet they were against it already.

Yep. But even a blind squirrel finds a nut on occasion.

Attitudes Predict the Use of Physical Punishment: A Prospective Study of the Emergence of Disciplinary Practices
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/117/6/2055

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Where are the controls using adopted children? Maybe the correlation is due to shared genetic factors.

~~ Paul

[Skeptic Ginger]

Is it remotely possible that badly behaved children grow into badly behaved older children and perhaps even into badly behaved adults, whether they are spanked, or not?Of course, and if you look at the data in the majority of the studies, spanking and not spanking doesn't impact every child, nor is it the only factor. That doesn't negate the fact many studies show spanking does have a negative effect in many cases.


I think the one thing people are looking for here are confounding factors which negate the cause and effect of the outcome conclusion. If anything you could hypothesize that parents who discipline without 'hitting' (or spanking as is supposed to somehow not be as negative), may just have better parenting skills overall.

This would be as measured on the whole meaning there would be skilled parents using spanking and unskilled parents not spanking within the groups. So of course you'd have a few of those parents not spanking because they aren't parenting much at all, but that's a pretty rare extreme. And just because a parent spanks wouldn't mean they necessarily had poor skills.

[Skeptic Ginger]

To play devil's advocate, what effect does spanking have on children who already have aggressive tendencies? If it turns out that parents are more likely to spank children who physically bully/hurt other children, then studies might show that spanked children tend to be more aggressive, even if it turns out spanking makes children with a pre-existing aggressive tendencies slightly less aggressive then they would otherwise have been.

Disclaimer: Statements made in this post do not necessarily represent my own views on the subject.This hypothesis fails. Like I said above, you are hypothesizing all parents would spank if they had difficult children. That just isn't true.

[Skeptic Ginger]

What constitutes physical punishment ?
If a child chooses to sit, screaming loudly, in a shop doorway and an adult who wants past picks him up and puts him down somewhere less obstructive and possibly safer- is that physical abuse? It's certainly physical.Physically restraining a child is not spanking/hitting.

[uruk]

Did the study indicate how the CP was administered?

My mother was a believer in CP but she used it sparingly and made sure to explain to us why we were reciveing the CP.

CP administered in a haphazzard and repetative manner losses it's effect after a short time. The child begins to associate the CP with "mom/dad being angry" rather than a punishment for bad behaviour.

Just my personal experiance and observation.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Where are the controls using adopted children? Maybe the correlation is due to shared genetic factors.

~~ PaulThis hypothesis would have to account for non-spanking families marrying into non-spanking families en masse. It could have a small impact on the outcome of these studies, and you might have a case if you found only fathers spank so the fathers spanking genes are going to show up and so on.

But the fact kids are the product of 2 parents pretty much assures the genetics you suggest are going to be quickly washed out.

Parents who are violent toward each other, OTOH, are probably going to be more likely to spank the kids. So you could hypothesize the effect is from seeing your parents hit each other, rather than your parents hitting you, but that seems like a far fetched hypothesis.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Did the study indicate how the CP was administered?

My mother was a believer in CP but she used it sparingly and made sure to explain to us why we were reciveing the CP.

CP administered in a haphazzard and repetative manner losses it's effect after a short time. The child begins to associate the CP with "mom/dad being angry" rather than a punishment for bad behaviour.

Just my personal experiance and observation.There are many studies. When results are repeatable, the conclusions have more weight because more and more variables are weeded out.

[Dr. Keith]

There are a couple studies showing spanking is neutral and many showing it is harmful. But the important studies demonstrate that with a little parental skills training, spanking is unnecessary.

We've had this debate on the forum before. The spanking proponents come out to defend their parental practices against any suggestion they should feel guilty. They shouldn't feel guilty. But they should promote learning non-spanking parenting techniques. There is no good argument not to do that.

QFT

[Dr. Keith]

I have always believed, as I think my parents did, that corporal punishment was a last resort of incompetent parents, an unnecessary but rarely and far too often used threat when all else parenting fails. IMHO if you have to spank your child more than twice a month then something is seriously wrong, either with your child or with your parenting skills.

There, I changed it from opinion to reality.

[kellyb]

This hypothesis fails. Like I said above, you are hypothesizing all parents would spank if they had difficult children. That just isn't true.

Why would it have to be all? It could just be a subset who spanked only because the kid was unusually willful/aggressive. Such a subset could (probably does?) exist.

[AvalonXQ]

The main problem I see with this study is self-selection. The study wasn't performed by directing parents to spank or not spank their children; instead, the study was performed by dividing families into those who decide to spank and those who don't.
The possibility of unreported confounding factors in a study like this, which by design includes no blinding or randomizing, is very real.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why would it have to be all? It could just be a subset who spanked only because the kid was unusually willful/aggressive. Such a subset could (probably does?) exist.If there was such a subset, that skewed results of studies, then the conclusion would be still be spanking makes bad kids worse, not spanking doesn't make them worse.


The studies mostly look at kids from households where spanking/hitting occurs compared to households where it doesn't. The hypothesis that was suggested was, maybe the worse behaviors were coincidentally found in the spanking/hitting households because the worse behaved children caused the spanking. If that were true, you would be saying all parents would spank if the child behaved aggressively. There is no basis for that conclusion.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The main problem I see with this study is self-selection. The study wasn't performed by directing parents to spank or not spank their children; instead, the study was performed by dividing families into those who decide to spank and those who don't.
The possibility of unreported confounding factors in a study like this, which by design includes no blinding or randomizing, is very real.Yes, if it were a single study. But the results show up consistently in many studies. That supports the validity of the conclusion.

[kellyb]

If there was such a subset, that skewed results of studies, then the conclusion would be still be spanking makes bad kids worse, not spanking doesn't make them worse.


The studies mostly look at kids from households where spanking/hitting occurs compared to households where it doesn't. The hypothesis that was suggested was, maybe the worse behaviors were coincidentally found in the spanking/hitting households because the worse behaved children caused the spanking. If that were true, you would be saying all parents would spank if the child behaved aggressively. There is no basis for that conclusion.

No, it wouldn't mean that all parents would spank if the kid was aggressive. You could have a subset of parents who spanked in response to aggressive/challenging behavior, and that's where the apparent effect is coming from.

It would be a "some parents respond to aggressive behavior/personalities with spanking" effect that was being picked up if that were the case, not a "spanking causes aggressive behavior" effect.

Not saying this is what I believe the research is saying; I'm just saying this possible interpretation can't be ruled out. Unless I'm missing something.

[Beth]

I don't understand why, when studies of this sort are discussed, there is no discussion of an appropriate frequency being anything other than zero despite the fact that in this study, as most others, it is only heavy use of spanking that is associated with negative outcomes.
For example, in this study, they used:
Frequent use of CP (ie, mother's use of spanking more than twice in the previous month) when the child was 3 years of age was associated with increased risk for higher levels of child aggression when the child was 5 years of age

I don't dispute that frequent use of spanking is highly correlated with higher levels of aggression later in life, even past the age of five.

On the other hand, mothers who spank less than twice a month may still spank. My mother would have fit into that category, but I was spanked on occasion as a child. It seems clear to me, based on my experiences as a child, that infrequent mild spanking has no noticeable long-term negative consequences, at least not in U.S. culture. It might even be beneficial, at least for some families.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But the fact kids are the product of 2 parents pretty much assures the genetics you suggest are going to be quickly washed out.
Really? If it were the case that the traits of parents disappear in as little as one generation, then kids would share no traits with their parents. If, for whatever reason, my father and/or mother have a genetic tendency toward violence, I think their children might inherit some of those genes. This assumes, of course, that there is any genetic tendency toward violence in the first place.

Perhaps I didn't understand your objection.

~~ Paul

[Zep]

Fact: You cannot argue rationally with a child who is throwing a tantrum in the middle of a supermarket (or wherever). Such tantrum-throwing is designed to cause maximum disruption and embarrassment to you, not to them, in an effort for them to have their own way. Children will be totally and utterly self-centered in this regard - your feelings in the matter, rationality, their own embarrassment, count for nothing at all. That is the entire point of a tantrum.

Therefore all the "Nanny 911" bollocks about rational discussion with your child, time-outs, naughty-steps, etc, is completely irrelevant in that situation. They do not work and they are not applicable. The hellion child will learn this in very short order, and exploit it regularly and mercilessly (no matter how many "talkings-to" there have been).

Question for the thread: How do you get a child behaving like that to dial back that behaviour, bring themselves under control and accept the limitations of the situation, and resume reasonable and controllable behaviour?

[Beth]

Fact: You cannot argue rationally with a child who is throwing a tantrum in the middle of a supermarket (or wherever). Such tantrum-throwing is designed to cause maximum disruption and embarrassment to you, not to them, in an effort for them to have their own way. Children will be totally and utterly self-centered in this regard - your feelings in the matter, rationality, their own embarrassment, count for nothing at all. That is the entire point of a tantrum.

Therefore all the "Nanny 911" bollocks about rational discussion with your child, time-outs, naughty-steps, etc, is completely irrelevant in that situation. They do not work and they are not applicable. The hellion child will learn this in very short order, and exploit it regularly and mercilessly (no matter how many "talkings-to" there have been).

Question for the thread: How do you get a child behaving like that to dial back that behaviour, bring themselves under control and accept the limitations of the situation, and resume reasonable and controllable behaviour?

I did it by interrupting my grocery shopping and taking her home without another word. I think her father had a rational discussion with her while I went back to my shopping. Maybe not. She never threw another tantrum in the grocery store. Or any other store for that matter. She was around 2.5 at the time.

Spankings may have their place in the parental discipline toolbox, but I don't think it would help in that situation at all.

[Brian-M]

Question for the thread: How do you get a child behaving like that to dial back that behaviour, bring themselves under control and accept the limitations of the situation, and resume reasonable and controllable behaviour?


I'm not a parent, but hypothetically speaking... Just ignore them. Let them scream, shout, ect, all they want. Don't worry about what anyone else thinks, just calmly continue your shopping (or whatever) as if they didn't exist. Eventually (possibly after multiple tantrums at various times and places), they'll figure out that throwing a tantrum is a complete waste of effort and stop throwing tantrums altogether.

[kellyb]

We'd either go home or do a time-out in the store bathroom. Not that it "worked", but at least I felt like I was "doing something". He eventually kinda just grew out of acting like that. That was my hellion. The easy kid still hasn't ever thrown a single tantrum.

[kellyb]

I'm not a parent, but hypothetically speaking... Just ignore them. Let them scream, shout, ect, all they want. Don't worry about what anyone else thinks, just calmly continue your shopping (or whatever) as if they didn't exist. Eventually (possibly after multiple tantrums at various times and places), they'll figure out that throwing a tantrum is a complete waste of effort and stop throwing tantrums altogether.

I tried that with my tantrumer, too. He never "got it". I don't think his fits were manipulative, though. I think he was just a little emotional basketcase when he was really little.

Every kid is different.

Heh.

[Ron Webb]

How can "all else" possibly fail? If you are talking about a small child and you can't physically control their behavior without spanking, there is something wrong.

Indeed, sometimes things do go wrong. Parents are not perfect. It's not reasonable to expect that they can physically control their children every moment of every day. They get distracted, they make mistakes, they turn their backs just for a moment and tragedy strikes. Children need to learn as early as possible that some rules are so important (and the consequences so severe) that they must be obeyed without fail, even when the parents are not watching.

The main point I wanted to make was that this study really doesn't prove much. I don't need anyone to convince me that spanking your child more than twice a month is not a good thing. IMHO that should be obvious. What I want is a study that compares children who are never spanked, and know that they will never be spanked, with those who know that they could be spanked for truly flagrant misbehaviour, but who are not actually spanked more than (let's say) once or twice in a year. I'm willing to bet that the latter group will turn out better behaved on the whole.

[athon]

I'm not a parent, but hypothetically speaking... Just ignore them. Let them scream, shout, ect, all they want. Don't worry about what anyone else thinks, just calmly continue your shopping (or whatever) as if they didn't exist. Eventually (possibly after multiple tantrums at various times and places), they'll figure out that throwing a tantrum is a complete waste of effort and stop throwing tantrums altogether.

You know, come to think of it, I don't think I can recall ever seeing a tantrum-child being spanked in a shopping centre suddenly behaving. Just last night there was a kid demanding a sweet while waiting in line at the checkout I was at, acting like a right royal pork-chop. The mother must have whacked him on the leg three times, and he still bellowed and demanded.

Maybe she should have hit him harder?

I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I just don't swallow the BS that it is a necessary 'last resort', or a pure dichotomy of 'reason vs. spank'.

Athon

[Tsukasa Buddha]

My family and extended family never needed a "last resort" of spanking (I have seen some "I don't have time for this" resorts).

Actually, the one time I was spanked didn't hurt at all, but it shocked and scared the hell out of me to see my parents like that and I started wailing. And when I saw other CP parents, it was scary. I just don't get being comfortable with physical harm and loved ones being associated. That's just a line you don't cross, for me.

But I'm sad I am missing out on an apparently flourishing fetish :p .

(I don't have kids, so perhaps my opinion would change.)

[Zep]

I did it by interrupting my grocery shopping and taking her home without another word. I think her father had a rational discussion with her while I went back to my shopping. Maybe not. She never threw another tantrum in the grocery store. Or any other store for that matter. She was around 2.5 at the time. How did you get her out of the store and into the car? Dragging her? Picked her up under an arm and go? (No tantrum is complete without deliberately fighting the parent to go anywhere by dropping to the floor and refusing to cooperate. ;))

I also note that the rational discussion was not used to deal with the immediate situation. It was significantly post the event (i.e. when it was well over), and came from the child's father, not mother who was the parent involved at the time. The question was: How do you deal with the event when it is happening?

Spankings may have their place in the parental discipline toolbox, but I don't think it would help in that situation at all.Please note that I did not advocate that in my post. I was merely putting up a real-life situation that most parents will have to face at some time.

[Zep]

I'm not a parent, but hypothetically speaking... Just ignore them. Let them scream, shout, ect, all they want. Don't worry about what anyone else thinks, just calmly continue your shopping (or whatever) as if they didn't exist. Eventually (possibly after multiple tantrums at various times and places), they'll figure out that throwing a tantrum is a complete waste of effort and stop throwing tantrums altogether.Sorry, doesn't work.

First, you will attract the attention of the store staff, who will likely treat you like you were some kind of child-basher. "Madam, why are you leaving your child screaming on the floor and doing nothing to help?"

If you stay near your child, they will continue to act up until you react (i.e. they are getting the result they seek). If you move away from your child (say, round the corner of the aisle), you are leaving them exposed and alone in a public place.

[Zep]

We'd either go home or do a time-out in the store bathroom. Not that it "worked", but at least I felt like I was "doing something". He eventually kinda just grew out of acting like that. That was my hellion. The easy kid still hasn't ever thrown a single tantrum.Same question: How did you get the child to the time-out location? I.e. deal with the immediate situation.

PS. Yes, they do grow out of it when they develop self-consciousnesses. They embarrass themselves... But you can't wait in the supermarket for that to happen. :)

[Zep]

Indeed, sometimes things do go wrong. Parents are not perfect. It's not reasonable to expect that they can physically control their children every moment of every day. They get distracted, they make mistakes, they turn their backs just for a moment and tragedy strikes. Children need to learn as early as possible that some rules are so important (and the consequences so severe) that they must be obeyed without fail, even when the parents are not watching.THIS!!! It's comes under the heading of "setting boundaries".

The main point I wanted to make was that this study really doesn't prove much. I don't need anyone to convince me that spanking your child more than twice a month is not a good thing. IMHO that should be obvious. What I want is a study that compares children who are never spanked, and know that they will never be spanked, with those who know that they could be spanked for truly flagrant misbehaviour, but who are not actually spanked more than (let's say) once or twice in a year. I'm willing to bet that the latter group will turn out better behaved on the whole.For "spanked", substitute something like "strong parental discipline". Depending on the child, this may be only a severe talking-to (a finger-wagging talk, as my dad called it).

[Zep]

You know, come to think of it, I don't think I can recall ever seeing a tantrum-child being spanked in a shopping centre suddenly behaving. Just last night there was a kid demanding a sweet while waiting in line at the checkout I was at, acting like a right royal pork-chop. The mother must have whacked him on the leg three times, and he still bellowed and demanded.That's not a tantrum! :) I agree - a spank wasn't necessary.

Maybe she should have hit him harder?

I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I just don't swallow the BS that it is a necessary 'last resort', or a pure dichotomy of 'reason vs. spank'.

AthonAgreed. There is no one-size-fits-all answer here.

[athon]

That's not a tantrum! :) I agree - a spank wasn't necessary.

Sitting on the ground, kicking his legs out and screaming 'But I want a chocolate!' isn't a tantrum? :eye-poppi

No, it was a real tanty in my opinion. And there were few a looks exchanged between some of us when she reached down and gave a bit of a slap on his exposed thigh. Twice.

Agreed. There is no one-size-fits-all answer here.

Of course not, but it doesn't logically follow that a smack is therefore an optimal form of treatment in some situations. I could use that same logic to justify regular beatings.

I'm not saying zero physical interaction is in order. But you can't tell me the same message is being conveyed between a slap and physically picking a kid up and moving them.

Smacking is physical intimidation in order to inspire in a kid a fear of retribution for what they're doing. It is immediate punishment in the emotional heat of the moment (something that simply doesn't work in teaching anybody to reflect on their behaviour) that relies on fear to 'teach' kids to not get caught. The message they get is clear - if somebody does a bad thing, you get to use the fear of physical reprisal to get them to do what you want.

Athon

[kellyb]

Same question: How did you get the child to the time-out location? I.e. deal with the immediate situation.

PS. Yes, they do grow out of it when they develop self-consciousnesses. They embarrass themselves... But you can't wait in the supermarket for that to happen. :)

I'd pick him up kicking and screaming if appropriate, or if the tantrum was happening while he was sitting in the basket, roll him to close to the bathroom, pull him out, and carry him in there. I did a lot of toting that freaking out kid around for a while there. I have mad skillz. I could even carry a tantruming preschooler and a newborn safely at the same time.
:cool:

[Beth]

How did you get her out of the store and into the car? Dragging her? Picked her up under an arm and go? (No tantrum is complete without deliberately fighting the parent to go anywhere by dropping to the floor and refusing to cooperate. ;)) Picked her up and went. Yes, she screamed and fought all the way to the car.

I also note that the rational discussion was not used to deal with the immediate situation. It was significantly post the event (i.e. when it was well over), and came from the child's father, not mother who was the parent involved at the time. The question was: How do you deal with the event when it is happening? The most quoted advice is to simply ignore it.

Please note that I did not advocate that in my post. I was merely putting up a real-life situation that most parents will have to face at some time. Okay. What was the point then?

[Brian-M]

First, you will attract the attention of the store staff, who will likely treat you like you were some kind of child-basher. "Madam, why are you leaving your child screaming on the floor and doing nothing to help?"


Clerk: Why are you leaving your child screaming on the floor and doing nothing to help?
Parent: Help? Help with what? *feigned innocence*
Clerk: He's screaming his head off, aren't you going to do something about it?
Parent: Do something? Why? *feigned innocence*
Clerk: He's screaming his head off!
Parent: So? *feigned innocence*
Clerk: He's disturbing the other customers.
Parent: Has anyone complained?
Clerk: Well, no...
Parent: So what's the problem? *feigned innocence*
(And so on.)

If you stay near your child, they will continue to act up until you react (i.e. they are getting the result they seek). If you move away from your child (say, round the corner of the aisle), you are leaving them exposed and alone in a public place.


If you can hear them screaming in rage, you know exactly where they are. They're clearly not being kidnapped or anything. And no pedophile is going to attempt to molest a screaming child in a public place. Where's the problem?

(And, you can always pretend to be ignoring them while continuing to shop, but actually be dawdling within visual range. The way I see it, they can't throw a tantrum forever, even if it means standing around looking at washing powder for an hour, until they give up. Defeat them with superior patience. Although, I probably wouldn't be that patient. I'd probably end up dragging the screaming kid around with me while I shopped.)

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, it wouldn't mean that all parents would spank if the kid was aggressive. You could have a subset of parents who spanked in response to aggressive/challenging behavior, and that's where the apparent effect is coming from.Which goes back to what I said already, if your scenario is true, you could conclude spanking makes aggressive kids worse and not spanking doesn't make aggressive kids worse.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't understand why, when studies of this sort are discussed, there is no discussion of an appropriate frequency being anything other than zero despite the fact that in this study, as most others, it is only heavy use of spanking that is associated with negative outcomes.
For example, in this study, they used:


I don't dispute that frequent use of spanking is highly correlated with higher levels of aggression later in life, even past the age of five.

On the other hand, mothers who spank less than twice a month may still spank. My mother would have fit into that category, but I was spanked on occasion as a child. It seems clear to me, based on my experiences as a child, that infrequent mild spanking has no noticeable long-term negative consequences, at least not in U.S. culture. It might even be beneficial, at least for some families.I don't think any of the studies' authors have concluded spanking your child once or twice in their lifetime is going to ruin the kid. I'm not sure what your objection is. (Well I think I am from past discussions, but you could remind us.) Are you trying to say that a harmful behavior used rarely shouldn't be lumped into the category of condemnation?

We are back to the point, who cares, it isn't necessary to spank/hit kids. You are bigger than they are when spanking has any chance of being useful. There are many other ways to get kids to behave. Why use a method that might be harmful when you don't need to?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Really? If it were the case that the traits of parents disappear in as little as one generation, then kids would share no traits with their parents. If, for whatever reason, my father and/or mother have a genetic tendency toward violence, I think their children might inherit some of those genes. This assumes, of course, that there is any genetic tendency toward violence in the first place.

Perhaps I didn't understand your objection.

~~ PaulYou are claiming there could have been some confounding factor. That's fine. You are claiming that confounding factor could have been genetics. You have not established any basis for that hypothesis, not by looking at the research into the genetics of aggression and parents who spank or by any kind of analysis of the study methods that supports your hypothesis.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Fact: You cannot argue rationally with a child who is throwing a tantrum in the middle of a supermarket (or wherever). Such tantrum-throwing is designed to cause maximum disruption and embarrassment to you, not to them, in an effort for them to have their own way. Children will be totally and utterly self-centered in this regard - your feelings in the matter, rationality, their own embarrassment, count for nothing at all. That is the entire point of a tantrum.

Therefore all the "Nanny 911" bollocks about rational discussion with your child, time-outs, naughty-steps, etc, is completely irrelevant in that situation. They do not work and they are not applicable. The hellion child will learn this in very short order, and exploit it regularly and mercilessly (no matter how many "talkings-to" there have been).

Question for the thread: How do you get a child behaving like that to dial back that behaviour, bring themselves under control and accept the limitations of the situation, and resume reasonable and controllable behaviour?I've seen Nanny 911 and I've never seen her claim all you had to do was have a rational discussion with a child.

I suggest (if the above applies to you and your kids) that you take a more openminded approach to investigating the proven non-spanking methods of child rearing.

I've heard your argument many times. Yet on that Nanny program (also on, It's Me or the Dog) these experts demonstrate over and over that the out of control kids (or dog) can be controlled with some simple (though not necessarily easy to stick to at first) methods.

You have to consider that changing from spanking to other methods will be difficult at first until the kids learn the new expectations and consequences. After that, it's not hard at all.

[kellyb]

Which goes back to what I said already, if your scenario is true, you could conclude spanking makes aggressive kids worse and not spanking doesn't make aggressive kids worse.

How?
The correlation would mean that spanking doesn't "work" so well that it makes aggressive kids less aggressive than naturally passive kids, but that's about the limit of what you can say, as far as I can tell.

Am I missing something?

[lionking]

Sorry, doesn't work.

First, you will attract the attention of the store staff, who will likely treat you like you were some kind of child-basher. "Madam, why are you leaving your child screaming on the floor and doing nothing to help?"

If you stay near your child, they will continue to act up until you react (i.e. they are getting the result they seek). If you move away from your child (say, round the corner of the aisle), you are leaving them exposed and alone in a public place.

Only a sample of one, but I have walked away from children in a supermarket. As soon as I was out of sight, the child came running after me, tantrum over.

Oh, and in case anyone thinks I am an anti-spanking-in-all-circumstances zealot, this is not the case. I have spanked my kids when they were about to charge out in front of traffic.

[Zep]

Sitting on the ground, kicking his legs out and screaming 'But I want a chocolate!' isn't a tantrum? :eye-poppi

No, it was a real tanty in my opinion. And there were few a looks exchanged between some of us when she reached down and gave a bit of a slap on his exposed thigh. Twice.



Of course not, but it doesn't logically follow that a smack is therefore an optimal form of treatment in some situations. I could use that same logic to justify regular beatings.

I'm not saying zero physical interaction is in order. But you can't tell me the same message is being conveyed between a slap and physically picking a kid up and moving them.

Smacking is physical intimidation in order to inspire in a kid a fear of retribution for what they're doing. It is immediate punishment in the emotional heat of the moment (something that simply doesn't work in teaching anybody to reflect on their behaviour) that relies on fear to 'teach' kids to not get caught. The message they get is clear - if somebody does a bad thing, you get to use the fear of physical reprisal to get them to do what you want.

Athon
With respect, no it isn't. It is much more like: "Pay attention! Look me in the face right now! This is important to you! You need to do what I tell you right now, and not what you mistakenly think you want to do. Are we clear?"

The issue I'm seeing is that the strictly-no-spanking thought process is applying an adult concept to a child who does not understand...yet. This is not limited to humans - animals do it too, and the do smack (or equivalent) when necessary.

This does not mean I condone regular, frequent violence on children. Myself, I can count on just one hand how many times I have smacked my daughter's backside in her life. And I'm very happy to know that other parents can raise their children without ever doing so once (i.e. I don't insist on spanking for the sake of it.)

In many cases, sure - you can indeed get a child to recognise these necessary boundaries you want to set without having to smack (or any other form of physical pain). But to do that you will have to repeatedly apply some sort of psychological force instead, be that explanation or intimidation or fear of the unknown or wheedling or bribery, etc. (Another question: Is psychological intimidation of a child preferable?)

Somehow, the child has to be informed very clearly that there are limits set by their parents, they are hard and fast, and that there are serious consequences beyond them.

Incidentally, one of the most successful tactics for the IWANNABERTYBEETLE! tanty is a loud and carefree parental "OK, we're going home now! See you later!"

[Zep]

Only a sample of one, but I have walked away from children in a supermarket. As soon as I was out of sight, the child came running after me, tantrum over.You are lucky you didn't get some do-gooder accusing you of abandoning you child! (but I have done the same! ;))

Oh, and in case anyone thinks I am an anti-spanking-in-all-circumstances zealot, this is not the case. I have spanked my kids when they were about to charge out in front of traffic.THIS. Ditto. Once. Lesson learned.

[Zep]

I've seen Nanny 911 and I've never seen her claim all you had to do was have a rational discussion with a child.

I suggest (if the above applies to you and your kids) that you take a more openminded approach to investigating the proven non-spanking methods of child rearing.

I've heard your argument many times. Yet on that Nanny program (also on, It's Me or the Dog) these experts demonstrate over and over that the out of control kids (or dog) can be controlled with some simple (though not necessarily easy to stick to at first) methods.

You have to consider that changing from spanking to other methods will be difficult at first until the kids learn the new expectations and consequences. After that, it's not hard at all.
You have children?? :rolleyes:

I have only one. Both her mother and myself agreed from the outset that we would not smack unless it was absolutely critical to a lesson and only to the backside, e.g. as per Lionking's example. And we have stuck to that. As I said, it was a very rare day it ever happened, but it did happen. Which is why the lessons imparted were learned so well.

[Dr. Keith]

Fact: You cannot argue rationally with a child who is throwing a tantrum in the middle of a supermarket (or wherever). Such tantrum-throwing is designed to cause maximum disruption and embarrassment to you, not to them, in an effort for them to have their own way. Children will be totally and utterly self-centered in this regard - your feelings in the matter, rationality, their own embarrassment, count for nothing at all. That is the entire point of a tantrum.

Therefore all the "Nanny 911" bollocks about rational discussion with your child, time-outs, naughty-steps, etc, is completely irrelevant in that situation. They do not work and they are not applicable. The hellion child will learn this in very short order, and exploit it regularly and mercilessly (no matter how many "talkings-to" there have been).

Question for the thread: How do you get a child behaving like that to dial back that behaviour, bring themselves under control and accept the limitations of the situation, and resume reasonable and controllable behaviour?

I've never seen Nanny 911 but my wife started going to Love & Logic conferences very early in her career as a teacher. They have similar materials for parents.

When our more difficult child came along I had a lot of trouble because she wasn't as easy. My wife gave me the love and logic CDs for parents and I listened. I don't remember all the techniques, but I remember feeling like I had more tools to use, an arsenal if you will. I was empowered by the fact that I didn't need to lose my temper, lose my control, or use physical means to communicate with my kid. In any situation.

Now, when I see someone spanking their child or putting up with a tantrum or yelling back at their child I feel sorry for them. You can do better. For yourself and your child.

[Zep]

Clerk: Why are you leaving your child screaming on the floor and doing nothing to help?
Parent: Help? Help with what? *feigned innocence*
Clerk: He's screaming his head off, aren't you going to do something about it?
Parent: Do something? Why? *feigned innocence*
Clerk: He's screaming his head off!
Parent: So? *feigned innocence*
Clerk: He's disturbing the other customers.
Parent: Has anyone complained?
Clerk: Well, no...
Parent: So what's the problem? *feigned innocence*
(And so on.)




If you can hear them screaming in rage, you know exactly where they are. They're clearly not being kidnapped or anything. And no pedophile is going to attempt to molest a screaming child in a public place. Where's the problem?

(And, you can always pretend to be ignoring them while continuing to shop, but actually be dawdling within visual range. The way I see it, they can't throw a tantrum forever, even if it means standing around looking at washing powder for an hour, until they give up. Defeat them with superior patience. Although, I probably wouldn't be that patient. I'd probably end up dragging the screaming kid around with me while I shopped.)You speak from experience, and indeed, the above scenario (or close to) has happened for me. I ended up dragging screaming child by the arm to the car, which then elicited a whole bunch of tut-tutting about maltreating children and some very icy stares.

Police have been called to lesser incidents incidentally. It can lead to all sorts of complications nowadays with accusations of child-abuse...

[Zep]

I've never seen Nanny 911 but my wife started going to Love & Logic conferences very early in her career as a teacher. They have similar materials for parents.

When our more difficult child came along I had a lot of trouble because she wasn't as easy. My wife gave me the love and logic CDs for parents and I listened. I don't remember all the techniques, but I remember feeling like I had more tools to use, an arsenal if you will. I was empowered by the fact that I didn't need to lose my temper, lose my control, or use physical means to communicate with my kid. In any situation.

Now, when I see someone spanking their child or putting up with a tantrum or yelling back at their child I feel sorry for them. You can do better. For yourself and your child.I agree - spanking should never be the first choice at all. And with luck and patience it should never be needed at all. I would find it infinitely easier to donate my organs to my child, or take on any of her illnesses, than smack her.

But sometimes on rare occasions you do have to go to extraordinary lengths to help your child learn where to stop, for their own good, not yours.

[Dr. Keith]

With respect, no it isn't. It is much more like: "Pay attention! Look me in the face right now! This is important to you! You need to do what I tell you right now, and not what you mistakenly think you want to do. Are we clear?"

Yeah, I had to slap my wife once because she wouldn't listen to me. /sarcasm

Really, in my mind there is little difference.

The issue I'm seeing is that the strictly-no-spanking thought process is applying an adult concept to a child who does not understand...yet. This is not limited to humans - animals do it too, and the do smack (or equivalent) when necessary.

It is only necessary if you refuse to learn other ways of dealing with these situations. It is too late to come up with a pithy analogy, but lets just say that prevention can go a long way and then there are always other options.


In many cases, sure - you can indeed get a child to recognise these necessary boundaries you want to set without having to smack (or any other form of physical pain). But to do that you will have to repeatedly apply some sort of psychological force instead, be that explanation or intimidation or fear of the unknown or wheedling or bribery, etc. (Another question: Is psychological intimidation of a child preferable?)

I don't agree with any of the above and it is utter nonsense. I've trained dogs without as much violence or intimidation as you imply is necessary to take care of a child.

Being in charge of any situation is more a matter of respect than power. And yes, children understand that very well.

Somehow, the child has to be informed very clearly that there are limits set by their parents, they are hard and fast, and that there are serious consequences beyond them.

Yes, and spanking is the worst way of conveying that information. Find another way to communicate with your child.

A slap or spank conveys one clear message: "the adult in this situation has lost control and is trying to regain control through physical violence." That's not going to lead to happy places.

[Zep]

You missed my point. On some occasions, a whack to the backside says: PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT YOU ARE BEING TOLD.

You cannot, CANNOT allow your child to go run blindly towards the traffic and try to prevent them just with "reasoning". They need stopping RIGHT NOW. They need some sort of immediate attention-getter RIGHT NOW. If they aren't listening to you shouting, and are running away when you chase them...when do you think they are going to learn the lesson that roads-plus-traffic-equals-painful-death? After you hose them out from under a truck?

If you need to stop them, and you need to stop them NOW, an attention-getter is required. I did not say you have to whale the living tar out of them. I did say that you needed to get their attention and do what you want immediately...for their own safety.

You could try an air-horn instead, I suppose. :rolleyes:

[Dr. Keith]

But sometimes on rare occasions you do have to go to extraordinary lengths to help your child learn where to stop, for their own good, not yours.

I think that is where we will continue to disagree.

For me, if I even feel the urge to raise my voice I know it is my fault. I am the adult, she is the child. If she is that far out of control my mistakes have already been made and making more won't do any good.

My kids are older now. It is more effective to ask them if they need a wambulance or to say we don't speak whinese. But I do remember that feeling of "why won't she listen" and thinking just one smack and she'd come around to my way. I just knew it was wrong and went a different direction.

[Dr. Keith]

You missed my point. On some occasions, a whack to the backside says: PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT YOU ARE BEING TOLD.

You cannot, CANNOT allow your child to go run blindly towards the traffic and try to prevent them just with "reasoning". They need stopping RIGHT NOW. They need some sort of immediate attention-getter RIGHT NOW. If they aren't listening to you shouting, and are running away when you chase them...when do you think they are going to learn the lesson that roads-plus-traffic-equals-painful-death? After you hose them out from under a truck?

If you need to stop them, and you need to stop them NOW, an attention-getter is required. You could try an air-horn instead, I suppose. :rolleyes:

If you are close enough to spank her you are close enough to hug her. Hold her close. Let her calm down a bit. Don't let go until she is calm. No matter what. Take a deep breath. Ask her to take a deep breath. Now she will pay attention to you.

And she will remember the hug instead of a spanking. That's got to count for something.

[kellyb]

You missed my point. On some occasions, a whack to the backside says: PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT YOU ARE BEING TOLD.

You cannot, CANNOT allow your child to go run blindly towards the traffic and try to prevent them just with "reasoning". They need stopping RIGHT NOW. They need some sort of immediate attention-getter RIGHT NOW. If they aren't listening to you shouting, and are running away when you chase them...when do you think they are going to learn the lesson that roads-plus-traffic-equals-painful-death? After you hose them out from under a truck?

If you need to stop them, and you need to stop them NOW, an attention-getter is required. I did not say you have to whale the living tar out of them. I did say that you needed to get their attention and do what you want immediately...for their own safety.

You could try an air-horn instead, I suppose. :rolleyes:

If you're close enough to whack a kid, you're close enough to just grab their arm and prevent them from running farther.

If you want to argue that it's better to force kids to learn not to run in the first place via fear, fine. But that's totally different from stopping running once it's already happened.

That said,
:rolleyes: to the "if you're close enough to spank her you're close enough to hug her" idea. Really.:rolleyes:
Personally, every time I get freaked out by my child's self-endangerment, we respond by making macaroni pictures about automobile safety. :rolleyes:

[Skeptic Ginger]

How?
The correlation would mean that spanking doesn't "work" so well that it makes aggressive kids less aggressive than naturally passive kids, but that's about the limit of what you can say, as far as I can tell.

Am I missing something?You are missing the study outcomes.

Care to restate your reasoning here in light of the study outcomes showing spanking increases aggression in kids?

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Oh, and in case anyone thinks I am an anti-spanking-in-all-circumstances zealot, this is not the case. I have spanked my kids when they were about to charge out in front of traffic.Again, not saying you should feel badly about this or claiming it hurt your kids or anything like that, but I'd like to point out this fallacy that somehow spanking/hitting is the only or best way to communicate a parent's seriousness to a child.

I see no evidence that grabbing the child and communicating how dangerous it is for the child to run out in the street and/or how worried that makes you would not be just as effective as spanking/hitting. Do you think the child cannot understand a parent communicating danger/worry/fear/love while they can somehow understand, "I get hit for that behavior"?

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

But sometimes on rare occasions you do have to go to extraordinary lengths to help your child learn where to stop, for their own good, not yours.This belief boggles my mind. Never have I ever felt I had to hit my child to make him stop something or to make him do anything I needed him to do.

I'm a grown woman. My child was a little boy (he's now almost 21 and a full foot taller than me). At no time was he ever big enough I couldn't control his behavior without hitting him. And that meant, when he was too big to control with spanking/hitting it was never an issue, since he learned how to respect his mother and want to behave without ever being hit.

I seriously don't get the concept kids can learn from being hit/spanked while they cannot learn from positive or non-violent discipline.

[Skeptic Ginger]

You missed my point. On some occasions, a whack to the backside says: PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT YOU ARE BEING TOLD.

You cannot, CANNOT allow your child to go run blindly towards the traffic and try to prevent them just with "reasoning".How about just physically stopping them? Grabbing an arm works just fine.


... If they aren't listening to you shouting, and are running away when you chase them...when do you think they are going to learn the lesson that roads-plus-traffic-equals-painful-death? After you hose them out from under a truck?So if they've run away, you can't spank them until you catch them. If you catch them, they aren't in imminent danger.

This still amounts to you communicating with the spanking. But good parenting techniques which you mistakenly dismiss as "reasoning" have been shown to work very well.

[Skeptic Ginger]

... every time I get freaked out by my child's self-endangerment, we respond by making macaroni pictures about automobile safety. :rolleyes::D

[Brian-M]

You speak from experience, and indeed, the above scenario (or close to) has happened for me. I ended up dragging screaming child by the arm to the car, which then elicited a whole bunch of tut-tutting about maltreating children and some very icy stares.

Police have been called to lesser incidents incidentally. It can lead to all sorts of complications nowadays with accusations of child-abuse...


Not from personal experience (I don't have kids), but I have seen screaming kids in supermarkets occasionally and wondered what the hell I would do in that situation. I feel a little sorry for the parents, it's an unenviable position to be in.

(I once heard a mother telling her loudly crying son to "stop being such a girl". I couldn't help but wonder what kind of message that was sending to the kid's sister, who was standing right beside him at the time.)

[cienaños]

Well it's a good thing I've been punching my kid in the face and kicking him in the balls instead. whew! :D


Just kidding. But seriously, I read maybe 1/2 the posts, not sure anyone picked up on this. The obvious: Spanking, if employed, should only be used as a "supplemental tool."

Someone did mention this part I believe, that if the butt is gonna get the hand, it shouldn't be at an age where the kid is unable to grasp the most elementary notions of cause and effect. My position is use the words and intelligence first.

Butt, in some cases, sorry dude, the kid needs a good spanking. I got some as a kid, and I turned out just fine. *chugs handle of Jack*

[luchog]

Yes, if it were a single study. But the results show up consistently in many studies. That supports the validity of the conclusion.
Or it supports all studies being similarly flawed and/or agenda driven. While the conclusions seem to be clear; there are just too many confounding factors and insufficient controls to make a definitive statement either way. The greater the variables, the more difficult they are to control for, and the more equivocal the conclusion. Few things are more variable than human behaviour.

[soylent]

It's probably a good thing I don't have children or intend to get them. If they somehow refused to get the idea that you're not supposed to run out in traffic I'd dig up a video of someone getting run over and not getting up.

[luchog]

What I want is a study that compares children who are never spanked, and know that they will never be spanked,
NOTE: This is strictly a personal anecdote, with no claim at scientific validity or universal applicability. These are just my limited personal observances.

I have actually seen this happen with two different children. One set of parents were of the "hippy" sort who believed in "dialoging" with their children, and avoided any sort of physical action whatsoever, regardless of the circumstances. The other was a single mother who also refused to accept that any sort of capital punishment was valid, although she would physically restrain the child in "time out" when he got too far out of hand.

In the first case, the couple had two children, the older one a boy, the younger a girl. As the boy got older, he became aggressive, even violent. He never outgrew being extremely self-centered; and was in constant trouble in school. His attitude often provoked physical violence from his peers; and he responded in kind. It didn't help that he was physically large, and was able to bully most of his peers. His parents were extremely passive, and rarely did anything but talk at him, which he ignored, and increasingly ridiculed; and when he was older, even escalated to breaking things and physically assaulting his parents (not that he was able to do any real harm). If they tried to restrict him, he simply ignored the restrictions. He pretty much took anything he wanted, had absolutely no respect for any boundaries set by anyone else, and eventually took up shoplifting. His parents were adamant against any physical correction, and refused to allow anyone else to attempt any sort of disciplinary action, which means that they weren't welcome in too many other people's homes. Some adults did manage some minor disciplining of the child when his parents weren't around; and he responded by being far less of a problem around them. It didn't mean he was a better person because of it, just that, as with any bully, he wouldn't mess with anyone he couldn't intimidate (if he didn't understand the concept of discipline, he certainly understood pecking orders). His sister was fairly passive, by comparison. I'm fairly sure that was because she was physically bullied by her brother, although I never actually witnessed it. She did share his lack of boundaries, and tended to take anything she wanted, and get upset if anyone tried to prevent her from doing so. I lost touch with the family before he was in high school; but I heard from others that he had been arrested at least once for shoplifting; and had gotten involved with a gang. I have no clue what happened to his sister.

The other example was also a hellion, although considerably less violent. He did have a tendency to throw tantrums; which often included throwing food (and on at least one occasion, feces). He also never cleaned up anything. He was like a tornado that left wreckage in his wake; which his mother was constantly cleaning up after, since he consistently refused. Normal restrictions also failed to work, since he would ignore them; and physically restraining him only worked once he had exhausted himself with his tantrums. He also lied constantly, about everything. Even to the point of lying about something he had just done in front of witnesses. His mother typically refused to believe anyone else's reports of his behaviour, or attempted to justify it. I don't know how he ended up when he got older, as I didn't have contact with him for very long. It didn't help that his mother gave him a truly stupid nickname, which I'm unable to remember at the moment.

[Cayvmann]

It's a well-known fact that children who learn to avoid stoves by burning their fingers when young grow up to be arsonists.

How is that in any way related to another person hitting you? Sure a child may learn not to do something again when they are caused pain, either by a spanking or burning his/her hand on a stove, but a child will also learn that causing pain is a solution to problems in one scenario, but not the other. Can you tell the difference?

[Ron Webb]

You are missing the study outcomes.

Care to restate your reasoning here in light of the study outcomes showing spanking increases aggression in kids?

The study showed that spanking more than twice a month increases aggression, which is like saying that having more than six alcoholic beverages a day is bad for your health. Nobody should be surprised by this, but nobody should extrapolate it to the conclusion that therefore total abstinence or prohibition is the best policy. There is good evidence that moderate drinking, i.e. one or two drinks a day, might actually be beneficial. Perhaps the same could be said for spanking, i.e. having it available as an option as long as it is rarely used.

I seriously don't get the concept kids can learn from being hit/spanked while they cannot learn from positive or non-violent discipline.

It's called operant conditioning, and if I recall correctly from my psychology classes it is the most effective and universal form of behaviour modification that we know of. It has been shown to work on every form of sentient life that we have tested, from primates all the way down to flatworms. I'm pretty sure it will work on a child, even if nothing else works.

[Dancing David]

Um, this is a very deep issue, a lot of confounding factors to consider:

But in my opinion as someone who works with kids now and has worked with kids in a DV shelter it comes down to this.

Consistency.

In most situations the problem is consistency of parenting. (I am not discussing the outliers here.)

Parents often say things with absolutely no consequence to the child.
Stop that- no consequence.
Stop that now-no consequence.
Stop that now, I mean it- no consequence.

ETC, etc , etc...

The child is trained in the cues of when the parent is going to make a consequence happens and the consequence of that is what?

The parents trains the child to ignore them until the cues show that a consequence will happen.

The way to parent effectively is simple, be consistent, give clear signals and make the consequences proportionate and time limited.

At the shelter we liked 1 2 3 Magic (http://www.parentmagic.com/) but really and system that is clear and consistent is all that is needed.

Parents also need to
-Stop talking to their children, over and over and over, if they didn't change the first hundred times you said it, 101 and isn't going to work either
-Stop taking their issues and frustrations out on their children
-Control their emotions

At schools they encourage the staff to use the Nutured Heart (http://www.nurturinggreatness.net/) which is unfortunately wrapped in woo and smaryness. At it's core however it is strong behavioral programs packaged badly.

When students misbehave you 'reset' them. If they continue to misbehave you give them consequences. Staff are not to give time in confrontations to students, staff are to focus on the positive traits. Staff are to control their emotions and act like adults.

[Dancing David]

Screaming in grocery stores:
-Take control of yourself and calm down
-Asses the situation
-Try consoling the child, most parents threaten and estrange at this time
-If a tantrum remove yourself and the child, until your are both calm.

After wards, asses the situation, why did the tantrum or outburst occur?
-Have you been shopping for four hours?
-Are they tired?
-Are they hungry?
-How can you 'defuse' the tantrum? (What is the pay-off for the child?)

Look at the behaviors and consequence, what can you as a parent do differently? The parent is in charge at all times, the parent is in control, it is not the child that must change, it is the parent.

I know this sounds pat and it is, single parents working split shifts have real challenges.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Indeed, sometimes things do go wrong. Parents are not perfect. It's not reasonable to expect that they can physically control their children every moment of every day. They get distracted, they make mistakes, they turn their backs just for a moment and tragedy strikes. Children need to learn as early as possible that some rules are so important (and the consequences so severe) that they must be obeyed without fail, even when the parents are not watching.

The main point I wanted to make was that this study really doesn't prove much. I don't need anyone to convince me that spanking your child more than twice a month is not a good thing. IMHO that should be obvious. What I want is a study that compares children who are never spanked, and know that they will never be spanked, with those who know that they could be spanked for truly flagrant misbehaviour, but who are not actually spanked more than (let's say) once or twice in a year. I'm willing to bet that the latter group will turn out better behaved on the whole.

Thank you. Saved me the bother of posting it.

I'm a 'smacker' and have had vigorous debates on here with those who disagree. I do not have a closed mind on it though and am happy to look at such studies - however, as you say, they seem to consider only two camps: non smackers and excessive smackers.

<Anecdote mode>Of the parents I know who smack, there are two very distinct categories: those who smack for every little thing (it rapidly loses its effectiveness and I'm personally open to the theory that it breeds copy-cat behaviour in the children) and tend to carry on even when the child is quite old and those that smack extremely rarely (as you say, once or twice a year) and for certain very specific cases and for whom smacking is then unnecessary beyond quite an early age. </Anecdote mode>. The studies never seem to include that latter category.

Of course, it could be argued that since the incidence of smacking in the latter category is so low, that the 'damage' is similarly low and therefore below 'observable threshold' but that doesn't make infrequent smacking ok. Again, I'm open to that but I haven't been completely convinced yet.

<Anecdote Mode>My personal experience is that excessive smackers tend to have badly behaved children, infrequent smackers tend to have well behaved children and non-smackers tend to have a mixture but generally better behaved than the first category. One important difference though, the non-smackers with badly behaved children are completely convinced their children are well behaved ;)</Anecdote Mode>

Ok, the last sentence was a bit mischievous but does actually match some non-smacking friends of ours and their jumped up little, malicious madam of a precocious, spoiled brat. Just think 'Bonnie Langford' and you'll get the type.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Um, this is a very deep issue, a lot of confounding factors to consider:

But in my opinion as someone who works with kids now and has worked with kids in a DV shelter it comes down to this.

Consistency.

In most situations the problem is consistency of parenting. (I am not discussing the outliers here.)

Parents often say things with absolutely no consequence to the child.
Stop that- no consequence.
Stop that now-no consequence.
Stop that now, I mean it- no consequence.

ETC, etc , etc...

The child is trained in the cues of when the parent is going to make a consequence happens and the consequence of that is what?

The parents trains the child to ignore them until the cues show that a consequence will happen.

The way to parent effectively is simple, be consistent, give clear signals and make the consequences proportionate and time limited.

At the shelter we liked 1 2 3 Magic (http://www.parentmagic.com/) but really and system that is clear and consistent is all that is needed.

Parents also need to
-Stop talking to their children, over and over and over, if they didn't change the first hundred times you said it, 101 and isn't going to work either
-Stop taking their issues and frustrations out on their children
-Control their emotions

At schools they encourage the staff to use the Nutured Heart (http://www.nurturinggreatness.net/) which is unfortunately wrapped in woo and smaryness. At it's core however it is strong behavioral programs packaged badly.

When students misbehave you 'reset' them. If they continue to misbehave you give them consequences. Staff are not to give time in confrontations to students, staff are to focus on the positive traits. Staff are to control their emotions and act like adults.


I can agree with most of that - up to the 'At schools' bit at least. I might even agree with the latter part but didn't have time to follow the link.

Don't make threats you won't carry out is the single most important rule. Forget smacking versus non-smacking, this is the key one.

[Farsight]

Good thread. My wife and I don't quite see eye to eye on this issue. She says "You should never hit a child" whilst I say "Well, no you shouldn't, but sometimes it's the lesser of two evils". Hence I read this:

You missed my point. On some occasions, a whack to the backside says: PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT YOU ARE BEING TOLD. You cannot, CANNOT allow your child to go run blindly towards the traffic and try to prevent them just with "reasoning". They need stopping RIGHT NOW. They need some sort of immediate attention-getter RIGHT NOW. If they aren't listening to you shouting, and are running away when you chase them...when do you think they are going to learn the lesson that roads-plus-traffic-equals-painful-death? After you hose them out from under a truck?

..and I think well said Zep. Yes, I think the "spanking is bad" message is agenda-driven. IMHO it's a simplistic straw-man attempt to undermine parental responsibility for ulterior motives, probably financial. Please note that if our two-year-old threw a tantrum in a supermarket, I wouldn't smack him for that. There's a time and a place, and that isn't it. I'd stick him under my arm and take him out, asking the store to look after my shopping trolley for when I come back. As it happens the the wife and I tend to plan things such that we're covered. Something like this happened a fortnight ago, and I grabbed baby all kicking and arching and tucked him under my arm then took him back to the car whilst the wife carried on with the shopping. He got the message as to who was boss, and it wasn't him.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Again, not saying you should feel badly about this or claiming it hurt your kids or anything like that, but I'd like to point out this fallacy that somehow spanking/hitting is the only or best way to communicate a parent's seriousness to a child.

I see no evidence that grabbing the child and communicating how dangerous it is for the child to run out in the street and/or how worried that makes you would not be just as effective as spanking/hitting. Do you think the child cannot understand a parent communicating danger/worry/fear/love while they can somehow understand, "I get hit for that behavior"?

And I know you truly, sincerely believe that - and it matches your own experience. All kids are different though. Some simply don't care that you've explained why they shouldn't do something, they want to do it and they damn well will as soon as your back is turned and any non-immediate punishment or threat or hurt to you means nothing to them. A smack is an instant signal that, you may not understand but you won't like the consequences of that action. Once they get to a point where they can understand the position, smacking is no longer needed.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Do you think the child cannot understand a parent communicating danger/worry/fear/love while they can somehow understand, "I get hit for that behavior"?

Sorry, didn't properly address this question. Based on my first kid, yes they'd understand the former (and the latter, obviously) - with you all the way.....


...But, based on my second and fourth kids? No way! They'd only understand the latter - at least for a short but relatively crucial time period. Connection? With the second and fourth, their physical development / ability shot ahead of their reasoning / empathy skills.

As for the third, if she was any more chill she'd be an iceberg. Not sure we've ever even had to tell her off.

[Senex]

Creationists. Climate change deniers. Spanking proponents.

What do they all have in common? They all cling to their dogmatic beliefs despite the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence.


A) I have nothing in common with creationists (I don't have a strong opinion about climate change) and I have science on my side.

B) Why does the resident expert on spanking have to dicover this thread on his own? Why did no one PM me? There are some naughty posters here and I will find you :mad:

Children are too young too appreciate a good spanking. Spanking is like booze -- you have to be over 18.

My local paper just had an informative semi-scientific pole on the subject. My barber coincidently took part...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/Senex/924579e755dbe31317597727d4e9ebe30_f.jpg?t=12714211 1

You ladies think you are getting off easy...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/Senex/325_spankingcoffeead.jpg?t=1271422048

I'm watching ;)

[aggle-rithm]

My two cents:

Children learn by example. Corporal punishment teaches them that it's acceptable to use violence against someone smaller and weaker than you to get them to conform to your way of thinking.

HUGE caveat: I have no children myself.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You are claiming there could have been some confounding factor. That's fine. You are claiming that confounding factor could have been genetics. You have not established any basis for that hypothesis, not by looking at the research into the genetics of aggression and parents who spank or by any kind of analysis of the study methods that supports your hypothesis.
I was merely suggesting that it was a possibility that they should control for. I believe violent behavior has a genetic component.

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0193953X05703142

~~ Paul

[Careyp74]

A child who throws a tantrum in a supermarket, does not pick the supermarket for his first tantrum. He would have done this at home many times before this. When he does this at home, there is a perfectly good opportunity to employ non-corporal means to get him to behave. If you find yourself in the supermarket with a kid throwing a tantrum, perhaps you will learn the lesson yourself and deal with your family issues before going to the supermarket, or getting on a plane, etc.

Operant conditioning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner) has been proven to be effective with children, even the autistic (http://www.springerlink.com/content/q21478m428034123/) ones that get beaten and thrown into small dark rooms (just watched this on Dr. Phil, got my blood boiling)

On top of that, it has been shown that spanking loses its effectiveness due to extinction. Might as well learn better techniques.

[Bikewer]

Seems to have gone from a discussion of the effects of spanking the child to a discussion on child-rearing...
When I was a kid back in the 50s, corporal punishment was common and even "normal". I was just at the tail-end (sorry...) of corporal punishment being administered in school (Catholic school) and it was not unusual to see a prominent paddle or similar device displayed in the classroom.
Note that such punishment often involved the use of some device or other. The neighbor, a barber, used an old razor strop on his three sons. A hairbrush was a common implement, and to made to "go cut a switch" was equally common among more rural folks. (for those who are not familiar, the lad would have to go out and cut a suitable branch for a "whuppin".)
As I mentioned in my first post, the cane (usually a length of rattan) was common in the English schools. The French were fond of the "martinet", as I recall; a short whip of leather.
This was all very common; indeed considered normal. It was not unusual at all for one's school-mates to report gettin a "whipping" at home.
I am constantly surprised at how many of my colleagues (police officers) still use corporal punishment as well. The "enlightened" methods of child-rearing do not appear to have penetrated into middle-class ranks.
But to return to the original premise... Does all of this spanking, whipping, and paddling have long-lasting and deleterious effects on people? Does it make them more prone to violence, or to continue to use these methods on their own children?
I'd like to see some long-term studies done. (likely some have, and I'm not aware of them...)

[Dancing David]

My two cents:

Children learn by example. Corporal punishment teaches them that it's acceptable to use violence against someone smaller and weaker than you to get them to conform to your way of thinking.

HUGE caveat: I have no children myself.

Thanks you, that is what we taught at the DV shelter.

[AvalonXQ]

Yes, if it were a single study. But the results show up consistently in many studies. That supports the validity of the conclusion.

Wait, so the fact that several self-selected groups exhibit the same phenomenon shows that the self-selection is not a factor? How does replicating a methodological problem remedy it?

[lionking]

And I know you truly, sincerely believe that - and it matches your own experience. All kids are different though. Some simply don't care that you've explained why they shouldn't do something, they want to do it and they damn well will as soon as your back is turned and any non-immediate punishment or threat or hurt to you means nothing to them. A smack is an instant signal that, you may not understand but you won't like the consequences of that action. Once they get to a point where they can understand the position, smacking is no longer needed.
This is my view as well.

[Cuddles]

I don't think any of the studies' authors have concluded spanking your child once or twice in their lifetime is going to ruin the kid. I'm not sure what your objection is. (Well I think I am from past discussions, but you could remind us.) Are you trying to say that a harmful behavior used rarely shouldn't be lumped into the category of condemnation?

But that's the whole point - you have no evidence that it is actually harmful if used rarely. Someone has already made the analogy with alcohol - getting drunk out of your skull every day is certainly harmful, but a couple of drinks each week may actually be beneficial. Even if it is proven that regular smacking is detrimental, that does not mean your opinion that no smacking should ever be done is correct.

For the record, I have no children, and I have no idea if I was ever smacked as a child. I have absolutely no vested interest here. I just find it very amusing to see people get so far up their high horses and accusing others of being anti-science creationists, just because they won't accept a completely unsupported opinion as absolute scientific and moral fact. Regular smacking may increase aggressive tendencies in later life. We don't know if occasional smacking also does. We don't know if there are any benefits, such as better grades in school, that may offset that. We don't even know if those aggressive tendencies actually translate into more violent or criminal behaviour. Argue the science, argue the politics, argue the morals, that's fine. Just don't pretend your personal opinion is the only rational one possible.

The other was a single mother who also refused to accept that any sort of capital punishment was valid

To be fair, whatever their opinion on smacking children I think most people would consider capital punishment to be going a bit far.:)

[Mark6]

Fact: You cannot argue rationally with a child who is throwing a tantrum in the middle of a supermarket (or wherever). Such tantrum-throwing is designed to cause maximum disruption and embarrassment to you, not to them, in an effort for them to have their own way. Children will be totally and utterly self-centered in this regard - your feelings in the matter, rationality, their own embarrassment, count for nothing at all. That is the entire point of a tantrum.

Therefore all the "Nanny 911" bollocks about rational discussion with your child, time-outs, naughty-steps, etc, is completely irrelevant in that situation. They do not work and they are not applicable. The hellion child will learn this in very short order, and exploit it regularly and mercilessly (no matter how many "talkings-to" there have been).

Question for the thread: How do you get a child behaving like that to dial back that behaviour, bring themselves under control and accept the limitations of the situation, and resume reasonable and controllable behaviour?
By ignoring the child or laughing at her. Few times my daughter (three at the time) did this, I just let her scream, and said very loudly "You are not embarassing me. You are only embarassing yourself." She got the point very quickly.

Of course, she was an unusually articulate three-year old, who understood what "embarass" means. Won't work for everyone.

[Mark6]

So people who have no arse are saints then? And J-Lo is destined for that fiery place downstairs?
Only if her parents DID NOT make proper use of her behind when she was little! :D

[Modified]

Seems to have gone from a discussion of the effects of spanking the child to a discussion on child-rearing...
When I was a kid back in the 50s, corporal punishment was common and even "normal". I was just at the tail-end (sorry...) of corporal punishment being administered in school (Catholic school) and it was not unusual to see a prominent paddle or similar device displayed in the classroom.

"Tail-end" where you were, maybe. Where I was, the tail end of of corporal punishment in Catholic school was in the mid 70s.

[Careyp74]

But that's the whole point - you have no evidence that it is actually harmful if used rarely. Someone has already made the analogy with alcohol - getting drunk out of your skull every day is certainly harmful, but a couple of drinks each week may actually be beneficial. Even if it is proven that regular smacking is detrimental, that does not mean your opinion that no smacking should ever be done is correct.


Why would an analogy of drinking alcohol be relevant to the argument? Analogies are just ways to remember the important facts of an argument. We aren't supposed to derive information from them. Should we then conclude that spanking is better when mixed with club soda?

[Cuddles]

Why would an analogy of drinking alcohol be relevant to the argument?

I thought the two explanations given were rather clear why it was relevant. Alcohol is bad in large amounts, may be good or harmless in small amounts. Spanking may well be bad in large amounts, but that does not mean it is good in small amounts. I don't see why this should be difficult to follow.

Analogies are just ways to remember the important facts of an argument.

No they're not. Analogies are a way to attempt to make a point more understandable by comparing a similarity between the point at hand and a different, unrelated point. In this case, the similarity is that something being known to be bad in large amounts led to the assumption that it would be bad, although less so, in small amounts. For alcohol, that assumption seems likely to have been wrong. For spanking, it appears we just don't know, but the fact that similar assumptions have been wrong in the past makes it rather silly to jump to the same assumption again.

Should we then conclude that spanking is better when mixed with club soda?

No, we should conclude that it's stupid to come to any conclusion about how bad spanking is in small amounts when the only evidence presented addresses it in large amounts.

Edit: Maybe this will help?
.|Lots|A little bit
Smoking|Bad|Less bad
Alcohol|Bad|Good
Spanking|Bad|???
Having bad in the first column does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that it must also be in the second.

[Careyp74]

I thought the two explanations given were rather clear why it was relevant. Alcohol is bad in large amounts, may be good or harmless in small amounts. Spanking may well be bad in large amounts, but that does not mean it is good in small amounts. I don't see why this should be difficult to follow.



No they're not. Analogies are a way to attempt to make a point more understandable by comparing a similarity between the point at hand and a different, unrelated point. In this case, the similarity is that something being known to be bad in large amounts led to the assumption that it would be bad, although less so, in small amounts. For alcohol, that assumption seems likely to have been wrong. For spanking, it appears we just don't know, but the fact that similar assumptions have been wrong in the past makes it rather silly to jump to the same assumption again.


No, we should conclude that it's stupid to come to any conclusion about how bad spanking is in small amounts when the only evidence presented addresses it in large amounts.

I see now how you are using the analogy. The Tulane University study shows that light spanking still increases aggressive behavior in children, so I would say that the issue has been looked at.

ETA: It was difficult to follow because it seemed like you are saying that because alcohol is good in small doses, spanking may be also. It wasn't apparent until you said it that your point is that we may just be wrong about the small doses of spanking, just like we were wrong about the small doses of alcohol.

ETAA: Yes, that graph does explain it even more, but I understood what you were saying without it.

[AvalonXQ]

It seems that the studies being used against spanking really only support the following supposition:
"The kids who parents choose to spank exhibit more violent behavior over time than the kids who parents choose not to spank."

[Silly Green Monkey]

I was spanked, slapped, switched, paddled, strapped. Aggression is my first response to stress.

[AvalonXQ]

I was spanked, slapped, switched, paddled, strapped. Aggression is my first response to stress.

As a young child, an open-handed spanking was administered under precisely defined conditions when the authority figure was calm (not angry) and accompanied by a comprehended explanation. The spanking was never long or injurious, and the defined conditions dwindled to zero as I became more able to understand and respond to other consequences.
All consequences (the word "punishment" was never used) were tightly correlated to my behavior. No action was ever taken against me on the basis of emotion or parental whim; always as a predefined response to explicit rules.
My first response to stress is to withdraw emotion and apply rational analysis. As an adult, I have learned the importance of emotion itself as an informational tool for analysis and have learned not to completely withdraw it.

[Senex]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/Senex/likeridingbike1.jpg?t=1271440805

I was spanked, slapped, switched, paddled, strapped. Aggression is my first response to stress.

As a young child, an open-handed spanking was administered under precisely defined conditions when the authority figure was calm (not angry) and accompanied by a comprehended explanation. The spanking was never long or injurious, and the defined conditions dwindled to zero as I became more able to understand and respond to other consequences.
All consequences (the word "punishment" was never used) were tightly correlated to my behavior. No action was ever taken against me on the basis of emotion or parental whim; always as a predefined response to explicit rules.
My first response to stress is to withdraw emotion and apply rational analysis. As an adult, I have learned the importance of emotion itself as an informational tool for analysis and have learned not to completely withdraw it.

You two make it sound like that being spanked is a negative thing.

You must have been spanked by an amateur ;)

Wait - I'm joking. This can be a sensitive issue. I'd very much like to read more detail concerning Silly Green Monkey's switching. Sometimes it helps to share.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/Senex/mclintock-spanking.jpg?t=1271440570

[Modified]

As a young child, an open-handed spanking was administered under precisely defined conditions when the authority figure was calm (not angry) and accompanied by a comprehended explanation.

I would guess that is pretty rare. My dad used to spank my brother and I only when he was angry. If he felt we needed spanking and wasn't particularly angry, he'd rile himself up the necessary amount before beginning. If we cried during the spanking, he'd ramp up the intensity and continue until we stopped crying. All that did stop when I was only six years old and my brother five, but the threat continued for a few years after that.

[AvalonXQ]

I would guess that is pretty rare.

My parents took a highly controlled and deliberative approach to parenting. That's why I always take umbrage with people who say "if you hit your kids, they will learn to hit".
It's true that if you react by angrily hitting, they will learn that. But on the flipside, if your kids know that certain behaviors by them will result in certain defined reactions from you, they will learn to calculate whether they should engage in those behaviors. And if you do a good job in communicating the connection between what they did and what happened to them (leaving yourself pretty much out of it), they'll learn that.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Or it supports all studies being similarly flawed and/or agenda driven. While the conclusions seem to be clear; there are just too many confounding factors and insufficient controls to make a definitive statement either way. The greater the variables, the more difficult they are to control for, and the more equivocal the conclusion. Few things are more variable than human behaviour.If you think that is the case, then look at the methodologies of a few of the studies and tell us why you think they are missing variables.

[AvalonXQ]

If you think that is the case, then look at the methodologies of a few of the studies and tell us why you think they are missing variables.

Great, can you link me to a study that was randomized rather than self-selected? I'll start with one of those.

[Skeptic Ginger]

NOTE: This is strictly a personal anecdote, with no claim at scientific validity or universal applicability. These are just my limited personal observances....This example reminds me of another misconception that not spanking/hitting is the equivalent of laissez faire discipline or child raising.

There are many methods of raising well behaved children that do not involve 'doing nothing' and don't involve 'using spanking/hitting the child'.

[AvalonXQ]

This example reminds me of another misconception that not spanking/hitting is the equivalent of laissez faire discipline or child raising.

There are many methods of raising well behaved children that do not involve 'doing nothing' and don't involve 'using spanking/hitting the child'.

This was a misconception I had until I watched Supernanny. Now I know better.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The study showed that spanking more than twice a month increases aggression, which is like saying that having more than six alcoholic beverages a day is bad for your health. Nobody should be surprised by this, but nobody should extrapolate it to the conclusion that therefore total abstinence or prohibition is the best policy. There is good evidence that moderate drinking, i.e. one or two drinks a day, might actually be beneficial. Perhaps the same could be said for spanking, i.e. having it available as an option as long as it is rarely used.Which is great, except why use spanking/hitting at all if there are demonstrated methods which work just as well?



It's called operant conditioning, and if I recall correctly from my psychology classes it is the most effective and universal form of behaviour modification that we know of. It has been shown to work on every form of sentient life that we have tested, from primates all the way down to flatworms. I'm pretty sure it will work on a child, even if nothing else works.I didn't say it boggled my mind that spanking worked. I said it boggled my mind that people believe spanking works but don't believe the alternatives work.

As for operant conditioning, my dogs respond quite well to food rewards and "good boy" petting. It's my understanding that dogs respond very poorly to training techniques which use punishment rather than rewards.

[cienaños]

It seems that the studies being used against spanking really only support the following supposition:
"The kids who parents choose to spank exhibit more violent behavior over time than the kids who parents choose not to spank."

That's only because we lucky ones who got spanked as kids know to just sit right there and not don't you dare move don't you move I will, boy, you wanna be in a study? Hm? You're about to study my foot up your ass if you, move again. Move. Again.

[Skeptic Ginger]

And I know you truly, sincerely believe that - and it matches your own experience. All kids are different though. Some simply don't care that you've explained why they shouldn't do something, they want to do it and they damn well will as soon as your back is turned and any non-immediate punishment or threat or hurt to you means nothing to them. A smack is an instant signal that, you may not understand but you won't like the consequences of that action. Once they get to a point where they can understand the position, smacking is no longer needed.The evidence supports this is a false conclusion. You are trying to say some children require spanking/hitting.

What the evidence shows is there are equally effective means of child rearing that while they do involve LEARNING those skills, they do not involve spanking/hitting as a means of control or behavior management.

The fact you dismiss these techniques as, "reasoning with the child" suggests you are unaware of the broad range of non-violent techniques which have been shown to work.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sorry, didn't properly address this question. Based on my first kid, yes they'd understand the former (and the latter, obviously) - with you all the way.....


...But, based on my second and fourth kids? No way! They'd only understand the latter - at least for a short but relatively crucial time period. Connection? With the second and fourth, their physical development / ability shot ahead of their reasoning / empathy skills.

As for the third, if she was any more chill she'd be an iceberg. Not sure we've ever even had to tell her off.
I still maintain that even with the behavior you describe, there were ways to manage the child without spanking/hitting.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I was merely suggesting that it was a possibility that they should control for. I believe violent behavior has a genetic component.

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0193953X05703142

~~ PaulI don't doubt the genetic component to aggression. Maybe I was too quick to reply on that. But I do doubt that of all the studies they all failed to control for this variable.

[AvalonXQ]

Ginger, any luck linking me to that randomized study?

[Skeptic Ginger]

A child who throws a tantrum in a supermarket, does not pick the supermarket for his first tantrum. Mine picked the park. If it is going to happen, the first one really could be in the market.

But your point is still valid.


On top of that, it has been shown that spanking loses its effectiveness due to extinction. Might as well learn better techniques.This is an important point. If you use spanking/hitting fear to control children, they have less opportunity to learn to behave for the right reasons.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Wait, so the fact that several self-selected groups exhibit the same phenomenon shows that the self-selection is not a factor? How does replicating a methodological problem remedy it?It's a basic tenet of science that research results must be repeatable. The idea is when multiple researchers get similar results with different research methodologies, the results are more likely to be reliable.

You are making up the self selection charge here. If you believe that is true, then look at a few of the studies and show us the methodology flaws.

[AvalonXQ]

You are making up the self selection charge here. If you believe that is true, then look at a few of the studies and show us the methodology flaws.

Are you asserting that even one of the studies does not use self-selection? If so, can you point me to it?

[Skeptic Ginger]

But that's the whole point - you have no evidence that it is actually harmful if used rarely. Round and round the mulberry bush the same comments get repeated....

It's unnecessary. I did not claim rare spanking/hitting events were going to harm a child.

1) There is some evidence some spanking is harmful.
2) There are demonstrated effective parenting techniques which do not involve spanking.
3) There is no demonstrated benefit in spanking over using the other effective techniques EXCEPT the techniques involve parents needing to LEARN them.
4) I advocate teaching parents non-violent parenting techniques.
5) I do not advocate laying a guilt trip on parents who spank/hit their children because those parents have not learned better parenting techniques.
6) I sincerely doubt that rare spanking/hitting in an otherwise loving home has any detrimental effect on the child. Children are very forgiving of their parents' flaws.
7) That still doesn't change what I believe about the fact spanking/hitting is unnecessary.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ginger, any luck linking me to that randomized study?Not until you cite a few studies and give us your critique of their methodologies.

[Dr. Keith]

That said,
:rolleyes: to the "if you're close enough to spank her you're close enough to hug her" idea. Really.:rolleyes:

Hey I see what you did there. Well played!

By "hug" I really meant "restrain against your torso with your arms," but then you probably caught that. Really though, does it make sense that you can stop a child by spanking them?

[Dr. Keith]

But that's the whole point - you have no evidence that it is actually harmful if used rarely.

More importantly, there is no evidence that it is ever harmless.

More importantly, there is no evidence that it is ever useful.

More importantly, there is no evidence that it is ever the most effective technique.

++++++++++

Take your pick of the above. The first person who can find a peer reviewed study proving any of the three statements above wrong gets to spank me. Twice if you're good at it!

[Dr. Keith]

Round and round the mulberry bush the same comments get repeated....

It's unnecessary. I did not claim rare spanking/hitting events were going to harm a child.

1) There is some evidence some spanking is harmful.
2) There are demonstrated effective parenting techniques which do not involve spanking.
3) There is no demonstrated benefit in spanking over using the other effective techniques EXCEPT the techniques involve parents needing to LEARN them.
4) I advocate teaching parents non-violent parenting techniques.
5) I do not advocate laying a guilt trip on parents who spank/hit their children because those parents have not learned better parenting techniques.
6) I sincerely doubt that rare spanking/hitting in an otherwise loving home has any detrimental effect on the child. Children are very forgiving of their parents' flaws.
7) That still doesn't change what I believe about the fact spanking/hitting is unnecessary.

Your posts are better than mine. I try too hard to get a little turn of phrase, or pithy line, in while you stick to the facts in a way that I really admire. Honestly.

Do you mind if I just quote you with big arrows pointing up?

Also, where can I get some big arrows?

[AvalonXQ]

Not until you cite a few studies and give us your critique of their methodologies.

Okay, here's my critique: every study that has been listed on this thread, and every study I have ever read on this issue, has allowed the parent to decide whether or not to spank. Therefore, those studies don't tell us what effect it would have on the kid of a parent who would have spanked refrains from spanking, or if a parent who would have refrained spanks.
The very existence of self-selection eliminates the possibility of controlling for all confounding factors.
And you seem completely unwilling to either accept or refute the criticism that the numerous studies you rely on are uniformly flawed in this way.

[StanBearclaw]

I'm going to use CP at least once, because I want to be able to say to my kid,

"Son, you done wrong. Now go outside and cut me a switch."

[Jeff Corey]

Are you asserting that even one of the studies does not use self-selection? If so, can you point me to it?

That's not a fair criticism. No study that required that parents be randomly assigned to either a group that requided them to use aversive punishment or a group that used extinction, time out, and DRO to control behavioral excesses in their children could ever be approved by any institutional ethics committee and would not be published by any journal which requires such approval.
Thus we are left with ex post facto evidence, which is a more accurate term than "self selecting" .
No true experiment is ethically possible. So we glean such evidence as is available. B. F. Skinner came to the conclusion over 50 years ago that aversive control was a bad idea, and modern behavior analysis texts point out that the side effects of aversive punishment include fear of the punishing party, escape and avoidance of same and a tendency to model that practice.
And now, for an anecdote.
I had a friend years ago when all our kids were preteens and teens. I only recall spanking both my kids once. He was a frequent practioner of physical punishment and criticised me for not using it. A few years later, when his son was 17, on the wrestling team and much stronger than he was, he attempted to admonish his son for coming home drunk at 2AM. His son then proceeded to danglehim over the balcony over the living room. The other son got in serious trouble for attacking neighborhood kids with a 2X4 because they were teasing him.
Just sayin'.

[Darth Rotor]

I am pretty sure that my tendency to fight had a great deal more to do with me fighting with my older brother, time after time, than any of the few spankings I got from Mom or Dad.

We fought about everything, and really didn't stop with the scrapping until well into high school. We also played together and did things together for most of our growing up lives.

He's my best friend for life, still.

In a lot of ways, I am closer to him than my wife of twenty one years, though in others she is closer. My brother had a thirty year head start on her, so I think it's fair.

Do the studies include sibling relationships in this violence index? Is family size controlled for? Presence of two parents? Extended family?

DR

[Redtail]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/15/AR2010041505964.html?g=0

In an era when students talk back to teachers, skip class and wear ever-more-risque clothing to school, one central Texas city has hit upon a deceptively simple solution: Bring back the paddle.

Who would have thought Texas would be one of the states to disagree?

[Brian-M]

More importantly, there is no evidence that it is ever harmless.

There is no evidence that rare, infrequent spankings are harmful either. No studies have been done on that, no evidence either way. That statement is clearly a scare tactic, and sounds exactly like something you can hear from people condemning things like cell phone radiation and MMR vaccines.

More importantly, there is no evidence that it is ever useful.

It's demonstrably useful, both as a deterrent and negative reinforcement.

More importantly, there is no evidence that it is ever the most effective technique.

There is no evidence that it is not ever the most useful technique. And simply because a technique is not the most effective available is not necessarily a reason not to employ it.

(I'm not condoning spanking here. Just trying to put your blanket-condemnation of all forms of spanking into a more rational perspective.)

[Ron Webb]

Which is great, except why use spanking/hitting at all if there are demonstrated methods which work just as well?

In the first place, because I don't find social science research especially convincing at the best of times, and this is a prime example. If the best we can do is self-selected samples, then it is impossible to conclude anything with certainty. And yet proponents with particular agendas routinely make categorical statements such as yours above, based on studies that would be considered flimsy at best in most other sciences.

In the second place, because even if the studies were rock-solid, I don't believe in a "one size fits all" approach to discipline. There is no way you can claim that any method or subset of methods is uniformly better than any other. Sure, you can make statistical comparisons which will show that in general one method is more effective than another, but you can't show that it is always the best, for every parent and every child in every situation. I think we need to rely on parents to make that judgement.

There is excellent scientific evidence to show that punishment is an effective way to control behaviour, not just in humans but in a myriad of other species (where we can do real science without relying on things like self-selected samples). It may not always (or even often) be the best way, but sometimes it might be. If all else fails -- and all else does sometimes fail, as every parent knows -- and if the matter is vitally important, I wouldn't want to deprive a parent of this last resort. Parenting is tough enough as it is.

[Jeff Corey]

..There is excellent scientific evidence to show that punishment is an effective way to control behaviour, not just in humans but in a myriad of other species(where we can do real science without relying on things like self-selected samples)
I would like to see some references on that dubious claim. I think you are wrong.

[manofthesea]

I'm going to use CP at least once...

They'll never forget that one time. (a western raised child that is)

I think that CP is purely an emotional reaction to a perceived wrong. Better to take a timeout yourself and deal with any punishment in a purely rational manner. (Good luck)

Let me add that I think that schools and society in general should never take a draconian approach to enforcement of any laws or regulations. To allow the problem of disobedience to grow is the fault of schools and government taking an extremely liberal approach to laws of civility. It is not the fault of children who have basically been taught to push the extremes of civil behavior.

[kellyb]

You are missing the study outcomes.

Care to restate your reasoning here in light of the study outcomes showing spanking increases aggression in kids?

It doesn't necessarily show that, though. I don't have access to the fulltexts, but in the Reuters interview the researchers were very careful in their wording to not misrepresent the findings. They know there are potential (non-outlandish, but rather quite plausible) confounding factors in there still (like parental sub-groups who spank only because they have unusually naturally aggro kids):

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63B2XR20100412

Although the new study doesn't prove that corporal punishment causes aggression by itself, it shows that the link remains even after excluding a broad range of possible explanations.

"That is really a key point that sets the study apart," said Catherine A. Taylor, of Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine in New Orleans, who led the research, published in the journal Pediatrics.

"Causality is extremely difficult to prove," Taylor told Reuters Health. Still, she added, "the evidence is at a point where we want to encourage parents to use techniques other than spanking that can actually lower children's risk for being more aggressive."


Graham-Bermann, of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, recently chaired an American Psychological Association division task force that reviewed the research on corporal punishment.

She said spanking -- defined as open-handed hitting that does not injure the child -- makes children do what they're told in the short term, but doesn't work in the long term and may in fact be harmful.

There are lots of great reasons to encourage non-violent parenting. We don't need to be all like "It is a FACT that spanking makes kids aggressive" when the research doesn't "prove" it to such an extent (yet?).

[Beth]

I would guess that is pretty rare.

Actually, at least back in the sixties when I was growing up, that was closer to the norm than the experience you've described.


More importantly, there is no evidence that it is ever harmless. As has been pointed out in the seeds of destruction thread, it's not possible to prove something is harmless. The best you can do is establish that it's not known to be harmful. That statement can certainly be made about mild spanking of small children when it is no more frequent than twice a month.
More importantly, there is no evidence that it is ever useful. That's simply not true. If it didn't have some benefits, it would not be a widely used method the world over and through out most of history.

In the first place, because I don't find social science research especially convincing at the best of times, and this is a prime example. Excellent post. Welcome to the forum!

[thaiboxerken]

Is it possible that spanking a child only teaches the child that might makes right?

[thaiboxerken]

That's simply not true. If it didn't have some benefits, it would not be a widely used method the world over and through out most of history.


Can you show that it has any benefits for the child being punished? Sure, it can benefit a parent's frustration to take it out on the child, but I think this is a bad thing.

Also, do you not realize that you are appealing to tradition here? Just because something has been done doesn't mean it actually serves a good purpose or, in this case, benefits children.

[kellyb]

Hey I see what you did there. Well played!

By "hug" I really meant "restrain against your torso with your arms," but then you probably caught that. Really though, does it make sense that you can stop a child by spanking them?

No, I don't think either of my kids would have stopped running in response to being hit. My "spirited" kid would have just taken the hit as a cue to just run faster probably, and my mellow kid just doesn't run, ever.

Maybe my tantrumer/runner/hellion would have responded to spanking. I'll never know. All I know is that around age 4 he started responding to positive and negative consequences, and before that, nothing "worked". Once he was 4, I started wondering if he needed to see a psychologist eventually, and devised an elaborate series of rewards and negative consequences to bring him in line, as a "last stop before a dx" measure. And it worked. Thank god.

But truth be told, I do wonder if we all (kid included) might have been saved a lot of heartache if we had just spanked him a few times.

[Brian-M]

Is it possible that spanking a child only teaches the child that might makes right?


No. Consistently applied, it also teaches teaches the child that being caught breaking the rules results in personal suffering. Therefore the child will lean to try and avoid being caught breaking the rules in future.

(But that doesn't necessarily mean they'll stop breaking the rules altogether.)

[thaiboxerken]

No. Consistently applied, it also teaches teaches the child that being caught breaking the rules results in personal suffering. Therefore the child will lean to try and avoid being caught breaking the rules in future.

(But that doesn't necessarily mean they'll stop breaking the rules altogether.)

Or that the kid CAN break the rules, once he's big enough to be the doling out the punishment. It seems to me that it's not really "teaching" much, more than it's enforcing an Alpha mentality.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Okay, here's my critique: every study that has been listed on this thread, and every study I have ever read on this issue, has allowed the parent to decide whether or not to spank. Therefore, those studies don't tell us what effect it would have on the kid of a parent who would have spanked refrains from spanking, or if a parent who would have refrained spanks.
The very existence of self-selection eliminates the possibility of controlling for all confounding factors.
And you seem completely unwilling to either accept or refute the criticism that the numerous studies you rely on are uniformly flawed in this way.Claiming people are unwilling to refute your unsupported opinion is the classic lazy ass answer. It's fine if you don't want to support your unqualified opinion, but you don't impress anyone with the fake claim it is the other person unwilling to look at the actual research here. People see right through that bull.



It's actually quite easy to find studies that don't rely at all on studies of parental spanking/hitting. I take it you haven't looked at the studies comparing states that allow corporal punishment in schools with states that do not? Gonorrhea, the high school dropout rate, and violent crime are all greater in states that let teachers spank/hit kids.

Facts vs. Opinion: School Corporal Punishment (http://www.nospank.net/sb-14.htm)The relationship of school corporal punishment to shooting deaths in schools, violence against teachers, school graduation rates and ACT scores, and adult incarceration...

The Center for Effective Discipline is frequently asked to respond to statements from pro-paddlers such as the following:

1. "If we still had paddling, kids wouldn’t be shooting one another in schools."
2. "Since paddling was taken out of schools, kids have gotten more violent and aggressive toward teachers."
3. "Since paddling was taken out of schools, kids have gotten lazy and are falling behind in academics."
4. "If kids were paddled more they wouldn’t end up in jail as adults."
The following research-based evidence compiled by the Center for Effective Discipline (link below) shows that the above statements cannot be supported.

1. Paddling and School Shootings
Fact: Studies show significantly more fatal school shootings took place in states that allow corporal punishment in schools.
2. Paddling and Violence Against Teachers
Fact: Paddling is declining. Violence against teachers is declining in U.S. public schools. The decline of paddling in U.S. public schools is correlated with a decline in violence against teachers.
3. Paddling and ACT Scores and Graduation Rates
Fact: Non-paddling states have higher ACT scores and higher graduation rates.
4. Paddling and Adult Incarceration
Fact: School corporal punishment is associated with higher incarceration rates of the adult population. Eight of the top ten paddling states are in the top ten states with the highest incarceration rates.

Paddling States v. Non-Paddling States: A National Academic Comparison (http://www.nospank.net/charles5.htm)Of the paddling states listed, those that are in the "top ten" of 23 states that permit the practice are in bold type. Notice the high-paddling states cluster toward the bottom of the pile in the company of the worst performers academically. None of this is to say paddling causes poor performance or lower graduation rates, but it must be obvious even to the casual observer that paddling does not correlate to academic excellence.


Profile of the Top-Ten School-Paddling States (http://www.nospank.net/jefchrls.htm)GONORRHEA [dropout rate] VIOLENT CRIME are all positively correlated with legal school corporal punishment.


CORRELATION BETWEEN HIGH RATES OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND SOCIAL PATHOLOGIES (http://www.nospank.net/correlationstudy.htm)Of the states with the ten highest murder rates in the United States, educators paddle children in eight of them….

Of the states with the ten lowest murder rates in the nation, educators paddle children in one of them.

Of the ten states with the highest percentage of the population in prison, educators paddle children in nine of them.

Of the ten states with the lowest percentage of the population in prison, educators do not paddle children in any of them.

Of the ten worst states in the United States in which to raise children, as measured by the condition of children index, educators paddle children in all ten of them.

Of the ten best states in the United States in which to raise children, as measured by the condition of children index, educators do not paddle children in any of them.

Of the states in the bottom ten percent* in terms of average proficiency in math, educators paddle children in all of them.

Of the states in the top ten percent* in terms of average proficiency in math, educators paddle children in one of them.

Of the states with the ten worst high school completion rates, educators paddle children in seven of them.

Of the states with the ten best high school completion rates, educators paddle children in one of them.

Of the ten states in the United States with the highest percentage of births to unwed mothers, educators paddle children in nine of them.

Of the ten states in the United States with the lowest percentage of births to unwed mothers, educators paddle children in two of them.It's all just correlation and there was also evidence school spanking was associated with poor states and states with better standard of living were more likely to ban school spanking. So you are welcome to blame it all on poverty.

But that leaves you with the dilemma, rich parents don't need to spank, and the kids do fine. Poor parents spank and the kids do poorly. Whether it is the poverty of the spanking, the evidence is clear spanking isn't necessary.



There are several important papers on the issue. Several major US public policy agencies, the UN and the Academy of Pediatrics all have position papers supporting an end to spanking/hitting children.

THE CASE AGAINST CORPORAL PUNISHMENT OF CHILDREN Converging Evidence From Social Science Research and International Human Rights Law and Implications for U.S. Public Policy (http://www.nospank.net/Gershoff%20%20Bitensky%20on%20Corporal%20Punishmen t%20(2007).pdf)


Report on Physical Punishment in the United States: What Research Tells Us About Its Effects on Children (http://www.nospank.net/gershoff.pdf)


The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly opposes striking a child (http://www.nospank.net/aap4-b.htm)Spanking may relieve a parent's frustration for the moment and extinguish the undesirable behavior for a brief time. But it is the least effective way to discipline.
It is harmful emotionally to both parent and child. Not only can it result in physical harm, but it teaches children that violence is an acceptable way to discipline or express anger. While stopping the behavior temporarily, it does not teach alternative behavior. It also interferes with the development of trust, a sense of security, and effective communication. (Spanking often becomes the method of communication.) It also may cause emotional pain and resentment.


Regarding the little bit of spanking is OK argument being made in the thread:
A little bit of violence is not acceptable
By Jaap E. Doek, Chairperson, United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2006
SOURCE: "Ending legalized violence against children -- Global Report 2006" by Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children. (http://www.nospank.net/doek.htm)One hundred and ninety two governments have accepted an obligation to take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of violence (article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child).

[Skeptic Ginger]

In the first place, because I don't find social science research especially convincing at the best of times, and this is a prime example. If the best we can do is self-selected samples, then it is impossible to conclude anything with certainty. And yet proponents with particular agendas routinely make categorical statements such as yours above, based on studies that would be considered flimsy at best in most other sciences.

In the second place, because even if the studies were rock-solid, I don't believe in a "one size fits all" approach to discipline. There is no way you can claim that any method or subset of methods is uniformly better than any other. Sure, you can make statistical comparisons which will show that in general one method is more effective than another, but you can't show that it is always the best, for every parent and every child in every situation. I think we need to rely on parents to make that judgement.

There is excellent scientific evidence to show that punishment is an effective way to control behaviour, not just in humans but in a myriad of other species (where we can do real science without relying on things like self-selected samples). It may not always (or even often) be the best way, but sometimes it might be. If all else fails -- and all else does sometimes fail, as every parent knows -- and if the matter is vitally important, I wouldn't want to deprive a parent of this last resort. Parenting is tough enough as it is.It's really unfortunate that you dismiss research in child rearing with the broad brush implying no "social science research" has any validity.

It's amazing, this being the second thread I've spent time on this topic in, how many people dismiss the success of many many parents who raised beautifully behaved children without ever spanking/hitting them.

It's amazing the resistance to learning something new about raising children and instead sticking to a needless practice.

I can't help you. You are more interested in defending your belief that non-hitting parents couldn't manage certain children, when they do it all the time.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
I think that CP is purely an emotional reaction to a perceived wrong. Better to take a timeout yourself and deal with any punishment in a purely rational manner. (Good luck)....I also have a very hard time believing parents calmly decide to carefully administer a 'spanking' yadda yadda. Surely 99% of the time parents spank it's accompanied by the parent being frustrated the child isn't responding to being controlled.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It doesn't necessarily show that, though. I don't have access to the fulltexts, but in the Reuters interview the researchers were very careful in their wording to not misrepresent the findings. They know there are potential (non-outlandish, but rather quite plausible) confounding factors in there still (like parental sub-groups who spank only because they have unusually naturally aggro kids):

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63B2XR20100412

There are lots of great reasons to encourage non-violent parenting. We don't need to be all like "It is a FACT that spanking makes kids aggressive" when the research doesn't "prove" it to such an extent (yet?).You can find this in the results of any single study. But the cumulative body of evidence is overwhelmingly convincing.

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
That's simply not true. If it didn't have some benefits, it would not be a widely used method the world over and through out most of history. ...Without claiming to speak for Dr K, I'd say he's describing "never necessary", as opposed to "never useful". And if it isn't ever necessary, then why use it?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Can you show that it has any benefits for the child being punished? ....That's a good point. I can guess the answer, though.

[Skeptic Ginger]

No. Consistently applied, it also teaches teaches the child that being caught breaking the rules results in personal suffering. Therefore the child will lean to try and avoid being caught breaking the rules in future.

(But that doesn't necessarily mean they'll stop breaking the rules altogether.)No, it means they'll lean how not to get caught. ;)

This is an important point, however. When consequences are relative to the behavior, children learn the actual consequences of behavior, not artificial consequences.

When you use positive discipline, kids learn to behave because it is rewarding. When you use punishment, all they learn is avoiding getting caught. I'm not talking about bribes, because I can see people will misunderstand what I've said so let me elaborate a bit more.

Say a young child is behaving badly, acting out. Rather than teaching that child such behavior results in getting hit, you remove the child and the lesson is, when you behave badly people don't want to be around you. That is a natural consequence while spanking is not.

You have to follow it up with positive attention when the child is behaving. Giving positive attention is not always easy for all parents.

[Uncayimmy]

Say a young child is behaving badly, acting out. Rather than teaching that child such behavior results in getting hit, you remove the child and the lesson is, when you behave badly people don't want to be around you. That is a natural consequence while spanking is not.

My first wife and high school sweetheart, a wonderful lady, had a father who used ostracism as a form of discipline. He would sometimes ignore her for a day or more when she had misbehaved. There was no corporal punishment in that house at all. In fact, he almost never raised his voice. His method of dealing with discipline was, "when you behave badly people don't want to be around you."

So, we'd been married a few years when after one of our rare heated arguments, she laid into to me for simply walking away. This really pissed her off, and she demanded to know why I would do such a horrible thing to her. Puzzled, I explained that I was losing my temper and didn't want to be mean to her.

"Like what? What would you do?"

"Yell. Call you a nasty name."

"Like what?"

"I wanted to call you a selfish *********** bitch."

"So call me that!"

"No. You're my wife. I don't want to say something like that to my wife, even if it is in anger. I'd rather walk away and cool off. That's not how you treat someone you love."

"I'd rather you do that than walk away. I can deal with being called names, and I can deal with you yelling. I can't deal with you walking away."

This, of course, led to a conversation where I learned just how much her father's method of discipline ********** her up. The worst possible thing I could do to her (in her eyes) was seemingly ignore her. It explained a lot of her behavior, much of it attention seeking. She succeeded as a school teacher mostly because she was good at keeping the attention of students. She was also an exhibitionist of sorts (yes, I mean with her fantastic body).

After our amicable split nearly 14 years after our first date, her exploits with seeking attention from men went, ahem, rather wild. She very quickly ended up in a relationship with a man who seems to be as controlling as her father was using these methods. Soon thereafter she contacted all of our old friends and told them that she would not be contacting them ever again. It's been 10 years, and nobody has heard from her. It's the ultimate ignore, and I hardly consider it healthy.

I bring this up because it seems to be generally accepted without evidence that the "when you behave badly people don't want to be around you" approach is always the proper course of action. It's not that simple. Every form of behavior modification from a parent is fraught with potential harm. Finding what works in each situation for each child as an individual is key.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

In the first place, because I don't find social science research especially convincing at the best of times, and this is a prime example....

....There is excellent scientific evidence to show that punishment is an effective way to control behaviour, not just in humans but in a myriad of other species (where we can do real science without relying on things like self-selected samples).

I'd like to second Jeff Corey's request for references on the second paragraph.

It would also seem that you do find social science research convincing when it confirms your prejudices.

[Uncayimmy]

I'd like to second Jeff Corey's request for references on the second paragraph..

Does aversion therapy count? How about shock collars for dogs? How about Vadim Bolshakov's study where he shocked rats when they heard a certain sound, and their reaction lasted a lifetime? How about basic condition response to stimulus?

Are you really arguing that physical pain/punishment does not modify behavior? To me its a cornerstone of evolution. A child is not naturally afraid of a bee until he gets stung. He wants to touch a hot pan until he learns that it burns. I'm not saying that corporal punishment is the best approach to child rearing, but I'm not going to ignore that it can have a dramatic effect on people.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

As a young child, an open-handed spanking was administered under precisely defined conditions when the authority figure was calm (not angry) and accompanied by a comprehended explanation. The spanking was never long or injurious, and the defined conditions dwindled to zero as I became more able to understand and respond to other consequences.
All consequences (the word "punishment" was never used) were tightly correlated to my behavior. No action was ever taken against me on the basis of emotion or parental whim; always as a predefined response to explicit rules.
My first response to stress is to withdraw emotion and apply rational analysis. As an adult, I have learned the importance of emotion itself as an informational tool for analysis and have learned not to completely withdraw it.

Spot on. Our first rule (my wife and I) is that if one of us is angry, the other one takes over the punishment.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

The evidence supports this is a false conclusion. You are trying to say some children require spanking/hitting.

What the evidence shows is there are equally effective means of child rearing that while they do involve LEARNING those skills, they do not involve spanking/hitting as a means of control or behavior management.

The fact you dismiss these techniques as, "reasoning with the child" suggests you are unaware of the broad range of non-violent techniques which have been shown to work.

Sigh. We've had this argument before. Just because I don't include a long list of parenting techniques does not mean I'm not aware of them (I just have one more tool in my tool-kit than you do ;o). Last time we debated this you adopted an extremely patronising attitude which you've so far avoided this time - please don't slip down that road again as it really doesn't help your argument.

I have stated that I have an open mind on the topic and, if you have read my previous posts you will be aware that smacking is an extremely rare event in our household. At the moment, I still believe that on the occasions used it was the best technique to get a message across considering all the circumstances in play at the time. That does not necessarily mean it is the best technique in an ideal world, in ideal circumstances. I am also comfortable in the notion that I might be wrong - though I don't worry overly about it as all my personal experience and those of my peer group, suggests that smacking in the way we do is certainly not harmful to our children's development (and my kids are about as non-violent as any I've ever encountered) - though yes, there may have been an even better way and I'm happy to debate that and look at such studies as started this thread. The study isn't perfect though and doesn't match the way I and other parents smack their children.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Oh and it might put your mind at rest to know that when my son threw a mega tantrum during a family day out last month, I spent over an hour (to the considerable detriment of our day out) using such non-smacking techniques to bring his behaviour back into line - because that was, in my judgement, the best approach in the particular circumstances at play that day.

I have more fingers than necessary to count the number of times my kids have been smacked - and I have four kids.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

...I had a friend years ago when all our kids were preteens and teens. I only recall spanking both my kids once. He was a frequent practioner of physical punishment and criticised me for not using it. A few years later, when his son was 17, on the wrestling team and much stronger than he was, he attempted to admonish his son for coming home drunk at 2AM. His son then proceeded to danglehim over the balcony over the living room. The other son got in serious trouble for attacking neighborhood kids with a 2X4 because they were teasing him.
Just sayin'.

I think you may be inadvertently making my case for me...

I don't believe anyone is arguing for frequent use of smacking - that's why we have a problem with the study. I actually tend to agree with the studies conclusions - but it doesn't match (arguably) responsible use of corporal punishment. I have no problem accepting the idea that frequent use of smacking (especially as kids get older) could cause 'might is right' or aggressive behaviour.

[Dancing David]

"Tail-end" where you were, maybe. Where I was, the tail end of of corporal punishment in Catholic school was in the mid 70s.

We had a paddle at a public school in 1973, he used it too.

[Dancing David]

Oh and it might put your mind at rest to know that when my son threw a mega tantrum during a family day out last month, I spent over an hour (to the considerable detriment of our day out) using such non-smacking techniques to bring his behaviour back into line - because that was, in my judgement, the best approach in the particular circumstances at play that day.

I have more fingers than necessary to count the number of times my kids have been smacked - and I have four kids.

That is a tough one, the best is to isolate them and let them simmer down on their own, but public places can be very bad for that.

[Dancing David]

Does aversion therapy count? How about shock collars for dogs? How about Vadim Bolshakov's study where he shocked rats when they heard a certain sound, and their reaction lasted a lifetime? How about basic condition response to stimulus?

Are you really arguing that physical pain/punishment does not modify behavior? To me its a cornerstone of evolution. A child is not naturally afraid of a bee until he gets stung. He wants to touch a hot pan until he learns that it burns. I'm not saying that corporal punishment is the best approach to child rearing, but I'm not going to ignore that it can have a dramatic effect on people.

Um the issue is what is the situation that the child will associate with the punishment, Often the two are not relate dto the actual 'offense'

Also most , if not all, animal trainers do not use punishment.

[Dancing David]

It seems that the studies being used against spanking really only support the following supposition:
"The kids who parents choose to spank exhibit more violent behavior over time than the kids who parents choose not to spank."

Nice summary. I again go for the behavioral model.

[Dancing David]

I would guess that is pretty rare. My dad used to spank my brother and I only when he was angry. If he felt we needed spanking and wasn't particularly angry, he'd rile himself up the necessary amount before beginning. If we cried during the spanking, he'd ramp up the intensity and continue until we stopped crying. All that did stop when I was only six years old and my brother five, but the threat continued for a few years after that.

So, my guess is you associated spanking with your father's anger, not the behavior that allegedly precipitated the spanking.

[Dancing David]

There is excellent scientific evidence to show that punishment is an effective way to control behaviour, not just in humans but in a myriad of other species (where we can do real science without relying on things like self-selected samples). It may not always (or even often) be the best way, but sometimes it might be. If all else fails -- and all else does sometimes fail, as every parent knows -- and if the matter is vitally important, I wouldn't want to deprive a parent of this last resort. Parenting is tough enough as it is.

And that evidence is?

[Dancing David]

No. Consistently applied, it also teaches teaches the child that being caught breaking the rules results in personal suffering. Therefore the child will lean to try and avoid being caught breaking the rules in future.

(But that doesn't necessarily mean they'll stop breaking the rules altogether.)

Isn't that saying the same thing, "You follow my rules or I will hit you?"

The problem I have with corporal punishment are many:

1. It is almost never consistent and related more to the parent's emotional state. that si what the child will associate the punishment with.
2. It is almost never timely, in that usally there is a lot of talking and ranting. That is also what the punishment will be associated with.
3. It is usually disproportionate to the 'offense' and capricious in application.

4. There is plenty of evidence that there are betterw ays to train and understand animals behavior than the use of punishment. IE Most dog trainers and animals trainers avoid it.

[Beth]

But truth be told, I do wonder if we all (kid included) might have been saved a lot of heartache if we had just spanked him a few times.

Thanks. I have sometimes wondered the same thing. While I committed to never spanking before the birth of our oldest, having now raised two kids well past the age where spanking would have been used, I'm no longer so certain that it should never be used.

[Dancing David]

My first wife and high school sweetheart, a wonderful lady, had a father who used ostracism as a form of discipline. He would sometimes ignore her for a day or more when she had misbehaved. There was no corporal punishment in that house at all. In fact, he almost never raised his voice. His method of dealing with discipline was, "when you behave badly people don't want to be around you."


Someone may have misspoke here, the lesson in properly used time out is:
1. I will not give you the usual 'pay off' for your behavior.
2. I will hopefully give you less attention.
3. You will not get the positive rewards you want until you comply with expectation.
4. I will not allow you to spin my emotions like a puppet master.

That sort of ostracism is not really effective, it has all sorts of reasons, mainly that it will not be associated with the precipitating event. And n many ways ostracism is abusive.

[Modified]

So, my guess is you associated spanking with your father's anger, not the behavior that allegedly precipitated the spanking.

No, I think we believed that the anger and the spanking was the direct result of our actions. I don't think at four or five years old you really have the concept of "dad is having a bad day and taking it out on you". We always thought is was because of something we did, but we were never sure in advance which actions would result in spanking, which in the alternate punishment (confinement to our room), and which in no punishment at all. It all seemed rather arbitrary, and we had the feeling that no matter what we did, at some point we'd make an innocent mistake and be spanked for it. As my mom tells the story (not to me), when my dad overdid it one time and the spanking was bordering on a beating, she jumped on top of him to stop it, and told him if he ever hit us again she'd leave him; and that was pretty much the end of it.

[luchog]

Isn't that saying the same thing, "You follow my rules or I will hit you?"

How is that different from any other action substituted for "hit"?

That sort of ostracism is not really effective, it has all sorts of reasons, mainly that it will not be associated with the precipitating event. And n many ways ostracism is abusive.
The point is so very close there, and yet so many people miss it.

Any form of punishment/correction can be abusive. People are far too focussed on the specific actions/methods, and not enough on the context. How a corrective action is applied is far, far more important than what that action is (short of physical injury). Too many people also assume that children are effectively identical, that what works for one child will work for another. There is far too much evidence out there that this is not true. Punishments that worked very effectively on me (taking my books away, additional chores, etc.) were completely and totally ineffective on my brother, and less effective on my sister.

Another personal anecdote. A woman I dated briefly, A_, grew up with two parents who were adherence of strict non-violence. Her father was best described as aloof, bordering on emotionless, the stereotype of the detached intellectual; and his preferred method of discipline was a similar sort of ostracism/shunning. Her mother, by contrast, was a highly emotional person. Her preferred method of discipline varied depending on whatever was trendy in the radical lefist fringe at the time; but always included protracted lectures, and emotional manipulation. (Her mother was also a serious fluff-brain, but that's a different issue.)

By the time this girl was an adult, she was a poster-child for Borderline Personality Disorder. When I first got involved with her (having met her very briefly in passing a few times over the previous couple years), she was on probation for assaulting a police officer during a domestic disturbance, which involved her assaulting her boyfriend of the time. Her typical reaction to any situation where she didn't get her way was with screaming and physical violence. She particularly liked throwing things. Mostly sharp or fragile things. Needless to say, we didn't date for very long.

Again, my point in this illustration is that the most important part of any discipline is the application, not the method. Emotional and psychological abuse are every bit as damaging as physical abuse; and harder to heal. Non-corporal discipline cannot even remotely guarantee non-violent behaviour.

[jsfisher]

It's actually quite easy to find studies that don't rely at all on studies of parental spanking/hitting....


Do you have any references that aren't so clearly agenda-driven as nospank.net?

[Ron Webb]

I would like to see some references on that dubious claim [that punishment is an effective way to control behaviour]. I think you are wrong.

The effectiveness of positive punishment as a technique of behaviour modification was taught in my introductory psychology class in university, ages ago. It seemed so obvious to all of us students that I don't think it even occurred to us that it needed supporting evidence. Nonetheless, I do recall the professor referring to animal experiments showing its effectiveness in various species.

So in response to your challenge, echoed by several others, I went surfing the 'Net to find some of those animal experiments. I was surprised that I could find almost nothing, either favourable or unfavourable, concerning the effectiveness of punishment per se, in animals or humans. I'm not sure why that is, but I wonder if behaviour modification techniques are so well established by now that any literature supporting it is too old to be available digitally. The use of both rewards (typically food pellets) and punishments (typically electric shocks) to condition various behaviours in animals is widespread, but I can find no research comparing or evaluating the two approaches.

For what its worth, I did find this:
Punishment has the advantage of being effective over the long term and can change behaviour permanently (Mazur, 2002, Lerman & Vorndran, 2002). Punishment can also create a faster decrease in the incidents of unwanted events than using reinforcement techniques, which is of benefit when the behaviour to be changed may result in self-injury or injury to others (Lerman & Vorndran, 2002).

Reported studies have found that using punishment as a behaviour modification technique may also increase the incidents of wanted behaviours (Lerman & Vorndran, 2002, Johnston, 2006). The use of punishment is also considered important when it is difficult or impossible to identify the reinforcers that are contributing to the ongoing problematic behaviour (Lerman & Vorndran, 2002).

(link: "behavioural-therapy.suite101.com/article.cfm/using_punishment_in_behaviour_modification")

The author, Tracey Lloyd, cites several sources for her statements, but since I have no idea who she is or what suite101.com is, I won't claim that it is authoritative. It does summarize fairly well what I remember from university, however.

If anyone has any references to show that punishment is not an effective way to control behaviour I would be interested (and surprised) to read them. But please don't bother to cite anything to show that excessive punishment is harmful, or that punishment might have other undesirable consequences. I think we all agree that punishment is at best a last resort.

[Jeff Corey]

The effectiveness of positive punishment as a technique of behaviour modification was taught in my introductory psychology class in university, ages ago. It seemed so obvious to all of us students that I don't think it even occurred to us that it needed supporting evidence. Nonetheless, I do recall the professor referring to animal experiments showing its effectiveness in various species.

So in response to your challenge, echoed by several others, I went surfing the 'Net to find some of those animal experiments. I was surprised that I could find almost nothing, either favourable or unfavourable, concerning the effectiveness of punishment per se, in animals or humans. I'm not sure why that is, but I wonder if behaviour modification techniques are so well established by now that any literature supporting it is too old to be available digitally. The use of both rewards (typically food pellets) and punishments (typically electric shocks) to condition various behaviours in animals is widespread, but I can find no research comparing or evaluating the two approaches.

For what its worth, I did find this:


The author, Tracey Lloyd, cites several sources for her statements, but since I have no idea who she is or what suite101.com is, I won't claim that it is authoritative. It does summarize fairly well what I remember from university, however.

If anyone has any references to show that punishment is not an effective way to control behaviour I would be interested (and surprised) to read them. But please don't bother to cite anything to show that excessive punishment is harmful, or that punishment might have other undesirable consequences. I think we all agree that punishment is at best a last resort.

I notice you didn't quote this part of Lloyd's review:
Disadvantages of punishment include the potential for punishment-elicited aggression, poor transference to settings outside the treatment room, dehumanisation and shaming of the punished individual (Lerman & Vorndran, 2002) and the potential for abuses by caregivers/therapists (Vollmer, 2002). Punishment elicited aggression has been found in animal subjects subjected to punishment (Mazur, 2002) and may create a dangerous situation for caregivers or other people and objects surrounding the punished person. The use of punishment may lead to the subject attempting to avoid the punishment and may elicit unwanted behaviours (Mazur, 2002, Spradlin, 2002).

A further disadvantage of using punishment is the potential to violate codes of ethics, statue and/or common law. This is particularly a concern when using aversive techniques with subjects who are developmentally disabled (Lohrmann-O’Rourke & Zirkel, 1998).

[Ron Webb]

[sigh] Jeff, did I not just finish saying "please don't bother to cite anything to show that excessive punishment is harmful, or that punishment might have other undesirable consequences"?? I didn't quote that part because is it not relevant. We agree on those points. Try refuting my statement that punishment is an effective way to control behaviour, instead of beating up on a straw man.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
I bring this up because it seems to be generally accepted without evidence that the "when you behave badly people don't want to be around you" approach is always the proper course of action. It's not that simple. Every form of behavior modification from a parent is fraught with potential harm. Finding what works in each situation for each child as an individual is key.For young children it is that simple. Of course there are exceptions, kids with some forms of autism might be one. It's not the absurd danger you are cautioning here, "fraught with potential harm." :rolleyes:

Parenting is fraught with potential harm. Poor parenting skills are a reality society is currently stuck with. That is all the more reason to teach parents non-violent means of discipline.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sigh. We've had this argument before. Just because I don't include a long list of parenting techniques does not mean I'm not aware of them (I just have one more tool in my tool-kit than you do ;o). Last time we debated this you adopted an extremely patronising attitude which you've so far avoided this time - please don't slip down that road again as it really doesn't help your argument.I didn't say you weren't aware of them. I said you mislabel them.

The proper description if you wanted to be accurate is, seeking natural consequences for behaviors, both good and bad. It's not simply explaining things to a child and expecting them to understand.

As for having the discussion before, yes, every time this issue comes up it leads to a debate (IMO) between the evidence spanking is unnecessary and potentially harmful, and, spanking proponents who for whatever reason can't make that parenting paradigm shift.

I have stated that I have an open mind on the topic and, if you have read my previous posts you will be aware that smacking is an extremely rare event in our household. At the moment, I still believe that on the occasions used it was the best technique to get a message across considering all the circumstances in play at the time. That does not necessarily mean it is the best technique in an ideal world, in ideal circumstances. I am also comfortable in the notion that I might be wrong - though I don't worry overly about it as all my personal experience and those of my peer group, suggests that smacking in the way we do is certainly not harmful to our children's development (and my kids are about as non-violent as any I've ever encountered) - though yes, there may have been an even better way and I'm happy to debate that and look at such studies as started this thread. The study isn't perfect though and doesn't match the way I and other parents smack their children.If it is "rare" in your household, why not just go to that next step, end the practice altogether.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh and it might put your mind at rest to know that when my son threw a mega tantrum during a family day out last month, I spent over an hour (to the considerable detriment of our day out) using such non-smacking techniques to bring his behaviour back into line - because that was, in my judgement, the best approach in the particular circumstances at play that day.

I have more fingers than necessary to count the number of times my kids have been smacked - and I have four kids.If a young child gets no reward for a tantrum, the behavior rapidly ceases and rarely recurs. Once they've gotten past rewards for the behavior, it takes longer and longer for the child to give up.

This is not an easy lesson for parents. What constitutes, "no reward"? How long do you ignore the behavior before removing the child? How do you remove the child without giving them the attention reward? Is the child ill or really hungry or tired? How do you get the endurance you need from a child if that is the case?

If it takes an hour, or if you think you need to hit the child, there probably are better alternatives you are not aware of. That doesn't mean you should have the expectation that you are supposed to know this better course of action. That's unrealistic.

Think about it. Where are parents supposed to learn parenting? It's not a skill taught in most schools. Yet parents expect themselves to be naturally good at it. I had parenting education with my nursing degree before becoming a mother and I still had to figure lots of stuff out. I had no idea my crying awake half the night 4 month old was really still hungry. When I started him on solid foods he changed overnight.


Parents should not expect to magically know everything about parenting. That's the first step. The second step is to take the time to learn, and as new stuff comes up, keep learning. The third thing is to remember, kids usually survive all sorts of parenting 'mistakes' totally unharmed. Kids are resilient and forgiving.


If your child's hour long tantrum was a one time occurrence, meh, no need to worry about it. But if tantrums are a recurring theme, I suggest some self study on the topic. There are many excellent sources of information on the Web. It's normal to not be a perfect parent, and that shouldn't bother anyone or make anyone defensive if the suggestion is made. I'm merely suggesting maybe someone has gone through the same thing and learned a successful response to whatever behavior is presenting the problem. Why reinvent the wheel? See what someone else figured out. Parents have no way of magically knowing all there is to know about parenting. If only people recognized that.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Thanks. I have sometimes wondered the same thing. While I committed to never spanking before the birth of our oldest, having now raised two kids well past the age where spanking would have been used, I'm no longer so certain that it should never be used.You may be looking at a coincidental factor and concluding a causative relationship.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do you have any references that aren't so clearly agenda-driven as nospank.net?The sources I cited were merely complied by Nospank, they didn't originate from the 'agenda'. I've done my share of citing supporting documents here. I spent considerable time doing so.

That it wasn't enough time spent in your opinion is unfortunate. I'll wager you spent all of a couple seconds looking for a reason to dismiss all the evidence compared to the couple hours I spent reading it to make sure it was more than just opinion.

[Skeptic Ginger]

[sigh] Jeff, did I not just finish saying "please don't bother to cite anything to show that excessive punishment is harmful, or that punishment might have other undesirable consequences"?? I didn't quote that part because is it not relevant. We agree on those points. Try refuting my statement that punishment is an effective way to control behaviour, instead of beating up on a straw man.

Here's the link:
http://behavioural-therapy.suite101.com/article.cfm/using_punishment_in_behaviour_modification

But what one really needs to look at here is not this guy's interpretation, what we need is to look at the sources he was summarizing. My first question is, was this about adults or children? Was it about aversion therapy or child rearing? What I bolded below answers that question. This article is not about spanking/hitting kids.

Johnston, J. M. (1991). "What can behaviour analysis learn from the aversives controversy." The Behavior Analyst, Vol 14 Iss 2, 187-196.

Johnston, J. M. (2006). “'Replacing' problem behaviour: an analysis of tactical alternatives." The Behavior Analyst, Vol 29, Iss 1, 1-11.

Lerman, D. C., & Vorndran, C. M. (2002). "On the status of knowledge for using punishment: implications for treating behaviour disorders." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Vol 35 Iss 4, 431-464.

Lohrmann-O’Rourke, S. & Zirkel, P. A. (1998). "The case law on aversive interventions for students with disabilities." Exceptional Children, Vol 65 No 1, 101-123.

Mazur, J. E. (2002). Learning and behaviour (5th ed). Upper Saddle River New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Spradlin, J. E. (2002). "Punishment: a primary process?" Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Vol 35 Iss 4, 475-477.

Thompson, R. H., Iwata, B. A., Conners, J., & Roscoe, E. M. (1999). "Effects of reinforcement for alternative behaviour during punishment of self-injury." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Vol 32, Iss 3, 317-328.

Vollmer, T. R. (2002). "Punishment happens: some comments on Lerman and Vorndran’s review." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Vol 35 Iss 4, 469-473.

[kellyb]

If a young child gets no reward for a tantrum, the behavior rapidly ceases and rarely recurs.

That's not necessarily true. Maybe for some kids, but not all.

[kellyb]

Here's the link:
http://behavioural-therapy.suite101.com/article.cfm/using_punishment_in_behaviour_modification

But what one really needs to look at here is not this guy's interpretation, what we need is to look at the sources he was summarizing. My first question is, was this about adults or children? Was it about aversion therapy or child rearing? What I bolded below answers that question. This article is not about spanking/hitting kids.

Johnston, J. M. (1991). "What can behaviour analysis learn from the aversives controversy." The Behavior Analyst, Vol 14 Iss 2, 187-196.

Johnston, J. M. (2006). “'Replacing' problem behaviour: an analysis of tactical alternatives." The Behavior Analyst, Vol 29, Iss 1, 1-11.

Lerman, D. C., & Vorndran, C. M. (2002). "On the status of knowledge for using punishment: implications for treating behaviour disorders." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Vol 35 Iss 4, 431-464.

Lohrmann-O’Rourke, S. & Zirkel, P. A. (1998). "The case law on aversive interventions for students with disabilities." Exceptional Children, Vol 65 No 1, 101-123.

Mazur, J. E. (2002). Learning and behaviour (5th ed). Upper Saddle River New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Spradlin, J. E. (2002). "Punishment: a primary process?" Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Vol 35 Iss 4, 475-477.

Thompson, R. H., Iwata, B. A., Conners, J., & Roscoe, E. M. (1999). "Effects of reinforcement for alternative behaviour during punishment of self-injury." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Vol 32, Iss 3, 317-328.

Vollmer, T. R. (2002). "Punishment happens: some comments on Lerman and Vorndran’s review." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Vol 35 Iss 4, 469-473.

Are you really arguing against all forms of punishment besides "natural consequences"?

[jsfisher]

The sources I cited were merely complied by Nospank, they didn't originate from the 'agenda'.


So, nospank.net provides a complete, unbiased, well-researched perspective on corporal punishment?

Nonsense. Nonsense on all three counts.

[Beth]

You may be looking at a coincidental factor and concluding a causative relationship.

No, I'm just looking at what my experiences were and how they compared to what would be expected if I had chosen to occasionally spank. I don't think there would have been much difference in my kids. Like Kelly expressed, I wonder if we all (kid included) might have been saved some heartache if we had just spanked few times.

Maybe if I had known better parenting techniques, or been better at implementing some of the ones I did know, they would have worked as well or better than spanking on those few occasions.

[Beth]

Are you really arguing against all forms of punishment besides "natural consequences"?

I don't know about Ginger, but there are certainly people who do argue that and think there is no place for any form of punishment in child rearing. Upon questioning, I have found that they have a somewhat different definition of punishment that I do.

[Ron Webb]

Here's the link:
http://behavioural-therapy.suite101.com/article.cfm/using_punishment_in_behaviour_modification
...
This article is not about spanking/hitting kids.

It's not just about kids, but then I'm not talking just about kids. I'm saying that punishment is an effective way to control behaviour, for every conscious creature we have studied. Why wouldn't it work with kids? Yes, it has drawbacks, and yes, there are usually better methods; but no statistical study can show that it is never the best choice.

[kellyb]

I don't know about Ginger, but there are certainly people who do argue that and think there is no place for any form of punishment in child rearing. Upon questioning, I have found that they have a somewhat different definition of punishment that I do.

I've run into people who have creative definitions of "consequences", too. (natural consequences, logical consequences, etc...basically, any way to say they're opposed to "punishment").

I've also met people (consensual living/taking children seriously/ unconditional parenting) who really, actually are opposed to everything besides REALLY natural consequences, like, if a kid refuses to put their coat on, they can just be cold.

I have watched some of these people over the years, and the ones with extremely naturally mellow kids do fine. The ones with highly "spirited" kids, otoh, mysteriously disappear from the internet by the time their kids are 5, fall into "my kid is bad because he has 34578542 allergies that can only be identified with elimination diets" woo, have their kids diagnosed with the dubious "sensory processing disorder" to excuse their behavior, or in extreme cases, doc shop till someone diagnoses the kid with pediatric bipolar.

So color me skeptical about the "punishment is wrong" theory of perfect parenting.
:cool:

[Ethan Thane Athen]

That is a tough one, the best is to isolate them and let them simmer down on their own, but public places can be very bad for that.

I found a bench away from where people were trying to look at the animals so no-one was with us and had to suffer his tantrum for long - just people passing by (though that was fairly embarrassing - you feel like saying 'I'm not abducting him, he's my son!'). He physically fought me for over 40 mins until he was utterly exhausted (and that was following 20 mins of screaming at me) - I wasn't feeling so fit myself! There was no reasoning with him - though I kept up a calm explanation through most of it, whilst physically stopping him running away (which was ironic as the tantrum started over me refusing to carry him when he claimed tiredness - we'd just got there). Then he just suddenly stopped, said 'I'll be a good boy now' took my hand and was an angel for the rest of the day. Kids eh?!

[Ethan Thane Athen]

I didn't say you weren't aware of them. I said you mislabel them.

The proper description if you wanted to be accurate is, seeking natural consequences for behaviors, both good and bad. It's not simply explaining things to a child and expecting them to understand.

As for having the discussion before, yes, every time this issue comes up it leads to a debate (IMO) between the evidence spanking is unnecessary and potentially harmful, and, spanking proponents who for whatever reason can't make that parenting paradigm shift.

If it is "rare" in your household, why not just go to that next step, end the practice altogether.

Because on the occasions we've used it, it appears to work very quickly and effectively, with no ill effects and our 15 and 12 year old have turned into fine and very happy young ladies. I will think on some of the points you've raised though...

Besides, give it another year and it'll end its natural death (my youngest will be 4 going on 5 by then). Never smacked the others beyond that.

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's not necessarily true. Maybe for some kids, but not all.It's pretty rare for a child whose early tantrums were well managed to continue such behavior for an hour!

But you have to look at a number of factors. Is it a tantrum because they are overly tired, or hungry or ill? Such a tantrum would be a expression of need, not one of independent defiance.


I'm not surprised people find it hard to believe that good parenting skills really do consistently work regardless of children's innate personalities. I'm not going to waste time arguing that point though because people get too defensive.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Are you really arguing against all forms of punishment besides "natural consequences"?I think you are confusing what the term means. It's not that one has to have these magically matched consequences. The thing one needs to do is to think about the behavior. What is it that makes that behavior unacceptable?

It could be that the behavior is fine for the child, but inconvenient for the parent. It could be the child needs to learn social skills. It could be safety, whatever. What you want is a consequence that the child learns from, not one that the child only learns, "I get punished for that behavior".

"If then, when then" is a useful strategy. If you do [X] then [Y] happens. When you do [A], then [B] happens.

A time out can be a natural consequence. 'Hitting back' should not be.

[Skeptic Ginger]

So, nospank.net provides a complete, unbiased, well-researched perspective on corporal punishment?

Nonsense. Nonsense on all three counts.No, but they complied a list of resources and I looked at the validity of the sources I posted.

This is not a difficult concept. If you think the sources I cited have issues, cite one and point out what your concern is.

All you are doing here is griping about where I found a list of links in a single search location. Go ahead, Google search for valid research and position papers supporting, "Spanking is necessary for some kids."

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, I'm just looking at what my experiences were and how they compared to what would be expected if I had chosen to occasionally spank. I don't think there would have been much difference in my kids. Like Kelly expressed, I wonder if we all (kid included) might have been saved some heartache if we had just spanked few times.

Maybe if I had known better parenting techniques, or been better at implementing some of the ones I did know, they would have worked as well or better than spanking on those few occasions.They would have worked as well. The research demonstrates that.

But it's also darn rare for any parent to have A+ parenting skills from the get go. I certainly didn't. And I did have formal education on the subject. No one should expect of themselves perfect parenting. Not to mention what's wrong with having competing needs with your child? You get tired, busy, bored reading that same book to the kid for the thousandth time and so on. There's nothing wrong with being an imperfect parent. It's normal.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...I have found that they have a somewhat different definition of punishment that I do.I think that is what is happening here. A consequence can also be defined as a punishment. The point is one shouldn't use punishment purely for the purpose of controlling the child. There should be a reason you need that behavior controlled and if you think about the reason, then natural consequences are easier to determine.

I found myself more than once considering maybe the behavior didn't really need to be controlled. Maybe I was being too knee-jerky thinking it did. For example, when your kid wants to do something and your first reaction is to say no. Sometimes thinking about the reason you want to prevent that behavior leads you to conclude there really isn't one.

[Skeptic Ginger]

... no statistical study can show that it is never the best choice.When you throw in using aversion therapy for emotionally disturbed adults, then I wouldn't know. I suspect that just as I wouldn't use it to train my dogs, it may not be the best method.

But your position that, because one cannot prove the negative therefore the reverse is proved, is fallacious reasoning.

You need to find research supporting spanking/hitting works better than other methods under [fill in the blank] circumstances, not the other way around, to support your assertion.

[Skeptic Ginger]

....who really, actually are opposed to everything besides REALLY natural consequences, like, if a kid refuses to put their coat on, they can just be cold.And sometimes, surprise, the kid really isn't cold. ;)

So color me skeptical about the "punishment is wrong" theory of perfect parenting.
:cool:You should be since you are describing laissez faire parenting. That is not what I'm talking about at all. Such a position assumes the child needs no guidance other than stumbling through life.

[bpesta22]

Sure, but study (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=2540224), after study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2764296/?tool=pmcentrez&report=abstract), after study (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/161/7/805?ijkey=5ecceff672d8128717d871d9d6a0038e31d4b858 ), are proving that possibility ever more remote.

Sounds like crap to me-- jmo-- control parent's IQ and income levels and I bet all this goes away.

[Ron Webb]

But your position that, because one cannot prove the negative therefore the reverse is proved, is fallacious reasoning.

You need to find research supporting spanking/hitting works better than other methods under [fill in the blank] circumstances, not the other way around, to support your assertion.


No, because I'm not making any assertion, and I'm not claiming that the reverse is proved. I'm just saying that your assertion, i.e. that spanking is never a good option, is not supported by the evidence.

[bpesta22]

I just coded whether spanking (in schools) is legal by the 50 us states (I suspect a reasonable, but not perfectly valid proxy for spanking rates in general across states).

20 states allow it; 30 do not.

The 20 that do have lower IQ's (a huge effect, d = ~1.0)
Poorer education (significant, but moderate effect d = ~.50)
Lower income (A very huge effect, d = ~1.67)
More fundamentally religious (another very huge effect, ~d = 1.62)

Case closed!

p.s. I know some are wondering what the effect of spanking is on penis size by the 50 US states. The difference though is essentially zero.

[kellyb]

It's pretty rare for a child whose early tantrums were well managed to continue such behavior for an hour!

But you have to look at a number of factors. Is it a tantrum because they are overly tired, or hungry or ill? Such a tantrum would be a expression of need, not one of independent defiance.


I'm not surprised people find it hard to believe that good parenting skills really do consistently work regardless of children's innate personalities. I'm not going to waste time arguing that point though because people get too defensive.

How rare? Evidence on the incidence? Our pedi just told us "some kids are like that".
My kid often wasn't even tantruming out of defiance. (he was definant, but he didn't use tantrums to express his defiance unless I was, like carrying him out of the park when he didn't want to go home yet.)
A lot of the time he was just really upset. He would flip out over stuff like the fact that he was physically unable to carry three large balls at once. I think he's just an unusually emotional kid. It was hellacious when he was really little, but not that he's older I can teach him self-calming skills, so he's fine.

I think doing everything "right" HAS prevented my easy, mellow kid from being tantrummy, maybe. But everything that seems to "work" with her had no effect on the other kid before he was fourish.

In my experiences with talking to people who have more than one older kid, it's really common for some kids to respond well to "good parenting skills" early and others not to when they're toddlers and preschoolers.

I, too, would be really, really smug about the effectiveness of "good parenting skills" and toddlers/preschoolers tantruming if I only had one kid - the "easy" one.

;)

[bpesta22]

Ah, these are interesting, spanking or not correlates (across the 50 us states):

-.59 with health insurance coverage
-.38 with % getting flu vaccines
-.24 with checking cholesterol
-.59 with % in fair/poor health (oh no, spanking causes health problems..!)
+.50 with % smokers
-.46 with liberalism

and

-.41 with eating fruits and veggies (maybe that's why the kids are getting spanked)?

[kellyb]

I think you are confusing what the term means. It's not that one has to have these magically matched consequences. The thing one needs to do is to think about the behavior. What is it that makes that behavior unacceptable?

It could be that the behavior is fine for the child, but inconvenient for the parent. It could be the child needs to learn social skills. It could be safety, whatever. What you want is a consequence that the child learns from, not one that the child only learns, "I get punished for that behavior".

"If then, when then" is a useful strategy. If you do [X] then [Y] happens. When you do [A], then [B] happens.

A time out can be a natural consequence. 'Hitting back' should not be.

Well, it's not particularly "natural", but I've found "If you refuse to _____ " or engage in ____ behavior, then
you will be grounded from all television/video games/whatever for X amount of time." And then (after an initial talk about what it's uncool) every time he forgets and asks "Hey, can I watch Little Bear?" I can use the opportunity to remind him of why he's grounded, why hitting his baby sister (or whatever) is wrong, ideas for how to properly deal with situation in the future, etc.

[kellyb]

And sometimes, surprise, the kid really isn't cold. ;)



Yeah, I actually liked the "natural consequence" idea for that one. Also, "if you stomp in puddles while we're out, you'll have irritatingly wet feet, shoes, and socks till we get home."

[kellyb]

They would have worked as well. The research demonstrates that.



Does it? Where is the research demonstrating that "spirited" kids who are spanked, say, 1-3 times in their entire childhood turn out better than similar kids who are never spanked even once?

This is an honest question. I'd love to know that I really did do the "right" thing in a sciencey way. As it is, all I have is the moral "Hitting other people is wrong, period, and adults hitting kids is especially wrong" argument.

[jsfisher]

No, but they complied a list of resources and I looked at the validity of the sources I posted.

This is not a difficult concept. If you think the sources I cited have issues, cite one and point out what your concern is.

All you are doing here is griping about where I found a list of links in a single search location. Go ahead, Google search for valid research and position papers supporting, "Spanking is necessary for some kids."


I'm not making the positive assertion,. You are, and so the task of supporting the claim falls to you. The evidence you have offered so far is, well, inadequate. If you don't have better, that's fine.

By the way, there is a gap better your position and "spanking is necessary for some kids."

[jsfisher]

I've also met people (consensual living/taking children seriously/ unconditional parenting) who really, actually are opposed to everything besides REALLY natural consequences, like, if a kid refuses to put their coat on, they can just be cold.


Sure, in many cases that is an appropriate parenting method. Then again, when the temperature is -10 degrees F (-20 C), it will likely get you up on child abuse charges than any award for modern child-rearing.

I think we agree, though, that raising children is a complicated sequence of events and opportunities. Many general approaches work generally very well, but despite that there are still some situations where the favored methods fall flat, and there are also the vilified approaches that sometimes are very effective.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sounds like crap to me-- jmo-- control parent's IQ and income levels and I bet all this goes away.So how do you explain that intelligent wealthy parents spank less often than poor uneducated parents?

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, because I'm not making any assertion, and I'm not claiming that the reverse is proved. I'm just saying that your assertion, i.e. that spanking is never a good option, is not supported by the evidence.You are welcome to your assertion then, that we should ignore the evidence spanking is sometimes harmful, and the evidence it is not necessary, because there is a remote possibility that on a rare occasion we can't prove it isn't a better option. I'll stick with the overwhelming evidence myself, thank you. :)

[Skeptic Ginger]

How rare? Evidence on the incidence? Our pedi just told us "some kids are like that".
My kid often wasn't even tantruming out of defiance. (he was definant, but he didn't use tantrums to express his defiance unless I was, like carrying him out of the park when he didn't want to go home yet.)
A lot of the time he was just really upset. He would flip out over stuff like the fact that he was physically unable to carry three large balls at once. I think he's just an unusually emotional kid. It was hellacious when he was really little, but not that he's older I can teach him self-calming skills, so he's fine.

I think doing everything "right" HAS prevented my easy, mellow kid from being tantrummy, maybe. But everything that seems to "work" with her had no effect on the other kid before he was fourish.

In my experiences with talking to people who have more than one older kid, it's really common for some kids to respond well to "good parenting skills" early and others not to when they're toddlers and preschoolers.

I, too, would be really, really smug about the effectiveness of "good parenting skills" and toddlers/preschoolers tantruming if I only had one kid - the "easy" one.

;)Unless you provide some supporting evidence for your assertions, I'm not spending another hour refuting them. I already did that earlier in the thread. So far, only people arguing spanking/hitting is not necessary are the only ones who have contributed literature searches on the topic. No one on the other side of the debate has bothered.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Does it? Where is the research demonstrating that "spirited" kids who are spanked, say, 1-3 times in their entire childhood turn out better than similar kids who are never spanked even once?

This is an honest question. I'd love to know that I really did do the "right" thing in a sciencey way. As it is, all I have is the moral "Hitting other people is wrong, period, and adults hitting kids is especially wrong" argument.See my post above and add to that, you are repeating the same straw man as has been posted at least twice now. I refer you to post # 141 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5835686#post5835686).

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not making the positive assertion,. You are, and so the task of supporting the claim falls to you. The evidence you have offered so far is, well, inadequate. If you don't have better, that's fine.

By the way, there is a gap better your position and "spanking is necessary for some kids."I've supported my assertions. I'm unclear why you think I need to add to that, some proof of a negative I did not assert. You should also see post # 141 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5835686#post5835686) for clarification of what you have wrong about what I've posted.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

It's pretty rare for a child whose early tantrums were well managed to continue such behavior for an hour!

But you have to look at a number of factors. Is it a tantrum because they are overly tired, or hungry or ill? Such a tantrum would be a expression of need, not one of independent defiance.


I'm not surprised people find it hard to believe that good parenting skills really do consistently work regardless of children's innate personalities. I'm not going to waste time arguing that point though because people get too defensive.

It's hardly a surprise that people get defensive when in your first sentence you've just basically said I haven't managed my child's upbringing very well. He's my fourth. He's been raised pretty similarly to the other three and he's the only one who has these tantrums.

Oh and I don't think it's that rare for a child to be able to maintain a tantrum for an hour - I've seen a fair few in my time. He's the only one of mine to do it though.

On the plus side they're getting less frequent and generally shorter.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

How rare? Evidence on the incidence? Our pedi just told us "some kids are like that".
My kid often wasn't even tantruming out of defiance. (he was definant, but he didn't use tantrums to express his defiance unless I was, like carrying him out of the park when he didn't want to go home yet.)
A lot of the time he was just really upset. He would flip out over stuff like the fact that he was physically unable to carry three large balls at once. I think he's just an unusually emotional kid. It was hellacious when he was really little, but not that he's older I can teach him self-calming skills, so he's fine.

I think doing everything "right" HAS prevented my easy, mellow kid from being tantrummy, maybe. But everything that seems to "work" with her had no effect on the other kid before he was fourish.

In my experiences with talking to people who have more than one older kid, it's really common for some kids to respond well to "good parenting skills" early and others not to when they're toddlers and preschoolers.

I, too, would be really, really smug about the effectiveness of "good parenting skills" and toddlers/preschoolers tantruming if I only had one kid - the "easy" one.

;)

Quoted for truth - especially the flipping out because he can't carry three balls at once. That's the sort of thing that can put my boy into a complete tail spin.

Basically, to sort out some of his tantrums I'd have to be able to re-arrange reality for him. The girls would have responded to reason or happily let me help them or carried 2 and come back for the 3rd or allowed themselves to be distracted by something else...not the boy. He wants to carry the 3 himself, with no help and he can't and he'll scream until he's exhausted and then, only then will listen to reason / be distracted or whatever.

As I say, it's never been that frequent and it's getting less so but a friend had a similar though worse issue and had to physically restrain her toddler for 1/2 hour to an hour at a time on a daily basis - else she'd have smashed her head against the floor in frustration (my boy learnt that hurt the first time and now rather comically throws himself to the floor....very carefully!). This friend is an incredible parent as it would have driven me to insanity but she used to remain wonderfully calm throughout. Two years later her daughter had grown out of it completely - exactly as the GP predicted when he simply said that some kids are like this, just stop her hurting herself and she'll grow out of it in a year or so.

[fls]

I, too, would be really, really smug about the effectiveness of "good parenting skills" and toddlers/preschoolers tantruming if I only had one kid - the "easy" one.

;)

I have noticed that as well. Even with three children, I did not understand what it was like to have a 'devil child' until I had one myself. With each child it becomes increasingly difficult to cling to the idea that effective parenting makes the child, rather than the other way around.

Linda

[fls]

I just coded whether spanking (in schools) is legal by the 50 us states (I suspect a reasonable, but not perfectly valid proxy for spanking rates in general across states).

20 states allow it; 30 do not.

The 20 that do have lower IQ's (a huge effect, d = ~1.0)
Poorer education (significant, but moderate effect d = ~.50)
Lower income (A very huge effect, d = ~1.67)
More fundamentally religious (another very huge effect, ~d = 1.62)

Case closed!

p.s. I know some are wondering what the effect of spanking is on penis size by the 50 US states. The difference though is essentially zero.

Ah, these are interesting, spanking or not correlates (across the 50 us states):

-.59 with health insurance coverage
-.38 with % getting flu vaccines
-.24 with checking cholesterol
-.59 with % in fair/poor health (oh no, spanking causes health problems..!)
+.50 with % smokers
-.46 with liberalism

and

-.41 with eating fruits and veggies (maybe that's why the kids are getting spanked)?

Thank you for the information. I don't see how reliable and valid conclusions can be drawn in the presence of such strong confounders. Especially in the absence of experimental information.

Linda

[jsfisher]

I've supported my assertions. I'm unclear why you think I need to add to that, some proof of a negative I did not assert. You should also see post # 141 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5835686#post5835686) for clarification of what you have wrong about what I've posted.


I don't know what you are on about "proof of a negative [you] did not assert." Your position has been clear all along, and I have not asked you to support anything other than that.

Many here have presented their opinions and experience within an anecdotal context. I include myself among this "many." That's all fine. We can discuss things at that level and compare and contrast views. You, on the other hand, have pretended to have backed your assertions with substantive evidence, but, as already mentioned, your claimed support was agenda-driven junk.

I respect your opinion and your right to have one. But please don't attempt to sell it as more than that based on the propaganda you have offered so far.

[jsfisher]

Ah, these are interesting, spanking or not correlates (across the 50 us states):

-.59 with health insurance coverage
-.38 with % getting flu vaccines
-.24 with checking cholesterol
-.59 with % in fair/poor health (oh no, spanking causes health problems..!)
+.50 with % smokers
-.46 with liberalism

and

-.41 with eating fruits and veggies (maybe that's why the kids are getting spanked)?


It might be worth checking the correlation of spanking with environmental factors such as temperature. I'm concerned spanking may be the cause of global warming.

[bpesta22]

It might be worth checking the correlation of spanking with environmental factors such as temperature. I'm concerned spanking may be the cause of global warming.

I actually looked at that last night. Mean temp in the 50 states correlates .661! with spanking.

So, one could claim it is global warming.

I have almost 200 state level variables coded now, so if you have other hypotheses, let me know.

The problem is nearly everything is correlated with everything else and most of it's spurious. I do think there are a handful of causal variables (poverty, IQ and religion, in my world view) but it's probably impossible to prove cause given what a mess of intercorrelated crap this is (so much so, it's called a "nexus").

But, if anyone wants practice making the correlation implies cause fallacy (myself included!) look at my state level data.

That said, one thing is clear: The south sucks.

[Telaynay's G'son]

Mom was a firm believer in Dr. Spock's book...she often used it as the implement with which to spank me.

[Ron Webb]

You are welcome to your assertion then, that we should ignore the evidence spanking is sometimes harmful, and the evidence it is not necessary, because there is a remote possibility that on a rare occasion we can't prove it isn't a better option. I'll stick with the overwhelming evidence myself, thank you. :)

I'm not sure I parsed that first sentence correctly, but there is no "overwhelming evidence" -- in fact, no evidence at all, as far as I've seen in this discussion -- that spanking is harmful when applied rarely; and if you are serious that evidence is not necessary, then perhaps you are on the wrong forum.

If you meant that spanking is unnecessary, we agree that most of the time that is true; but again, you have no evidence that it is always true. I think every parent can attest to situations where none of the other parenting techniques was effective.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's hardly a surprise that people get defensive when in your first sentence you've just basically said I haven't managed my child's upbringing very well. He's my fourth. He's been raised pretty similarly to the other three and he's the only one who has these tantrums.

Oh and I don't think it's that rare for a child to be able to maintain a tantrum for an hour - I've seen a fair few in my time. He's the only one of mine to do it though.

On the plus side they're getting less frequent and generally shorter.People should not believe the misleading scenario that a spanking ends a tantrum in short order and if you use non-violent techniques you can expect to take an hour per tantrum.

I'm sorry if the only way for me to make that point was to offend you. It shouldn't offend you. I also said no one is a perfect parent, only rarely would parents know perfect responses, and there should be no expectation of any parent that they be perfect. None of us are perfect parents. How can we be when parenting education is an on the job education?

How old is your child that had the hour long tantrum? Are you suggesting everything you've done as a parent in the time leading up to the tantrum has been perfect parenting and the tantrum was 100% child origin, nothing to do with earlier experiences resulted in the child persisting that long?

An hour long tantrum may be common in general, but it is not normal or common when responded to consistently and effectively. That doesn't mean your child is warped or you've been a bad parent. I'm am saying that tantrums, when responded to with proven techniques consistently once the child expects the response, don't last long and don't recur often unless the child is ill, hungry or tired.

It's sounds like you responded very well in your description and the outcome was excellent. If you do what you described consistently and your spouse does as well, hour long tantrums will NOT keep occurring.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have noticed that as well. Even with three children, I did not understand what it was like to have a 'devil child' until I had one myself. With each child it becomes increasingly difficult to cling to the idea that effective parenting makes the child, rather than the other way around.

LindaWe may be operating with different definitions of just which behaviors are amenable to parenting and which are not. Children are independent individuals. I'm not suggesting you can or should raise little Stepford wives like children with perfect parenting techniques.

And the learning curve continues with second and third children and so on because the family dynamic changes with each new child. A second child has a sibling to contend with the first child didn't, the first child has a new sibling to deal with and so on. So regardless of what you learned and were successful using with the first child doesn't mean there aren't new things to learn with the next.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Thank you for the information. I don't see how reliable and valid conclusions can be drawn in the presence of such strong confounders. Especially in the absence of experimental information.

LindaThe data in question supports other data. It does not stand on its own merit alone.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't know what you are on about "proof of a negative [you] did not assert." Your position has been clear all along, and I have not asked you to support anything other than that.

Many here have presented their opinions and experience within an anecdotal context. I include myself among this "many." That's all fine. We can discuss things at that level and compare and contrast views. You, on the other hand, have pretended to have backed your assertions with substantive evidence, but, as already mentioned, your claimed support was agenda-driven junk.

I respect your opinion and your right to have one. But please don't attempt to sell it as more than that based on the propaganda you have offered so far.My position has been clear, but you have misrepresented it.

Let me repeat it once again directly from post #141:
1) There is some evidence some spanking is harmful.
2) There are demonstrated effective parenting techniques which do not involve spanking.
3) There is no demonstrated benefit in spanking over using the other effective techniques EXCEPT the techniques involve parents needing to LEARN them.
4) I advocate teaching parents non-violent parenting techniques.
5) I do not advocate laying a guilt trip on parents who spank/hit their children because those parents have not learned better parenting techniques.
6) I sincerely doubt that rare spanking/hitting in an otherwise loving home has any detrimental effect on the child. Children are very forgiving of their parents' flaws.
7) That still doesn't change what I believe about the fact spanking/hitting is unnecessary.


Note the three points I bolded. They directly contradict the straw man you claim I have asserted.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not sure I parsed that first sentence correctly, but there is no "overwhelming evidence" -- in fact, no evidence at all, as far as I've seen in this discussion -- that spanking is harmful when applied rarely; and if you are serious that evidence is not necessary, then perhaps you are on the wrong forum.

If you meant that spanking is unnecessary, we agree that most of the time that is true; but again, you have no evidence that it is always true. I think every parent can attest to situations where none of the other parenting techniques was effective.There is overwhelming evidence spanking is harmful sometimes.
There is overwhelming evidence spanking is unnecessary.

Which of those two statements are you objecting to?

[fls]

So how do you explain that intelligent wealthy parents spank less often than poor uneducated parents?

Parents with resources (time, money, knowledge, experience, social supports, health, etc.) at their disposal will be more likely to exhibit techniques which are more resource intensive.

Linda

[fls]

The data in question supports other data. It does not stand on its own merit alone.

But the "other data" is also not experimental data and is also heavily confounded.

Linda

[fls]

We may be operating with different definitions of just which behaviors are amenable to parenting and which are not. Children are independent individuals. I'm not suggesting you can or should raise little Stepford wives like children with perfect parenting techniques.

But you are suggesting that, when considering the research which has been performed, it is reasonable to assume a causal relationship in one direction, when experience tells us that if a causal relationship does exist, it very well may be in the opposite direction.

Linda

[Ethan Thane Athen]

People should not believe the misleading scenario that a spanking ends a tantrum in short order and if you use non-violent techniques you can expect to take an hour per tantrum.

I'm sorry if the only way for me to make that point was to offend you. It shouldn't offend you. I also said no one is a perfect parent, only rarely would parents know perfect responses, and there should be no expectation of any parent that they be perfect. None of us are perfect parents. How can we be when parenting education is an on the job education?

How old is your child that had the hour long tantrum? Are you suggesting everything you've done as a parent in the time leading up to the tantrum has been perfect parenting and the tantrum was 100% child origin, nothing to do with earlier experiences resulted in the child persisting that long?

An hour long tantrum may be common in general, but it is not normal or common when responded to consistently and effectively. That doesn't mean your child is warped or you've been a bad parent. I'm am saying that tantrums, when responded to with proven techniques consistently once the child expects the response, don't last long and don't recur often unless the child is ill, hungry or tired.

It's sounds like you responded very well in your description and the outcome was excellent. If you do what you described consistently and your spouse does as well, hour long tantrums will NOT keep occurring.

I know they won't. He's already growing out of them. Subsequent ones have been much shorter.

And don't worry, you didn't offend me - I was just pointing out that the words you use can lead to people being defensive. As we have debated before, I know the intent behind the words so wasn't bothered but others might be.

I was also not suggesting that a spanking ends a tantrum in short order - though it can do, I've seen it work (not such a successful technique with my 4th though) - or that they always take an hour. The point of my anecdote was not to defend my pro-smacking position (you're reading too much into it - though that's understandable based on my previous posts), rather it was to actually reassure you that I do use other techniques where I believe them appropriate.

I'm also certainly not suggesting that we've been perfect parents in raising our boy (far from it) but he has been raised very similarly to the other 3 (possibly a bit more spoiled - especially by my wife;)).

[Telaynay's G'son]

So how do you explain that intelligent wealthy parents spank less often than poor uneducated parents?

Could it be because the kids are with the nanny or away at boarding school?

[jsfisher]

My position has been clear, but you have misrepresented it.
...
Note the three points I bolded. They directly contradict the straw man you claim I have asserted.


And yet, I have not. I don't know why you insist, twice now, that I did. What I have done, and what I will continue to do is to point out that the evidence you have offered is junk. This point you continue to dodge in favor of these imaginary straw men.

[Ron Webb]

There is overwhelming evidence spanking is harmful sometimes.
There is ample evidence that spanking is harmful when used excessively, but we all agree on that. There is no evidence that it is harmful when used rarely. To extrapolate from one to the other is like saying that since alcoholism is harmful, therefore strict prohibition is warranted.

There is overwhelming evidence spanking is unnecessary.
I'm sorry, but there just isn't such evidence, and there cannot be such evidence from statistical studies alone, which is all I've seen here. You can say that spanking is usually unnecessary, but again we all agree on that. What you can't prove statistically is that spanking is always unnecessary. You are certainly entitled to believe that, but it's not "anti-science" to question it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

There is ample evidence that spanking is harmful when used excessively, but we all agree on that. There is no evidence that it is harmful when used rarely. To extrapolate from one to the other is like saying that since alcoholism is harmful, therefore strict prohibition is warranted....You keep harping on this and ignoring the fact spanking/hitting children is unnecessary.


Why would you want to use such a negative parenting practice that was unnecessary?

[luchog]

You keep harping on this and ignoring the fact spanking/hitting children is unnecessary.

Why would you want to use such a negative parenting practice that was unnecessary?
A thing does not become true through repetition, no matter how many times you repeat it. In order to be true, it must be supported by evidence. The evidence so far supplied in this thread is insufficient for such a definitive and universal declaration. What part of that are you having difficulty understanding?