Betty Woolf ) writes:
[excerpts from Betty's post]
Catherine Woodgold wrote:
I'm not attempting to prove that every single
spanking causes more harm than good. However, in general,
on average, when parents do it with intention to control
misbehaviour, it causes more harm than good. On average,
it doesn't even improve behaviour in the long run. No one
has succeeded in identifying particular subclasses
of spanking situations where it does more good than
harm on average. In fact, no long-term benefit from
spanking has been established in any scientific study as
far as I know. So I don't think a person about to spank
a child can reasonably know that it will probably do
more good than harm.

I'm not arguing that spanking is the best way to deal with any
particular situation, and I don't do it myself. However, it is not
required of me to establish that spanking is beneficial, as you imply
above; Straus et al. hypothesize that it is harmful, so it is up to them
to "prove" it as best they can.

I'm finding this discussion interesting and I'm glad
you're participating. I hope it'll continue (though
again I'm not sure about time constraints).
I hope you can interpret my post as a friendly discussion
and argument for the sake of learning and clarifying.

I didn't intend to imply that it was required of you to prove
anything. In general, I'd prefer that you reply to what I
actually say rather than to what you think I'm implying.

I don't think Straus et al have any more responsibility than
anyone else to prove something about spanking; they just happen
to be doing studies on that topic. I read recently that Straus
used to be a pro-spanker but changed his mind based on the results
of the various studies he's done over the years.

The null hypothesis is that spanking
does no harm, not that it does good.

I'm not sure what particular statistical test
you're referring to here.

Spanking always causes pain, which is a form of harm.

One could substitute something else that causes pain into the above
sentence, such as "Falling off your bike always causes pain, which is a
form of harm." Yet no-one would suggest that kids should not learn to
ride a bike because of the pain involved in the inevitable falls.

I pretty much agree with the above. Do you agree or
disagree (or neither) with the statement "Spanking always
causes pain, which is a form of harm"?

I think that the valid arguments against even mild spanking are that it
sends the wrong message and that it can be a betrayal of trust.

Those also strike me as valid arguments.

The "any pain is harm" argument does not convince me in the least.

I think it would be interesting to find out exactly where
this argument loses you. Do you agree that pain is harm?
I assume you're against painfully knocking kids off their
bikes for the fun of it. If so, why are you against it?
Because pain is harm, or for some other reason? Why does
the same reason, whatever it is, not also apply to spanking?

Betty Woolf said:

I think the purpose of citing, unasked, an over-simplified
study summary, coupled with an opinion that the poster is damaging her
children, *is* to make parents feel bad.

I don't know whether you were talking about me here, but
if you were you were mistaken. Making people feel bad
is not the purpose of any of my posts. I realize that
some people feel bad when they read material, whether
written by me or by others, which provides information
comparing the relative effectiveness of various
parenting methods. However, the purpose of providing
the information, at least when I do it, is not to make
people feel bad but to provide people with an opportunity
to make a more informed choice. I hope that choosing
better parenting methods will make both parents and
children feel better in the long run. The more good
information available, the better informed choices
people can make.

I obviously can't argue with people about what their intent is. It is
however possible to offer alternatives (which you do very well) without
playing the "studies say X causes harm." This is a hot button with me -
not directed at you - and the reason that I stopped reading
misc.kids.breastfeeding.

By the way, I also have other reasons for posting, including
that it's enjoyable and educational for me (and I hope for others),
and that I occasionally end up taking my own advice. :-)

Certainly it is possible to merely mention alternatives and
not discuss the reasons for doing one thing rather than another.
However, I don't choose to do so. I believe it's both interesting
and important to discuss the reasons for and effects of various
alternatives. In my opinion this is worth the risk that some
people might feel bad on reading some of the posts. I'm sorry
if such bad feelings happen. Occasionally I've put disclaimers
at the beginnings of some of my posts warning people that I'm
discussing relative advantages and disadvantages of different parenting
methods and that they might want to skip reading my post if that sort
of thing might make them feel bad. Maybe the newsgroup could
come up with a short code-word that people could insert in
the subject line if they're discussing advantages and disadvantages
rather than just mentioning alternatives; or, maybe there
could be a code-word to identify those posts which just
mention alternatives without any evaluation of them, so that
those who only want to read lists of alternatives could
limit themselves to just those posts. However, I think
most people are capable of figuring out what type of post
it is and skipping the rest of the post if it's the type
they don't want to read. Many people have put the word "spanking"
into a killfile so that they never see posts about spanking.

I am not sure the studies can isolate spanking from other aspects of
parenting that may cause increased misbehavior.
(CW had said

Straus & Mouradian (1998) reported that children whose mothers never
spanked them in their entire lives were significantly less antisocial than
even the most infrequently-spanked children.

If the mothers lied, why should a large enough number of them
lie and why should they just happen to lie in such a pattern as
to produce a statistcially significant correlation between
reported spanking and reported misbehaviour?

Respondents can be very sensitive to the wording of the question and try
to guess the "correct" answer, even in anonymous surveys. I personally
have a terrible time with telephone surveys because I see shades of grey
everywhere and I could choose one of several answers. For example, if
the question is "Have you ever spanked your child?" the answer is no.
If the question is "Have you ever physically disciplined your child?"
the answer is technically yes - I have physically carried him places he
doesn't want to go, and physically restrained him from doing things he
wants to do.

I would think those sorts of effects would contribute to the
"noise" in the results. Usually this sort of "noise" tends to
cancel out when averages are taken over large numbers of respondents.
If a statistically significant correlation is found, there
has to be some reason for it (unless it's a fluke, which
becomes less likely as studies are replicated and depending
on the level of statistical significance). Until someone
comes up with some alternative explanation of the results,
it seems reasonable to suppose that they show a statistical
correlation between spanking and misbehaviour.

I'll look up the study when I can but I just don't see how you could ask
specific enough questions to reach a reasonable conclusion without
subconsciously leading the survey-taker to answer the way you want them to.

I think the survey questions were asked by professional
survey-takers who presumably didn't care what the answers
were. The wording of the questions was predetermined.

Was the question whether the mother had ever spanked the child (as both
your original quote and the study title indicate) or whether the child
had ever been spanked at all, to the mother's knowledge?

"Mothers were asked how often in the past six months they had
'spanked, slapped or hit' the target child when the child 'does
something bad or something you don't like, or is disobedient.'"

If it's the
former, I have to say that I have huge doubts about the validity of this
study. How can you draw valid conclusions from a study that disregards
the input/behavior of the father?

It's very simple. I think it's a very valid assumption that
children who are spanked by their mothers are, on average, spanked
more than children who are not spanked by their mothers.
In any case, if you don't believe that assumption, then the
study results can still be interpreted validly as showing
a correlation between spanking by mothers and misbehaviour.

I don't expect you to summarize the whole thing, but here are my
thoughts on the above, in case anyone is interested in the kinds of
questions these statements raise for me:

First, IMO "In the last 6 months" is a *huge* amount of time when you're
asking a parent to recall behavior, and second, the questions are so
vague that they can be misinterpreted easily.

Again, it seems to me that those factors would contribute to
the "noise" or experimental error and would tend to cancel out
when large numbers of results are averaged. Increased noise
generally reduces the chance that any correlations of any sort
will be found. If a correlation is found, it usually means
that there is some pattern which is strong enough to be
seen in spite of the noise. You haven't provided any explanation
of how the statistically significant correlations between
variables designed to measure spanking and misbehaviour
could have occurred if there is no actual correlation between
those variables. I'm not trying to imply that you have
any responsibility to provide such an explanation.
However, as long as no-one has come up with any plausible
alternative explanation, it's reasonable to interpret the
results as showing a correlation between spanking (by mothers)
and misbehaviour.

Also, unless the mother
is with the kid 24 hours a day, she can't possibly answer with 100%
certainty.

She answered about her own spanking behaviour.

If I was asked right now about my son's behavior in the last 6 months
(he's 3y 9 mo), I can tell you that there were a few times when his
behavior was a bit too physical for my taste. One was when my uncle
died suddenly and I was not very available to DS. One was when we got a
puppy and DS started playing with his friends the way the puppy was
playing with our older dog - lots of tackling and shoving. One was
right after my parents left and he was frustrated by the return to
structure. Depending on how the questions were worded, I could easily
end up misrepresenting the frequency or magnitude of his poor behavior.

Again, this would tend to contribute to the noise.

It is possible to estimate the amount of harm from a single
spanking by measuring the approximate average amount of harm
from a large number of spankings, and then dividing.

I don't believe that is valid.

Could you explain in more detail what you mean here?
Do you agree that it is possible to carry out such
a calculation? Can you suggest any better way to
estimate the amount of harm from a single spanking?
Parents need estimates of such harm to make ordinary,
day-to-day decisions, even if they don't think about
it in mathematical terms.

Rare spankings could cause either more harm (because of
the surprise factor, the feeling of betrayal and loss of
feeling of safety, etc.) or less harm (because each
spanking may increase the child's anxiety level and
propensity to feel startled or traumatised).

More harm or less harm than what, though?

What I meant was, I was comparing the amount of harm of
a single spanking imposed on a child who is not
accustomed to frequent spankings, compared to the
amount of harm of a single spanking imposed on a child
who is accustomed to frequent spanking.

Is there anybody arguing that
frequent spanking is better than rare spanking?

I don't know.

I don't think so - I
think the argument is whether rare spanking causes measurable harm over
no spanking.

Correlations between spanking and misbehaviour have been
established in scientific studies. No-one has established
that any specific type of spanking (e.g. rare spanking)
is exempt from the same dynamics.

What do you believe? Do you believe rare spanking causes
harm? Do you believe it doesn't cause harm?

I think it's reasonable to suppose that similar
dynamics apply to rare spankings as to frequent
spankings. Actually, the Straus and Mouradian (1998)
also provide supportive evidence: the children
reported as never spanked by the mothers had the best
(lowest) ASB scores compared to children who had
been spanked but not in the past 6 months, and all other
categories.

I see no reason to assume rare spankings would cause
no harm.

I think this is the crux of our disagreement. I see no reason to assume
rare spankings would cause harm, just as I see no reason to assume that
one cigarette or one Big Mac or one alcoholic drink would cause harm, on
average.

OK, it looks as if we're getting close to identifying
something we disagree about.

It's been established that smoking tends to cause lung
cancer and other health problems, and to shorten average
lifespan. This means that the average effect of smoking a
cigarette is a small increase in probability of certain
health problems and a small decrease in life span.
Here, average effect is defined as the total effect of
a large number of cigarettes divided by the total
number of cigarettes smoked.

However, that's the average effect of a cigarette when
in most cases the cigarette is smoked by a frequent smoker.
I think your point is that if someone smokes only
one cigarette in their lifetime, the estimated effect
of that cigarette might be quite different from the
average effect of a cigarette in general.

I assume the effect would be similar.

One could imagine that smoking one cigarette is
like pouring one spoonful of water into an
initially empty cup: just one has no chance of
causing the cup to overflow, but a large number
of spoonfuls could cause overflow.

I don't think smoking is like that, and I don't
think spanking is like that. I think it's more
like pouring a spoonful into a cup which already
has an unknown amount of water in it.

What do you think? Do you think we just don't
know? Or do you think people can spank their
kids a small number of times with confidence that
each of those spankings will do far less harm than
each spanking would do to a child who was
accustomed to frequent spanking? Or what?

I don't understand how addressing a particular
behaviour problem makes the "slippery slope" analogy
invalid. What I mean is that using spanking (even once)
not only has some effect on the particular behaviour it's
aimed at, but also affects the whole relationship: it
demonstrates the use of violence, which necessarily changes
the child's ideas about violence one way or another;
and it makes the parent-child relationship more control-
oriented. This has repercussions for other situations
later on, possibly leading to increased use of spanking.

The "slippery slope" argument is that you shouldn't spank even once
because it will inevitably lead to more misbehavior, more spanking and a
spiral toward abuse.

Although I used the phrase "slippery slope", I didn't mean
what you describe here as the "'slippery slope' argument".

What is the evidence that spanking makes other discipline methods less
effective?

Well, think about it. What do you do when someone tries
to forcefully make you do something you don't want to do?
Most people react by digging in their heels. If that
same person later comes to you and tries to ask you
nicely to do that same thing -- or even something else --
how are you going to react?

Are you speaking purely of physical force?

No, it can be other forms of overt manipulation such
as punishment. The more forceful, severe and threatening
the punishment, the more a person tends to resent it
and to try to oppose further manipulation by the same person.

If so, I can only imagine
how I would react, as that has not been a reality for me. I think I
would react as you describe. However, spanking is generally not used to
force someone to do something, but to deter them from doing something,
which is a different thing, behaviorally speaking.

Well, how do you react when someone uses punishment, anger or threats to
try to stop you from doing something?

I'm not going to comment much until I do read the studies but if you
start with "theoretical reasons to explain X" I guarantee that you can
come up with a study design that will support your conclusions.

Many people have tried to come up with a study design
which establishes a correlation between spanking and any
form of long-term benefit, but they have all failed.
This seems to be a counterexample to the idea that
you can find a study that shows whatever you want
(though I'm not sure whether that's what you meant).

I would also have to think twice before accepting ASB between the ages of
2 and 14 as "long term" misbehavior.

When I've said "long term" in this discussion I've
generally meant about 1 or 2 years or more. You can use
the phrase to mean whatever you want when you use it;
I hope you'll make the meaning clear enough in context.

I think that the question is too complex to be handled by surveys - you
would need a long term study (on the order of 20 years), frequently
interviewing both parents and children and also videotaping interactions
between parents and their children, interactions between children and
their peers, and possibly even between the parents for objective
characterization of behavior (not "how often did Johnny hit his sister
in the last six months?")

Can you explain why the statistical correlations found
in Straus and Mouradian (1998) are not adequate, in your
opinion, to establish a correlation between spanking
and misbehaviour?

Possible alternative explanations to "spanking causes misbehavior" -

-Children who are neurologically atypical are more likely to engage in
behaviors that are both antisocial *and* on the list of behaviors that
average parents will spank for.

This was a valid criticism of all the studies finding
correlations between spanking and misbehaviour until 1997.
In 1997, two important studies were published side-by-side
in a medical journal (Straus et al 1997 and Gunnoe and
Mariner 1997). Each of these studies looked at spanking
and misbehaviour varying over a 2- or 5-year time period.
The amount of increase or decrease in misbehaviour could
be measured. It was found that, on average, there was
more of an increase in misbehaviour in the kids who
were being spanked more at the beginning of the time
period, controlling for the amount of misbehaviour at
the beginning.

This is a correlation between spanking and misbehaviour
which could not be caused by pre-existing tendencies
of the child to misbehave.

-The surveys are failing to even attempt to look for other explanations
and therefore don't question things that would provide alternative
answers.

That is simply not true. These studies carefully control
for a number of variables such as sex, socio-economic status,
a parental warmth variable and a number of other variables which
could otherwise confound the results.

-The study subjects are inappropriately chosen or classified.

How could that do other than contribute to the noise?
Actually, in Straus and Mouradian, the subjects were
chosen by dialing random telephone numbers. This seems
an appropriate method to find a random sample
of subjects.

I hope I answered your questions about the studies.
I'm interested in further discussion but I don't know
whether I'll have time for it or not. I hope I've
clarified for you my position. I think it would be
interesting to further clarify our positions and exactly
what we agree and disagree on.

I'm glad you got involved in this discussion and I hope
we can come to some understanding about what exactly
we disagree about (if anything) and why.

I think we agree that spanking is not desirable or effective and that
parents should be encouraged to practice other discipline strategies.

I think we disagree on the possible harmful effects of a few spankings.

It would be interesting to find out exactly what the
disagreement is. I believe that spanking is harmful
whether it is done to a child who is used to it or not.
What do you believe?

I think we disagree about the place studies have in the discussion - I
don't trust them as you do.

Can you identify specific statements I've made that
you disagree with?

Thanks for an interesting discussion

Thank you, too!

References:

Straus, M. and V.E. Mouradian, 1998. Impulsive
Corporal Punishment by Mothers and Antisocial Behavior
and Impulsiveness of Children. Behavioral Sciences
and the Law, 16, 353-374.

MacMillan, H.L, et al., 1999. Slapping and spanking
in childhood and its association with lifetime
prevalence of psychiatric disorders in a general
population sample. Journal of the Canadian Medical Assocation,
161 (7), p. 805-822.

Straus M. A., D.B. Sugarman and J. Giles-Sims,
1997. Spanking by Parents and Subsequent
Antisocial Behavior of Children. Arch. Pediatr.
Adolesc. Med. Vol. 151, Aug 1997. pp. 761-767

Gunnoe, M.L., C.L. Mariner, 1997. Toward a
developmental-contextual model of the effects
of parental spanking on children's aggression.
Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. Vol. 151, Aug. 1997,
pp. 768-775.

Oh -- I just remembered: I think those last two studies are
available on the Internet! Oh, maybe only the abstracts, but
you can also find replies published in the same journal.
You can do a Google search on the name of the journal.
(Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.)
I just did and it works, but the URL is rather long.
I think they only supply the abstracts, though.
The full articles can be obtained via interlibrary loan
from public libraries.
--
Cathy Woodgold
http://www.ncf.ca/~an588/par_home.html
There are two types of people in the world: those
who divide the world into two types of people, and