dragonlady ) writes:
The one who almost never got spanked was a pretty "good" kid by most
measures, and almost never in trouble. The other had LOTS of problems.

Which was cause, which effect?

Repeat again: correlation does not prove causation.

No one has even found a correlation between spanking and
any long-term benefit such as improved behaviour, as far
as I know. Short-term compliance with parental commands is
the only benefit of spanking supported by statistics, as
far as I know, and the amount of compliance was not shown
to be more than could alternatively be achieved with a
one-minute timeout.

As for the long term: Straus et al (1997) and Gunnoe and
Mariner (1997) found that over a 2-year or 5-year period,
spanking correlated with a greater increase in misbehaviour
(or less improvement in behaviour), controlling for
level of misbehaviour at the beginning of the study.

The result of these studies could not be explained merely
by pointing out that kids who misbehave more tend to be
spanked more.

I don't remember anyone suggesting any explanation of how
this result could have occurred if spanking doesn't cause
increased misbehaviour in the long term. Correlation may
not prove causation all by itself, but if anyone wants to
argue that there is not causation, they had better have an
alternative explanation of the correlation.

There are reasons to expect spanking to cause increased
misbehaviour: resentment; imitation (violence);
lying to avoid being spanked; punishing the parents
for spanking; defiance (trying to prove one can't
be controlled that way); increased depression and
anxiety, or believing one is "bad"; and the fact that spanking
gives away information about what behaviours "get to"
the parent.
--
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