If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Relationship between Spanking and Misbehaviour
Betty Wolf said: (I am not talking about black-and-white studies of adult violent criminals - I'm talking about attempts to prove that *any* spanking has a long-lasting negative affect.) Life is complex and you never know what might happen. In a particular individual case, having one's leg accidentally broken could turn out to provide more benefit than harm: it could happen to result in being in the right place at the right time for some wonderful result. However, on average, having one's leg accidentally broken is a harmful thing. 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. It's not necessary for me to prove that I would certainly get run over by a car if I were to try to cross the road right now; I can wait until it looks safer anyway. Similarly, it's not necessary to prove that a particular spanking is certainly going to cause more harm than good; the parent can choose a more positive parenting method anyway. Spanking always causes pain, which is a form of harm. Betty Wolf 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. The purpose of providing a simplified summary of a study was to make some information available to people who might not have time to read either the whole study, or a longer summary which I could have written instead (I actually spent more time editing it down so it could be read quickly). I said I would provide more information if asked. I'm sorry it's taken me so long to get around to providing more information. I was busy. I also provided the references to the studies and I hope some people will look them up in the library and carefully read them and form their own opinions. (See references at end of this post.) I am not sure the studies can isolate spanking from other aspects of parenting that may cause increased misbehavior. Numerous studies have found correlations between spanking and misbehaviour. These correlations continue to be found in spite of controlling for many possible confounding variables such as socio-economic status. (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. I would need to know more about the design of the study. If the results are based on the mothers filling out surveys, why should we believe the mothers are not lying? Why should the mothers lie on an anonymous telephone survey conducted for scientific purposes? 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? If the results are based on recollections of children, what is the assurance that their memories are correct about what happened to them as toddlers? This study (Straus and Mouradian, 1998) is based on a telephone survey of mothers of children aged 2 to 14. Is it only mothers this study was concerned with, as the above summary suggests? If so, why? "The limited budget for this study prevented interviewing both parents. Mothers were chosen as the respondents because mothers have much more of the day to day responsibility for child care." What was the age of children assessed? How was antisocial behavior defined? Ages 2 to 14. ASB (anti-social behaviour) was measured using questions about 11 behaviours, 3 of which were modified based on the age of the child. The 8 constant items asked how often in the past six months the child was "cruel or mean to other kids, bullies; cruel or mean to or insults you; denies doing something he or she really did; hit a brother or sister, hit other kids; hit you or other adults; damages or destroys things; and stolen money or something else." I don't actually expect answers to these questions, because every time I've asked similar questions of the "never-ever-spank" crowd, they've ignored me. I've been meaning to reply to your message but was too busy to get to newsgroups at all for a while. When I said I was willing to provide more information I assumed I would be able to provide it within a couple of days, but didn't realize how busy I would be. If spaanking as normally used in families causes harm on average, why do you think smaller amounts of spanking wouldn't also cause harm -- just less harm? What is it about the rareness of the spanking that makes you think it's less harmful? It is, of course, impossible to quantify the amount of harm that might occur from a single spanking, but it is infinitely less harm than a child getting run over by a car, for example. 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. 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). I see no reason to assume rare spankings would cause no harm. I have occasionally treated my son in ways I wish I hadn't. This week, for the first time ever, he ran out of the grocery store toward the parking lot when I asked him to hold my hand. I dropped the groceries, grabbed him by the shirt, and got down in his face and yelled at him. I apologized immediately and explained how much he had scared me. I've made a lot of mistakes and done a lot of things I regretted, too. How much did I damage our relationship? Would it have been more or less damaged if I had swatted him instead? I don't think anyone knows this. I think that when spanking is rare, each individual spanking somes as a great shock to the child and causes the child to feel vulnerable, scared, hurt etc., causing more harm than any one out of a larger number of spankings (which we know tend to lead to more misbehaviour). Do you have any evidence of this, or is it just what you think? It's how I imagine I would react if someone tried to control me by hitting me. Do you think that the reason for spanking, a major safety infraction vs an end-of-her rope mother swatting her toddler, make any difference in the amount of harm? If not, why not? If so, how much? The things which determine the amount of harm are not the parent's motivation for spanking, but the way the spanking is perceived by the child: expected versus unexpected, perceived as just versus unjust, very painful versus slightly painful, etc. The spanking is always perceived by the child as an attempt to control the child's behaviour using hitting -- that doesn't vary, and on average tends to increase the child's tendency to hit others. There are also those who initially intend to spank rarely but find themselves on a slipperly slope. Spanking causes other discipline methods to be less effective. Some parents find themselves spanking more and more often as time goes on. I think that when spanking is very rare, it probably does address the specific behavior to the point that the "slippery slope" argument is not valid. If, after the child grows up, with retrospect one can say that the spankings were rare, then you can know that the "slippery slope" was not slid down for that particular child. If the child is still young, you can't know that. Rare spankings this year might still increase to be frequent spankings next year or the year after: it happens in some families, and all too often progresses to severe physical abuse. Parents do not usually make a decision like "I'm going to spank, but no more than 5 times in this child's lifetime." Instead, they tend to make decisions like "I'm going to spank, but only for really severe misbehaviour such as X." If the child then begins to do X frequently, what does the parent do? 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. 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? Betty Wolf said: That's a very good point about another possible shortcoming of "the studies." It's impossible to design studies to take into account all the possible different kinds of punishments, and how each individual child will respond to every possible punishment. My DH was not hit as a child, but if he disagreed with his mother or acted in a way she didn't like, she threatened to kill herself. Hard to believe that a swat or two could be worse than that. The existence of things that are worse than spanking does not in any way prove that spanking is OK nor does it invalidate the results of any scientific studies. Catherine Woodgold wrote: What particular variables do you believe can't be controlled for? Betty Woolf ) writes: I understand that the good studies ask about frequency of spanking, whether it is done in anger, other discipline methods, etc. They control for race, income level, SAHM/WOHM, amount and type of daycare, parental situation, etc. I have no quarrel with that. Let's say some of the other things a good study would have to try to look at are other parenting decisions, such as cosleeping or breastfeeding, to try isolate spanking as the ultimate cause of the undesirable behavior. (ie one could argue that the lack of cosleeping or breastfeeding could cause antisocial behavior, so a good study would have to attempt to address that.) Then they would have to address weaning from the family bed and from breastfeeding. They'd have to quantify whether the child was actually ready to be weaned (was a rough weaning to blame for the "antisocial behavior," whatever that means?). And you'd have to get these answers trusting that the recollection was accurate (My son is not even 4, but I can't remember if he weaned at 2y 1mo or 2y 3 mo.) and that the survey taker was telling an objective truth ("He moved to his own bed when he was ready, at 11 months") I don't think it's possible to separate one particular parenting behavior from a whole parenting style and blame that one thing for how a child acts on a particular day/set of days when they are being observed for "antisocial behavior." There are huge numbers of variables involved. When a statistical study is done, averages are calculated and the other variables generally average out and therefore have little or not effect on the result. If a correlation is found, (and if it's not a fluke), then there is some reason for it. The reason may be something complex, such as that breastfed kids behave better on average (if they do) or whatever. However, for a more complex relationship between the variables to be the cause of the correlation, the correlation between each pair of variables has to be even stronger than if it's a direct causation one way or the other. The most parsimonious explanation is that spanking causes misbehaviour in the long term. Besides, there are theoretical reasons to explain why it would. Do you have particular reasons for believing that some particular variables, other than a direct cause-and-effect relationship, may have caused the correlations in particular spanking studies? That is, do you have reasonably plausible alternative explanations for the results other than that spanking causes misbehaviour in the long term? I said I would provide more information on some particular studies if people were interested. I'm planning to reply to an earlier post of yours, but I'm working full-time and parenting my children, so it may be several days before I have time to carefully re-read the studies. Meanwhile, I encourage anyone who wishes to to look up those studies; they can be obtained by inter-library loan at public libraries, I believe. I apologize if I came on too strong. I am interested in your answers. 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. 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. -- 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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Catherine Woodgold wrote:
Betty Woolf said: (I am not talking about black-and-white studies of adult violent criminals - I'm talking about attempts to prove that *any* spanking has a long-lasting negative affect.) I'm going to snip liberally to keep this from getting too long, but if I inadvertently miss a point please correct me. 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. The null hypothesis is that spanking does no harm, not that it does good. 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 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. The "any pain is harm" argument does not convince me in the least. 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. I am not sure the studies can isolate spanking from other aspects of parenting that may cause increased misbehavior. Numerous studies have found correlations between spanking and misbehaviour. These correlations continue to be found in spite of controlling for many possible confounding variables such as socio-economic status. (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. I would need to know more about the design of the study. If the results are based on the mothers filling out surveys, why should we believe the mothers are not lying? Why should the mothers lie on an anonymous telephone survey conducted for scientific purposes? I shouldn't have said lying - I should have said misremembered or mis-answered. 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'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. Is it only mothers this study was concerned with, as the above summary suggests? If so, why? "The limited budget for this study prevented interviewing both parents. Mothers were chosen as the respondents because mothers have much more of the day to day responsibility for child care." 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? 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? What was the age of children assessed? How was antisocial behavior defined? Ages 2 to 14. ASB (anti-social behaviour) was measured using questions about 11 behaviours, 3 of which were modified based on the age of the child. The 8 constant items asked how often in the past six months the child was "cruel or mean to other kids, bullies; cruel or mean to or insults you; denies doing something he or she really did; hit a brother or sister, hit other kids; hit you or other adults; damages or destroys things; and stolen money or something else." 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. Also, unless the mother is with the kid 24 hours a day, she can't possibly answer with 100% certainty. 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. 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. 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? Is there anybody arguing that frequent spanking is better than rare spanking? I don't think so - I think the argument is whether rare spanking causes measurable harm over no spanking. 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. Do you think that the reason for spanking, a major safety infraction vs an end-of-her rope mother swatting her toddler, make any difference in the amount of harm? If not, why not? If so, how much? The things which determine the amount of harm are not the parent's motivation for spanking, but the way the spanking is perceived by the child: expected versus unexpected, perceived as just versus unjust, very painful versus slightly painful, etc. The spanking is always perceived by the child as an attempt to control the child's behaviour using hitting -- that doesn't vary, and on average tends to increase the child's tendency to hit others. I'm not comfortable taking anyone's word for how a toddler or preschooler perceives the world. My son once ran into me and fell down when he wasn't looking where he was going; I was standing still, talking on the phone. He then started crying and announced to DH that I had "pushed him down." 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. This is not the same as saying that even one instance of physical punishment is going to damage your relationship with your child. 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? 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. Betty Woolf ) writes: I don't think it's possible to separate one particular parenting behavior from a whole parenting style and blame that one thing for how a child acts on a particular day/set of days when they are being observed for "antisocial behavior." There are huge numbers of variables involved. When a statistical study is done, averages are calculated and the other variables generally average out and therefore have little or not effect on the result. If a correlation is found, (and if it's not a fluke), then there is some reason for it. The reason may be something complex, such as that breastfed kids behave better on average (if they do) or whatever. However, for a more complex relationship between the variables to be the cause of the correlation, the correlation between each pair of variables has to be even stronger than if it's a direct causation one way or the other. The most parsimonious explanation is that spanking causes misbehaviour in the long term. Besides, there are theoretical reasons to explain why it would. 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. Do you have particular reasons for believing that some particular variables, other than a direct cause-and-effect relationship, may have caused the correlations in particular spanking studies? That is, do you have reasonably plausible alternative explanations for the results other than that spanking causes misbehaviour in the long term? I would have to read the studies before answering with specifics. I would also have to think twice before accepting ASB between the ages of 2 and 14 as "long term" misbehavior. 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?") 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. -The surveys are failing to even attempt to look for other explanations and therefore don't question things that would provide alternative answers. -The study subjects are inappropriately chosen or classified. 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. I think we disagree about the place studies have in the discussion - I don't trust them as you do. If you have time, I'm interested in your responses but I don't think there's a lot more to be said. I don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye on the validity of the studies. Thanks for an interesting discussion Betty 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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Catherine Woodgold" wrote in message ... Numerous studies have found correlations between spanking and misbehaviour. These correlations continue to be found in spite of controlling for many possible confounding variables such as socio-economic status. It seems intuitive to me that children who misbehave more would be spanked more. How do the studies rule out this possibility? It also seems intuitive to me that emotionally volatile parents would have emotionally volatile children (biological children), and therefore the children who are most likely to misbehave, also have the parents most likely to spank. How do the studies address this issue? Bizby |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Catherine Woodgold wrote:
Betty Woolf ) writes: [excerpts from Betty's post] Catherine Woodgold wrote: snips 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. Well, people usually do studies trying to prove something, at least in my experience. Spanking either has a positive effect, a negative effect, or no effect on a child's behavior. My stance is colored by what studies mean in my line of work, and you may not realize that the way you state things has a particular meaning in the world of the harder sciences. It is that that I am reacting to when I may seem to be responding to things you think you didn't say; by my frame of reference, I am responding to what I think you said. 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. It's not a statistical test, but a basic principal within statistics. You can't have statistical significance without a null hypothesis - generally expressed as measuring the probability that whatever you've observed could have occurred by chance. When I typed the above, I was speaking of the null hypothesis as I use it in my job as a molecular biologist. I went ahead and looked up the statistical definition. Excerpts from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis "In statistics, a null hypothesis is a hypothesis that is presumed true until statistical evidence in the form of a hypothesis test indicates otherwise. If experimental observations contradict the prediction of the null hypothesis, it means that either the null hypothesis is false, or we have observed an event with very low probability. This gives us high confidence in the falsehood of the null hypothesis, which can be improved by increasing the number of trials. However, accepting the alternative hypothesis only commits us to a difference in observed parameters; it does not prove that the theory or principles that predicted such a difference is true, since it is always possible that the difference could be due to additional factors not recognized by the theory." Perhaps reading the above will help you understand where I am coming from in analyzing these studies. 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 have to disagree, since I can remember spankings in which my reaction was surprise rather than pain. 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? Not always. One of my hobbies is horseback riding, and after riding I am sometimes in pain, and I don't consider that bad. 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? Because "for the fun of it" is not a valid reason. I can think of reasons for physically stopping a bike in such a way that the rider would fall: he is heading into traffic in a situation where he can't hear me, or he is behaving maliciously and heading for a dog or small child and I feel that is the only way to avoid more serious injury. Why does the same reason, whatever it is, not also apply to spanking? Apples and oranges, to my way of thinking. Betty Woolf said: 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. I'm not advocating not discussing the reasons for doing so, exactly. I don't spank because I don't think it's effective, and I'm happy to share what I think about alternative discipline methods if I think it will help. I don't believe I know what's best for everybody in every situation though. 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 don't think it's necessary to come up with an alternative explanation, but only to point out things that weren't considered or flaws in the methodology, as the wikipedia quote above indicates. 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. Right - it is the wording that I am wondering about. 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.'" And what about the argument that the one spanking, 8 months ago, was *so* effective that there was no hitting in the last six months? 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. On average, sure. But the methodology leaves a lot of unanswered questions. What if the best behaved kids, never spanked by their mothers, were products of the "Just wait until your father gets home" model of discipline, or worse, that those kids not only were hit by their fathers but watched as their fathers hit their mothers. Of course I don't think that's true, but scientifically speaking, it's not ruled out. 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. I promise I will try to look at the study, but it's not going to happen soon. Off the top of my head, other factors I would want to know about would be the following. I don't know if all or none were controlled for: Income, marital situation, number of children, child's place in the family (only, oldest, middle, youngest, step-children, and age differences), sex of children, daycare situation, amount of sleep, amount of exercise, alternative forms of discipline, and certain medical information, such as diagnosis of ADD, autism spectrum disorders, familial history of allergy, stuff like that. 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. Right, but does she really know about the children's behavior when they are away from her? Maybe the "low ASB" kids are bullying younger kids with no fear of punishment, but in such a way that it is not called to the mother's attention. 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? No, I don't think it is possible to calculate. What is the unit of measurement? Can you suggest any better way to estimate the amount of harm from a single spanking? I don't think it's possible to estimate, so I have no answer here. Parents need estimates of such harm to make ordinary, day-to-day decisions, even if they don't think about it in mathematical terms. I don't agree with this either. I don't hit because I don't think it is effective. I reached this conclusion long before I had kids, mostly from working with animals. I never even thought about measuring the harm of physical punishment, but rather observed over and over that it doesn't work in most situations. The way we look at things with training animals is "Set them up to succeed" and "make the right thing easy and the wrong thing hard." Hitting has no place in that. That is, I think that the fact that it is not effective, is, in-and-of itself, sufficient to rule it out, without worrying about whether it harms the recipient, because in most cases I don't think it has a long-term harm. 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. But is that because of study design or because of "truth"? What do you believe? Do you believe rare spanking causes harm? Do you believe it doesn't cause harm? I believe hitting is not an effective way to positively influence behavior. I don't know how to quantify "harm," and I don't know how to separate the physical act of spanking from the controlling attitude of parents who are likely to spank regularly. I lean toward thinking it is not the actual spanking that does harm, but the adversarial relationship itself, of which spanking is only one facet. 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. (oops, snipped too much) 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 think that we don't (and can't) know how much harm a spanking does in the grand scheme of everything we do in raising our kids. I think that even if we could measure the harm in a single spanking, that there are things that can be done to negate that harm, in the context of the larger relationship, just as there are health choices we can make to minimize the damage from an ill-advised period of heavy smoking. And I therefore object to even hinting that people who rarely hit their kids are irreparably harming their kids and their relationship with their kids. 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. In some cases. But if I get a speeding ticket for going 5 miles per hour over the speed limit and am threatened with license revocation if I get another one, I'm going to probably slow down in addition to feeling resentful. 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 didn't say you could find one, I said you could design them. If I wanted to refute the Straus et al studies I could design studies such that his correlation would be lost in the noise. I could redefine antisocial behavior. I think it's probably true that most of the richest people in the US were probably spanked as children, just by virtue of their age and background - I could most likely design a study correlating rare spanking with earning potential. 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 know this is going to sound very uncaring, but I'm not sure it matters if spanking causes 2-to-14-year-olds to misbehave if they grow up to be productive members of society. 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. This seems to refer to more frequently spanked subjects. I've already said I accept a correlation between spanking as a primary discipline method and misbehavior. I don't think you can use one study with different methodology to support another study that didn't look at that factor. -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. I think there are always important variables that aren't considered. As I said, I think it's too complicated. -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. Well, it guarantees that respondents had telephones, which lets out people in some parts of the country and some socioeconomic classes. And if they did the calls during the day that lets out families in which both parents work. And if the call came at night there are assumptions to be made about who has time to talk on the phone. Perhaps this also classifies as noise. 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 believe that the harm of a single spanking is not measurable, and that even a few spankings, on average, have a negligible effect on the child's long-term mental health, productivity, or ability to be a contributing member of society. 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? It's not a specific statement. I think it's two things: One is possibly because I'm not as familiar with the literature, and that is that you seem to be using conclusions from one study with a particular methodology to support things from another study with a different methodology. Depending on the details, that can be OK or misleading and incorrect. Second, with something like parenting, "studies say" and averages are important to an extent but there are so many nuances that I hesitate to use studies in the context of parenting discussions at all. For example, there are sleep studies showing that "crying it out" is not harmful, that young kids sleep better after CIO techniques are used, etc. I absolutely don't care in that context about an average kid - it's something that I could never ever do to my son. Have I clarified, or muddied the waters? That's all for tonight, in any case! 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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On 24 Jun 2005, Catherine Woodgold wrote:
[snip] Numerous studies have found correlations between spanking and misbehaviour. These correlations continue to be found in spite of controlling for many possible confounding variables such as socio-economic status. The problem with these studies is that if they do the same statistical analysis with non-cp alternatives, the same correlation also show up. You might want to look up on the studies done by Dr. Larzelere. (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. I am glad that you brought up Straus & Mouradian (1998). In this study, they also looked at non-cp alternatives like: 1) Talking to the child calmly 2) Sent the child to the room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges All of these together "was found to have a much stronger relation than any of the other variables." (to ASB). Now if you can point me to a study where the non-cp alternatives have been shown to be better than spanking under the same statistical analysis, I'll be deeply appreciated. Doan |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Betty Woolf wrote:
Catherine Woodgold wrote: Betty Woolf ) writes: [excerpts from Betty's post] Catherine Woodgold wrote: snips 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. Well, people usually do studies trying to prove something, at least in my experience. Spanking either has a positive effect, a negative effect, or no effect on a child's behavior. My stance is colored by what studies mean in my line of work, and you may not realize that the way you state things has a particular meaning in the world of the harder sciences. It is that that I am reacting to when I may seem to be responding to things you think you didn't say; by my frame of reference, I am responding to what I think you said. Straus is publicly known for his anti-spanking crusade and due to his bias, he often not see the errors in his studies like the so called "no-spanking" group in his Straus et al (1997) were actually includes spankers! "We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the likelihood that our no-spanking group includes occasional spankers. To the extent that this is the case, the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for children in the "none" group may indicate an improvement in the behavior of children whose parents spank, but do so only infrequently." Later, he blamed it on his "secular humanism": "Straus, for example, has made explicit the fact that his research is motivated by secular humanism. This includes a deeply held belief that good ends should not be sought by bad means; that all forms of interpersonal violence, including spanking, are wrong, even when motivated by love and concern; and that we therefore need to develop nonviolent methods of preventing and correcting antisocial behavior. These deeply held values may account for the failure of Straus to perceive the serious limitation of measuring CP using a 1-week reference period." (ARCHIVES, In Reply. March 1998) Doan |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"bizby40" wrote: "Catherine Woodgold" wrote in message ... Numerous studies have found correlations between spanking and misbehaviour. These correlations continue to be found in spite of controlling for many possible confounding variables such as socio-economic status. It seems intuitive to me that children who misbehave more would be spanked more. How do the studies rule out this possibility? It also seems intuitive to me that emotionally volatile parents would have emotionally volatile children (biological children), and therefore the children who are most likely to misbehave, also have the parents most likely to spank. How do the studies address this issue? Bizby Really! Recently I had a conversation with Mom where she said that one of my siblings almost never got spanked (the rest of us did) because he was so easy to discipline in other ways -- she'd just look at him and he'd burst into tears and apologize! Another got spanked regularly, and he seemed pretty impervious to any other approach. 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. -- Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Help with specific behavior issue | [email protected] | General | 84 | June 18th 05 02:53 AM |
Corporal Punishment Abandoned | Chris | General | 85 | November 6th 04 02:38 AM |
Poll Results:Boston Globe--->Recent SC. Decision to Allow Parents to Spank Children | nospam | Spanking | 9 | February 8th 04 01:16 AM |
| U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 142 | November 16th 03 07:46 PM |