Larzelere, laid to rest.

http://umanitoba.ca/faculties/human_...n%20Sweden.pdf

There are repeated attempts in this ng by the spanking compulsives to
try and bring "experts" to the table that are in fact anything but
expert.

Larzelere is one of their best but failed hopes. Rather like James
Dobson, reverend dachsund terrorizer, Larzelere fails when closely
examined by actual researchers.

Larzelere is and always has been a "Christian" fundy proponent of
spanking with a somewhat clever way with words, that fails utterly
under examination.

The response and rebuttal by Joan E. Durrant, Ph.D., Department of
Family Social Sciences
University of Manitoba 2005, an actual researcher that follows strict
protocols, to the claims by Larzelere on the issue of Sweden's ban on
corporal punishment is a case in point.

Larzelere is no less maniplative and misrepresenting here than in his
attacks on Straus's key research.

Read what Durrant replies (and supports in the body of the document at
the link above).

"Foreword
The Christian Institute and Families First have published a booklet
written by
Robert Larzelere, University of Nebraska Medical Center. The publishers
claim
that this booklet presents a "devastating critique" of my research
on Sweden's
corporal punishment ban. Throughout the booklet, Larzelere accuses me
of
bias, claims that my conclusions contradict the evidence, and implies
that my
research is based more on "good intentions" than on rigorous
analysis. This
attack on my research goes beyond the level of academic debate and
warrants
a full response. The purpose of this document is to provide that
response.
Joan E. Durrant, Ph.D.
University of Manitoba"

....

"Executive Summary
Larzelere suggests that his analysis of the Swedish situation is
objective. However:
· his position on corporal punishment is influenced by
interpretations of Biblical scripture, a
position that could compromise his objectivity,
· his critique reveals a lack of knowledge of Sweden and law reform
in that country,
· his conclusions are based on extremely limited sources of data,
misuse of the data he does
have, and non-validated assumptions about the Swedish system.
1. Larzelere's claim: Because public attitudes shifted prior to the
1979 explicit ban on corporal
punishment, the ban has not been effective.
Response: The explicit ban was the last of several law reforms made
over a period of 50 years.
Public support for corporal punishment has declined with successive
reforms. In 1965 - 8 years
after the criminal defense to assault was removed from the Penal Code -
53% of Swedes believed
that corporal punishment was necessary. By 1994 only 11% of Swedes were
positively inclined
toward even mild forms of corporal punishment.
2. Larzelere's claim: Physical punishment has not declined over time.
Response: Larzelere examines data collected at one point in time (1994)
to draw conclusions
about change over time. When studies based on data collected from the
1950's to the 1990's
are examined, it is clear that physical punishment has declined
dramatically. Whereas all
children born in the 1950's were physically punished and 13% were hit
with implements, only
a minority of those born in 1980 were physically punished, even once or
twice. Virtually none
of today's youth have been hit with implements.
3. Larzelere's claim: Physical assaults of children have increased.
Response: Larzelere erroneously uses police reporting statistics as if
they are rates of actual
assault. He fails to recognize that reporting rates are highly
vulnerable to changes in legal and
cultural definitions of violence. As public sensitivity to violence
increases, so do reporting
rates. The proportion of total assault reports composed of aggravated
assault reports has not
increased, indicating that assaults are more likely to be reported, but
their severity has not
increased. A study by the National Crime Prevention Council supports
the conclusion that the
increase seen in reporting does not reflect a true increase in violence
against children.
6 Response to Larzelere
4. Larzelere's claim: Swedish child abuse rates were higher than
American rates following the 1979
explicit ban.
Response: This claim is based on a single study examining each country
at one point in time. The
results show that the rate of overall violence and of spanking and
slapping were much higher in the
American sample than in the Swedish sample. In the case of very severe
violence there was no difference
between the samples. The proportion of parents committing acts of
severe violence was extremely
small in both countries, indicating that these deviant individuals are
outliers who are unlikely
to be amenable to educational initiatives.
5. Larzelere's claim: The difference in child abuse mortality rates
before and after the 1979 explicit
ban was not statistically significant.
Response: Larzelere fails to recognize the importance of the law
reforms that preceded the explicit
ban, most notably the removal of the criminal defense to assault in
1957. The annual child abuse
mortality rate has been close to zero since 1971. Nine children died
this way in the 25 years between
1971 and 1996. In order to decrease further, the rate would have to
remain at zero indefinitely, which
is impossible.
6. Larzelere's claim: The 1979 corporal punishment ban has caused
youth violence to increase.
Response: Larzelere again presents police reporting statistics as if
they are rates of actual assault. He
does not acknowledge the powerful impact that anti-bullying initiatives
have had on reporting of
youth assault in Sweden. He misrepresents the conclusions of the
Swedish criminologist, Dr. Hanns
von Hofer, and does not address the findings of self-report and
victimization studies that demonstrate
stability in youth violence since 1971.
7. Larzelere's claim: 46% of children in the child welfare system
have been removed from their homes.
Response: Accurately stated, of measures implemented for children new
to the system in 1995, 46%
involved some kind of out-of-home care, a decrease from 60% in 1982.
This kind of care includes
special measures for young offenders, short-term placements for
assessment, and longer term placements.
Out-of-home care in Sweden often involves the entire family, not
separation of the child from
the family. Larzelere's conclusions about the Swedish child welfare
system are largely based on a
single opinion-based source. His simplistic response to these complex
data reveals a lack of knowledge
about the system.
8. Larzelere's claim: Children are much more likely to be removed
from their homes in Sweden than in
other European countries.
Response: Larzelere is basing his claim on 1981 figures. Moreover, he
confuses the number of children
who were first placed in out-of-home care in a given year with the
total number of children who were
placed in out-of-home care in that year and who remain in out-of-home
care from previous years. His
confusion leads to a highly distorted picture of the situation. Whereas
he states that 22,000 children
were removed from their homes in 1981, the actual number of children
placed in out-of-home care in
1982 was 4,839. This number declined by 20% by 1995. Larzelere cites
figures from other nations
taken from an opinion-based source without any documentation or any
explanation of differences in
child welfare systems, statistical record-keeping procedures, ages of
children included in the system, or
other important differences that can greatly distort any apparent
differences in rates.
7
9. Larzelere's claim: Before other countries follow Sweden's
example of a smacking ban, they should
consider Sweden's increase in child abuse and criminal assaults.
Response: The supposed "increase" in violence against children is
not, in fact, reality. Moreover, 14
countries have already followed Sweden's example, not because of its
irrefutable "success," but because
they believe that children should have legal protection from assault.
Laws affirming human
rights are based on principle, not on evidence. The American law
prohibiting assault of adults has
been a massive failure, if we measure success by rates of reported
violence. But Americans would
never consider removing their legal protection from assault because it
"hasn't worked." Their law is
based on principle. This is the basis of international laws prohibiting
corporal punishment.
Summary
Larzelere's critique reflects a misunderstanding of Swedish history,
culture and law. He has misinterpreted
and misrepresented my analyses, as well as the official data. He is
remarkably ill-informed
about Sweden, rendering his critique of my research no more than a
polemic.
Executive Summary
8 Response to Larzelere
Background
Since receiving his Ph.D. in Psychology from Pennsylvania State
University, Larzelere spent 8 years as a
tenured Associate Professor at Rosemead School of Psychology at Biola
University (formerly the Bible
Institute of Los Angeles (http://www.biola.edu)). Shortly thereafter,
Larzelere began to devote a
significant portion of his academic life to the following pursuits:
1. attempting to demonstrate that corporal punishment is beneficial to
children (Larzelere,
1996a, 2000),
2. critiquing research demonstrating the negative outcomes associated
with corporal punishment
(Larzelere, 1996; Baumrind, Larzelere & Cowan, 2002),
3. promoting the concept of "non-abusive spanking" (Larzelere,
1993, 1994, 1998),
4. attempting to demonstrate that the Swedish corporal punishment ban
has been harmful to
children (Larzelere & Johnson, 1999), and
5. arguing for parents' right to use corporal punishment (Larzelere,
Silver, Polite, 1998; Larzelere,
1997b).
While Larzelere claims to be an unbiased, objective voice on the
subject of corporal punishment, the
overriding theme of his work suggests otherwise. In a 1993 article
which appeared in the Journal of
Psychology and Theology (published by the Rosemead School of Psychology
at Biola University),
Larzelere sets out to "identify likely characteristics of beneficial
corporal punishment" and to propose a
"balanced scriptural view of spanking" (p. 142). He examines
scriptural passages which he interprets as
follows (p. 146): 1) the Hebrew word translated as "rod" in the
Bible "can sometimes imply a large
instrument" but "sometimes suggests a rather flimsy instrument,
incapable of causing physical harm",
2) spanking should take place within an overall loving relationship, 3)
"parents should put more
emphasis on verbal correction and less on the rod as a child grows
up." On the basis of Proverbs 17:10
and Proverbs 22:15, Larzelere concludes that
"the implication seems to be that, properly used, spanking will help
remove a child's natural foolishness
from him or her, so that the child will be influenced more by verbal
correction at an older age" (p. 146).
This statement demonstrates that Larzelere holds a position on corporal
punishment - based on
Biblical interpretation and precept - that could influence his
interpretations of scientific evidence.
Larzelere has now presented a critique of my research on Sweden,
published by The Christian Institute
(http://www.christian.org.uk) and Families First
(www.families-first.org.uk) in the UK. The fact that
Larzelere has engaged in such a critique would suggest that he has
specialized knowledge of Sweden.
However, he has not published any original research on Sweden and
states that he does not have
access to much Swedish data.
To address Larzelere's implication that I am one of the biased
"anti-smacking advocates" (p. 16) who
present "only one side of the evidence to try to impose their
perspective on parents" (p. 15), I begin
with an identification of the sources of my data and the steps I have
taken to ensure the validity of my
conclusions. Then I turn to Larzelere's specific critiques of my
conclusions.
"

And this is just the beginning of a thoroughgoing thrashing of
Larzelere and his nonsense.

Best wishes, hysterical screeching dancing monkeyboy et al.

0:-