Confounding spankers.

http://www.extension.umn.edu/distrib...nts/7266a.html

Consequences of Physical Punishment: A Quick Literature Review

[Note that pp.5-7 of the curriculum is a background piece that
summarizes "What the Research Says About Physical Punishment."]

Immediate consequences

1. Will stop misbehavior. . . but no better than other firm
measures

Many (if not most) of the studies which purport to find corporal
punishment to be "beneficial"/effective (Larzelere) studied it as a
way to stop or correct misbehavior. And it will; we don't question
that.

But so will other firm measures, when the children "take you
seriously". Perhaps the most effective of these is to move to the
child immediately when the request, command, or demand is made.

2. Can lead to child abuse.

Some educators, researchers, and child protection workers
(Murray Straus, for example) consider even "ordinary", mild physical
punishment as abusive. It is a form of violence, but we do not take
the stand that one or two open-handed swats on the seat is "abuse".
Hitting with a closed hand (fist) anywhere on the body, hitting the
face or head in any way, and hitting with an object is (in our
opinion) abuse.

For two reasons, we (the Positive Parenting team) advise no
hitting at all:
1. We don't know precisely where to draw the line between
"acceptable physical punishment as discipline" and child abuse. NOTE:
Robert Larzelere, one of the most frequently quoted supporters of
spanking (among researchers), limits "acceptable corporal punishment"
to two swats on the seat with an open hand.

2. Anger and violence (even "mild violence") can easily
escalate out of control.

Some 70% of child abuse cases were attempts to discipline
through the use of physical punishment that escalated out of control.
(Kadushin & Martin; Straus)

Although much corporal punishment is of low intensity and
frequency, its range is wide and the most severe end is clearly
abusive. A major problem, as noted above, is that one cannot easily
specify where "appropriate" punishment fades into abuse. It is because
of this difficulty of "drawing the line", that we have chosen to argue
for NO hitting of children.



Short and medium-range consequences:

3. Cannot teach what to do-new, appropriate, or alternative
behavior

The best that punishment alone can do is teach or dramatize what
not to do. Often, it probably points out what not to get caught doing.
And, as we will further note in a moment, trying to teach (explain,
reason) a child who is feeling threatened, afraid, angry, or pain is
almost impossible.

4. Does not deter child from repeating same behavior (any better
than other tactics)

Spanking is often effective at stopping misbehavior momentarily.
However, it is no more (and probably less) effective than other means
at stopping further misbehavior, in the short run. And it can and
often does have a number of undesirable side effects, in the long run.

72% of Goodhue county parents admitted that their children, at
least sometimes, repeated the behavior for which they were spanked.
More striking, 34% indicated this happens half the time or more.

REMEMBER: With young children, nothing works all the time.
Remember also: The effects discussed below are not unequivocal; they
are increased probabilities (in some cases, such as with
aggressiveness of children, sharply increased probabilities).

5. Spanking hinders rather than improves general compliance
(especially when child is not in immediate presence of the punisher).

Children who are spanked are less, not more, compliant (when out
of the immediate sight or presence of the punisher) than are non-
spanked children. Straus' recently published (Archives, 1997)
longitudinal study demonstrates this probably more convincingly than
any other study to date.

The basic reason for this, according to research, is that
children of non-spanking parents tend to control their behavior on the
basis of what is right or wrong; spanked children control their
behavior out of fear-to avoid being hit. Instead of learning to
differentiate between right and wrong, they learn to differentiate
only what does and doesn't result in a spanking.

6. Undermines reasoning, explanation and other forms of "parental
induction," because child cannot learn, reason, or problem-solve well
while experiencing threat, pain, fear, or anger.

Pediatrician Dr. J. Donald Walcher points out that, in his
experience, there is little effectiveness in trying to make any
explanation at the onset of a disciplinary action. Often the parent
and the child are upset at that time. Consequently, the parent makes
statements and threats that may be unreasonable and the child is
unable to pay any attention whatever. Please note the phrase "is
unable to pay attention." Stress research (Selye; others) tells us
clearly that when a person experiences threat, fear, anger, or pain,
his/her body automatically prepares to respond to the threat (the
alarm or stress or "fight/flight" response). While this prepares us
well to fight or flee, it actually hinders learning or problem-solving
because blood is being shunted from the problem-solving/learning
centers to the muscles. The cerebral cortex temporarily closes down.
And when children have been or are just about to be spanked, they are
experiencing threat and pain-probably accompanied by anger and/or
fear.

To support our argument that children can't learn well while
being spanked or otherwise harshly punished/disciplined and therefore
feeling threat or pain ("alarm reaction"), consider the following
information related by Dr. Richard Weinberg (Director of the
University of Minnesota's Institute of Child Development): It is
understood now in the medical profession that for 15-20 minutes after
being told they have cancer or other serious condition, patients'
anxiety, fear, etc. is so great that they simply do not or cannot hear/
comprehend whatever is explained to them about prognosis, alternative
treatments, immediate steps. This is so commonly understood that
(good) doctors routinely schedule another consultation very soon and
repeat all that was reviewed at the initial revelation.

Is it reasonable to assume that children are any more able than
are adults to learn or be reasoned with when experiencing fear,
threat, or pain?

7. Is inconsistent with non-violent precepts

It is inconsistent (and confusing) to tell a child that
inflicting pain and being violent is inappropriate and then to inflict
pain to modify that child's behavior. How can a child possibly be
sensitive to subtle nuances such as that inflicting pain is sometimes
justified but sometimes not?

8. Increases probability of aggressive acting-out

Being spanked as children increases the probability of their
hitting others now at home and in the neighborhood and later as
adults.

Perhaps the most frequent and powerful relationship demonstrated
by research is that between physical punishment and aggressive acting-
out of the child-both now as a child in relations with sibs, peers,
parents, and others . . . and later as an adult in all their relations
(but especially with spouse and children).

Hitting children models violent behavior, teaching them
* that hitting others is morally correct (after all that is
what their own parents do) when those others are doing "something
wrong" and won't stop
* that the way to deal with annoyance is to hit
* that being angry and "beyond yourself" justifies hitting.

Persons who have been hit also tend to carry a great deal of
anger, to have a "short fuse," to "fly off easily."

9. Physical punishment chips away at the bond of affection between
parent and child; induces resentment and fear.

Each episode of physical punishment chips away at the bond of
affection between parent and child.

* Several research studies have found that 40-50 percent of
people, when asked how they felt when they were spanked, reported that
they "hated the parent."
* Resentment and fear of parent keeps children (a) from
wanting to be like their parents, (b) from wanting to change behavior
which parents disapprove, and (c) from learning how to behave
differently. Children must, essentially, allow us to socialize or
discipline them. They do this when they love and trust the parent not
when they fear or hate the parent.
* This is an especially unfortunate consequence when our
children get older, since perhaps the only real resource we have with
adolescents is a "bank of goodwill."



Long-range consequences

10. Children don't learn to take responsibility for their own
behavior ("external attribution")-control behavior to avoid being hit
(punished) rather than on basis of what is right or wrong.

They tend to see the major responsibility for children
conforming to proper standards as residing in others (parents,
teacher, law enforcers). This puts the responsibility for good
behavior on the wrong shoulders.

Conscience development is impeded.

11. Spanking hinders the development of empathy and compassion for
others; child focuses on own pain rather than on effects of behavior
on others.

Spanking hinders development of empathy and compassion, because
the child focuses on his/her own pain rather than on the effect of his/
her behavior on others. The natural human reaction to feeling
threatened or being hurt is a flood of anger and/or fear that
psychologists call the "fight or flight" reaction. It ensures that
your child cannot listen, think, or feel remorseful.

12. Spanking is a risk factor (increases the probability) for an
array of undesirable social and psychological circumstances.

Research by Straus and many others has shown relationships
between spanking and many undesirable outcomes:

* psychological effects-feelings of rejection,
powerlessness, anger, fear, low self-esteem, depression, alienation,
dependence, emotional instability, emotional unresponsiveness,
negative world view.

* Depression
* Suicide
* Alcohol and drug abuse
* Spouse battering
* Child abuse
* Delinquency and vandalism
* Violent crime-assault, murder, rape, robbery
* Lower educational, occupational, and economic achievement

This data comes from a national survey of over 8,000 families.
What it shows is that physical punishment is a risk factor. It,
particularly when combined with other risk factors, can contribute to
negative outcomes for children. Because many of these outcomes are not
measurable until a child reaches adulthood, it has been difficult to
determine that spanking is one of the factors that contribute to the
outcomes.

One helpful way of looking at this is the same way we have begun
to look at smoking. In the past, smoking was viewed as a harmless
habit. There was some concern that there might be negative health
effects, but no one could prove it. Today, we have definite evidence
that smoking is a contributing factor to disease and death of many
people. Granted, not everyone who smokes develops lung cancer, but
smoking is a risk factor.

The same may be said of spanking. Not every child who was
spanked experiences negative outcomes, but it is an identified risk
factor.

13. Can become an "easy-way-out" for youngsters-easier than
restitution, reconciliation, grounding, penalties.

Refer to Coloroso's notion that persons who have committed a
hurtful act against others need to:

1. "fix it" (restitution)

2. present a plan for how they will avoid such actions in the
future

3. "heal with the victim" (reconcile)

This, we believe, is similar to the principles of "restorative
justice."

Youngsters may find that accepting a spanking is easier or less
demanding than such an approach. But we believe such steps are more
fair to the victim and teach much more to the perpetrator than being
punished.

14. Eventually becomes impossible as child grows older and stronger

Spanking as a sole or major mode of discipline throughout
childhood makes it more difficult for parents to influence children
later on, especially in adolescence, when physical force is no longer
possible.

Even the major proponents of spanking recommend against spanking
after a certain age:

Larzelere - age 6
Baumrind - puberty
Dobson - age 10

....