Relationship between Spanking and Misbehaviour

dragonlady ) writes:
In article ,
(Catherine Woodgold) wrote:
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.

Why not? Why could it NOT be the case that children who are more
difficult to control tend to get spanked more? That was the case in MY
family of origin. (And, yes, I know, the plural of anecdote is NOT
data.)

Certainly it may be the case that children who are more difficult
to control tend to get spanked more. It seems very likely to me.
I didn't claim it wasn't the case.

What I mean is: in the Straus et al (1997) study, they find a
correlation between spanking and an increase in misbehaviour over
time. This correlation cannot be the result of misbehaviour causing
spanking. Misbehaviour, or a tendency to misbehave, may have led
to the spankings; but the correlation between spanking and
later misbehaviour, while controlling for misbehaviour level at
the beginning of the time period, cannot logically be explained
by the spankings being caused by misbehaviour that came later in time.

Sorry, that sounds rather complicated.

Basically, lots of previous studies found correlations between
spanking and misbehaviour but they could be criticized because
maybe it was the misbehaviour that caused the spankings.
The Straus et al (1997) study found a way to control for this
possibility: a way to separate out misbehaviour caused by
spanking without contamination from spanking causing misbehaviour.

They found that there was still a correlation between spanking
and misbehaviour even after applying these statistical controls.

The spanked kids got worse faster than the nonspanked or less-
spanked kids.

But from the studies I've read, I'm not convinced that there has been a
way to control for the possibility that the child's behavior leads to
how often they get spanked -- and those whose behavior leads to more
frequent spanking will also have more behavioral problems in the long
run.

Well, they controlled for misbehaviour level at the
beginning of the study. So kids who started out at the
same level were being compared with each other. They
asked how many times they had been spanked in the past
week. (none, once, etc.) Then two years later they came
back and asked the same mothers questions about the
child's behaviour. The ones who had been spanked more
were behaving worse, on average, after the two-year period --
even though they had begun at the same level of misbehaviour.

This correlation could not be due to the misbehaviour
causing the spankings, because the misbehaviour being
measured came after the spankings.

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.

I tend to agree -- I don't support spanking for many reasons.

I'm just not as convinced that the studies "prove" what they are
intended to prove.

They present statistical results. Each individual can read
the studies, look at the numbers, and draw his or her own
conclusion. When a statistically significant result is found,
I think one of the following possibilities has to be true:
either it was a statistical fluke, or it was caused by
what the authors interpret it as being caused by, or it
was caused by something else. In the case of Straus et al (1997),
I don't think anybody has proposed any reasonable
alternative explanation that I've seen.
--
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

In article ,
(Catherine Woodgold) wrote:

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 always 3 possible explanations of a correlation.

If X correlates with Y, they a

X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)

The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame further
research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct.

I am disturbed that you are unfamiliar with this idea and with the concept of
the null hypothesis.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"In Melbourne there is plenty of vigour and eagerness, but there is
nothing worth being eager or vigorous about."
Francis Adams, The Australians, 1893.

On 2 Jul 2005, Catherine Woodgold wrote:


dragonlady ) writes:
In article ,
(Catherine Woodgold) wrote:
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.

Why not? Why could it NOT be the case that children who are more
difficult to control tend to get spanked more? That was the case in MY
family of origin. (And, yes, I know, the plural of anecdote is NOT
data.)

Certainly it may be the case that children who are more difficult
to control tend to get spanked more. It seems very likely to me.
I didn't claim it wasn't the case.

What I mean is: in the Straus et al (1997) study, they find a
correlation between spanking and an increase in misbehaviour over
time. This correlation cannot be the result of misbehaviour causing
spanking. Misbehaviour, or a tendency to misbehave, may have led
to the spankings; but the correlation between spanking and
later misbehaviour, while controlling for misbehaviour level at
the beginning of the time period, cannot logically be explained
by the spankings being caused by misbehaviour that came later in time.

Sorry, that sounds rather complicated.

Basically, lots of previous studies found correlations between
spanking and misbehaviour but they could be criticized because
maybe it was the misbehaviour that caused the spankings.
The Straus et al (1997) study found a way to control for this
possibility: a way to separate out misbehaviour caused by
spanking without contamination from spanking causing misbehaviour.

They found that there was still a correlation between spanking
and misbehaviour even after applying these statistical controls.

The spanked kids got worse faster than the nonspanked or less-
spanked kids.

But from the studies I've read, I'm not convinced that there has been a
way to control for the possibility that the child's behavior leads to
how often they get spanked -- and those whose behavior leads to more
frequent spanking will also have more behavioral problems in the long
run.

Well, they controlled for misbehaviour level at the
beginning of the study. So kids who started out at the
same level were being compared with each other. They
asked how many times they had been spanked in the past
week. (none, once, etc.) Then two years later they came
back and asked the same mothers questions about the
child's behaviour. The ones who had been spanked more
were behaving worse, on average, after the two-year period --
even though they had begun at the same level of misbehaviour.

This correlation could not be due to the misbehaviour
causing the spankings, because the misbehaviour being
measured came after the spankings.


This is from a debate between Dr. Larzelere and Straus:

"The second problem concerns the causal direction of associations between
spanking and child behavior. Even longitudinal correlations often fail to
isolate the effects of spanking on subsequent child misbehavior. The
original level of child misbehavior may have caused both the original
spanking frequency and the subsequent child problems. This possibility is
consistent with the fact that alternative disciplinary responses are more
often associated with more detrimental child outcomes than is nonabusive
spanking, compared to the reverse."

http://people.biola.edu/faculty/paulp/debate.html

So can you tell if there is a study that showed the non-cp alternatives
are better than spanking?

Doan

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Chookie wrote:

In article ,
(Catherine Woodgold) wrote:

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 always 3 possible explanations of a correlation.

If X correlates with Y, they a

X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)

The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame further
research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct.

I am disturbed that you are unfamiliar with this idea and with the concept of
the null hypothesis.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"In Melbourne there is plenty of vigour and eagerness, but there is
nothing worth being eager or vigorous about."
Francis Adams, The Australians, 1893.


Excellent point! I wonder what Lady Cathy would say about the non-cp
alternatives if they showed the same CORRELATION. In fact, this point
were brought up by Dr. Larzele

"a replication of the best study found identical small detrimental child
outcomes for all four alternative disciplinary responses for 6- to
9-year-olds available from the interview: grounding, sending the child to
a room, removing privileges, and taking away an allowance. Whatever
accounts for this small detrimental child effect, it does not seem to be
unique to spanking, but may reflect overly frequent uses of any negative
consequence (rejecting manner?, impulsive rather than loving discipline?,
insufficient discussion?)."

In a recent article about the intervention selection bias, Larzelere shows
that the research methods generally used to find detrimental child
outcomes from nonabusive spanking would also find equally detrimental
outcomes from recommended disciplinary techniques.

In fact, those kinds of methods would find detrimental outcomes from
almost all interventions to correct persisting problems, including
parental help with homework, therapy for suicide risk, hospitalization for
serious illnesses, and Head Start.

In all cases, those receiving the corrective intervention tend to look
worse than those not receiving the intervention, because of the
persistence and effects of the problem that led to the corrective
intervention in the first place. Positive associations between receiving a
corrective intervention and subsequent problems thus cannot discriminate
between effective and counter-productive interventions.

Larzelere, R. E., Kuhn, B. R., & Johnson, B. (2004). The intervention
selection bias: An underrecognized confound in intervention research.
Psychological Bulletin, 130 (2), 289-303.

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 12:40:55 -0700, Doan wrote:

"a replication of the best study found identical small detrimental child
outcomes for all four alternative disciplinary responses for 6- to
9-year-olds available from the interview: grounding, sending the child to
a room, removing privileges, and taking away an allowance. Whatever
accounts for this small detrimental child effect, it does not seem to be
unique to spanking, but may reflect overly frequent uses of any negative
consequence (rejecting manner?, impulsive rather than loving discipline?,
insufficient discussion?)."

Just shows that *all* punishment has the opposite effect from what
people expect. And, contrary to expectation, so do external rewards
that are given to control behavior.

Whenever people feel controlled, they resist that control. They do
not learn the lessons we intend them to learn, but learn several
unintended ones.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, toto wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 12:40:55 -0700, Doan wrote:

"a replication of the best study found identical small detrimental child
outcomes for all four alternative disciplinary responses for 6- to
9-year-olds available from the interview: grounding, sending the child to
a room, removing privileges, and taking away an allowance. Whatever
accounts for this small detrimental child effect, it does not seem to be
unique to spanking, but may reflect overly frequent uses of any negative
consequence (rejecting manner?, impulsive rather than loving discipline?,
insufficient discussion?)."

Just shows that *all* punishment has the opposite effect from what
people expect. And, contrary to expectation, so do external rewards
that are given to control behavior.

Whenever people feel controlled, they resist that control. They do
not learn the lessons we intend them to learn, but learn several
unintended ones.

Then let's get rid of ALL punishments and rewards! Let's start with
juvenile halls in your locality. ;-)

You might want to read:

Punishment Revisited-Science, Values, and the Right Question: Comment on
Gershoff (2002)

Psychological Bulletin 2002, Volume 128, No. 4, 596-601

Doan

Chookie ) writes:
There are always 3 possible explanations of a correlation.

If X correlates with Y, they a

X causes Y (misbehaviour causes spanking)
Y causes X (spanking causes misbehaviour)
A third factor causes both X and Y (eg the family dynamics are such that both
misbehaviour *and* spankings increase over time)

The correct approach, after discovering a correlation, is to frame further
research to determine which of the 3 explanations is correct.

I am disturbed that you are unfamiliar with this idea and with the concept of
the null hypothesis.

I am already familiar with the above idea, and with the concept of a
null hypothesis, which is a concept used in statistical tests.

I think the above idea leaves out the possibility of
coincidence or random chance. Correlation does not
prove causation.

A reasonable explanation of the Straus et al (1997)
results exists: reasons why spanking would lead to
worse behaviour in the long term have been described.

As far as I remember, nobody has suggested to me any
alternative explanation except rather vague explanations
such as that "something" might have caused the results.
No reasonable, plausible alternative explanation has
been presented.

If anyone believes that spanking does not lead to worse
behaviour in the long run (on average), maybe they would like
to try to explain how they think the Straus et al. (1997)
results could have occurred.
--
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

toto ) writes:
Just shows that *all* punishment has the opposite effect from what
people expect. And, contrary to expectation, so do external rewards
that are given to control behavior.

Whenever people feel controlled, they resist that control. They do
not learn the lessons we intend them to learn, but learn several
unintended ones.

I recently read "Discipline that Works" by Thomas Gordon. It's a good
book which deescribes a set of methods which don't use
punishment at all. (I wish he would talk about rights a bit
more, though.)

"The Explosive Child" is another book which rejects punishment
and describes an alternative method. It points out that
punishment just doesn't work, at least with that type of child.

"Don't Shoot the Dog!" by Karen Pryor admits that punishment works,
I think, but lists a large number of other methods which work
better than punishment. Reward is just slightly better than
punishment, I think, according to her. I think she put
positive reinforcement at the top -- but she means reinforcement
which happens at the same time as the desired behaviour,
not afterwards.

Asking politely is always a good method.
--
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

Catherine Woodgold wrote:

A reasonable explanation of the Straus et al (1997)
results exists: reasons why spanking would lead to
worse behaviour in the long term have been described.

Let's take a look at the abstract for the study I believe you are
referring to:

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997 Aug;151(8):761-7.

Spanking by parents and subsequent antisocial behavior of children.

Straus MA, Sugarman DB, Giles-Sims J.


OBJECTIVE: To deal with the causal relationship between corporal
punishment and antisocial behavior (ASB) by considering the level of ASB
of the child at the start of the study. METHODS: Data from interviews
with a national sample of 807 mothers of children aged 6 to 9 years in
the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth-Child Supplement. Analysis of
variance was used to test the hypothesis that when parents use corporal
punishment to correct ASB, it increases subsequent ASB. The analysis
controlled for the level of ASB at the start of the study, family
socio-economic status, sex of the child, and the extent to which the
home provided emotional support and cognitive stimulation. RESULTS:
Forty-four percent of the mothers reported spanking their children
during the week prior to the study and they spanked them an average of
2.1 times that week. The more spanking at the start of the period, the
higher the level of ASB 2 years later. The change is unlikely to be
owing to the child's tendency toward ASB or to confounding with
demographic characteristics or with parental deficiency in other key
aspects of socialization because those variables were statistically
controlled. CONCLUSIONS: When parents use corporal punishment to reduce
ASB, the long-term effect tends to be the opposite. The findings suggest
that if parents replace corporal punishment by nonviolent modes of
discipline, it could reduce the risk of ASB among children and reduce
the level of violence in American society.
-----
Then we can look at the abstract of a similar study from the same time
period, controlling for different things and analyzing the data with a
different statistical test:

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997 Aug;151(8):768-75.

Toward a developmental-contextual model of the effects of parental
spanking on children's aggression.

Gunnoe ML, Mariner CL.

Department of Psychology, Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Mich, USA.

OBJECTIVE: To challenge the application of an unqualified social
learning model to the study of spanking, positing instead a
developmental-contextual model in which the effects of spanking depend
on the meaning children ascribe to spanking. DESIGN: Population-based
survey data from 1112 children aged 4 to 11 years in the National Survey
of Families and Households. Controlled for several family and child
factors including children's baseline aggression. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
Schoolyard fights and antisocial scores on the Behavior Problems Index
at the 5-year follow-up. RESULTS: Structural equation modeling yielded
main effects (P or = .05, change in chi 2) of children's age and race;
spanking predicted fewer fights for children aged 4 to 7 years and for
children who are black and more fights for children aged 8 to 11 years
and for children who are white. Regression analyses within subgroups
yielded no evidence that spanking fostered aggression in children
younger than 6 years and supported claims of increased aggression for
only 1 subgroup: 8- to 11-year-old white boys in single-mother families
(P or = .05, F test). CONCLUSIONS: For most children, claims that
spanking teaches aggression seem unfounded. Other preventive effects and
harmful effects of spanking may occur depending on the child and the
family context. Further efforts to identify moderators of the effects of
spanking on children's adjustment are necessary.
-----

I have a few questions for you regarding the above abstract:

Do you believe the results? If not, why not? For the statement
"spanking predicted fewer fights for children aged 4 to 7 years and for
children who are black," does that meet your definition of a study
providing benefits from spanking? What reasonable alternative
explanations do you have for the findings if you don't believe the
conclusion?

As far as I remember, nobody has suggested to me any
alternative explanation except rather vague explanations
such as that "something" might have caused the results.
No reasonable, plausible alternative explanation has
been presented.

If anyone believes that spanking does not lead to worse
behaviour in the long run (on average), maybe they would like
to try to explain how they think the Straus et al. (1997)
results could have occurred.

In other sciences it's not necessary to provide an alternative
explanation, only to point out why the study may not be adequate or
conclusive. I will add other "somethings" to my vague explanations
about what might have caused his results: the statistical analysis may
have been inadequate and it also seems that Straus et al. did not
control for the same types of things that Gunnoe and Mariner did.

Even if I thought that that Straus paper indicated exactly what you say
it does, it is still only valid for 6 to 9 year olds who are spanked an
average of 2.1 times per week.

I realize you're not going to change your interpretation regardless of
whatever anybody might type on usenet. I still think your sweeping
generalizations are scientifically incorrect and undermine your credibility.

Betty

--
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

Catherine Woodgold wrote:
toto ) writes:
Just shows that *all* punishment has the opposite effect from what
people expect. And, contrary to expectation, so do external rewards
that are given to control behavior.

Whenever people feel controlled, they resist that control. They do
not learn the lessons we intend them to learn, but learn several
unintended ones.

I recently read "Discipline that Works" by Thomas Gordon. It's a good
book which deescribes a set of methods which don't use
punishment at all. (I wish he would talk about rights a bit
more, though.)

"The Explosive Child" is another book which rejects punishment
and describes an alternative method. It points out that
punishment just doesn't work, at least with that type of child.

"Don't Shoot the Dog!" by Karen Pryor admits that punishment works,
I think, but lists a large number of other methods which work
better than punishment. Reward is just slightly better than
punishment, I think, according to her. I think she put
positive reinforcement at the top -- but she means reinforcement
which happens at the same time as the desired behaviour,
not afterwards.

Asking politely is always a good method.

I don't think that anyone argues that other methods of discipline - or
even merely transmitting values - don't work. Or even that spanking
does work.

We're just arguing that the *research* that concludes spanking causes
bad behaviour is rather flawed.

Rupa