A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.parenting » Spanking
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Conversation with Dr. Embry re Spanking and Street Entry



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 14th 06, 04:00 AM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
Nathan A. Barclay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default Conversation with Dr. Embry re Spanking and Street Entry

For anyone who hasn't been following it, the thread "Teenagers faced with
spankings" turned to a discussion of a study by Dr. Dennis Embry regarding
spankings and children entering the street. A question arose about a
quotation from Dr. Embry, so after Kane and I couldn't find an
interpretation we could both accept as valid, I tracked down an email
address for Dr. Embry and asked if he would be willing to clarify.

In the ensuing conversation, he provided a good bit of useful information
that clarifies his views on the problem of spanking and reprimands sometimes
causing children to enter the street more often. I asked his permission to
post the messages here, and he gave his consent.

---
My first message to Dr. Embry:

Are you the same Dr. Embry who worked on the Safe Playing program to reduce
traffic accidents due to children's entering the street? If so, I have a
couple questions I'd like to ask about a letter you wrote to Children
Magazine a number of years ago. I hate to bother you with this, but I've
seen the letter used to bolster claims that I'm extremely dubious about. So
if you're willing to take the time to offer some clarification, I'll greatly
appreciate it.

In your letter, you made the claim that spanking, scolding, reprimanding and
nagging increase the rate of street entry. Were you trying to say that this
is what normally results from parents' doing such things, or just that such
unintended results sometimes occur? And if you were saying that increased
street entry is the normal result, was that belief based on scientifically
valid research? Or could it have been a result of skewed perceptions
because children who keep entering the street even though they keep getting
in trouble for it are highly visible, while situations where children try
not to enter the street because they don't want to get in trouble are far
less visible?

------
Dr. Embry's first reply:

Hello Mr. Barclay,

Research and science are mean mistresses. I assume you are willing to have
whatever hypothesis you might have proved wrong? That is how I approach
things, as a more than passing good researcher.

I assume that you might be able to entertain that spanking could be good for
some kids, not good for some kids, and even harmful. Or, it could be
completely ineffective, neither good nor bad. If you cannot entertain that
results could be mixed or negative, you will not like any science that could
be completed. There are people who still insist that the world is flat, but
I don't think you are in that category if you are willing to write me.

I see that my work from 25 years ago is continuing to create all sorts of
crazy making behavior on various list serves. This amuses me.

Here is the nutshell

I did not set out to prove anything about spanking. That's a fact. So folks
can take a chill pill. In fact, I had recommended in my column and radio
show that it was OK for running into the street.

We did really good science, and you need to know that I am an A-list
behavioral scientist.

Basically, we discovered that kids who we would consider to be conduct
problems or oppositionally defiant (today) increased their rate of street
entry after spanking, nagging, scolding, etc.. Today, this no surprise in
developmental science. All this is behavioral psych 101. This is what we
call "accidental attention to negative behavior." That is, it functioned as
a reinforcer, not as punishment.

And no, these observations were standardized, with two or more observers. I
am not clear what your question is about observations otherwise. We
separated kids who were "high rate" versus "low rate." The high rate ones
were most interesting; the low rate kids were rarely bad, and responding
quickly to the interventions.

Let me know how I can help clarify.

------
My second message to Dr. Embry

Thanks for your reply! Would I be correct in interpreting your reply as
saying that you think only a relatively small (but still certainly
important) minority of children react to being spanked for entering the
street by entering the street more often? If so, that is very much in line
with what I expected would be the case.

By the way, I'm impressed with what I've seen so far about your Safe Playing
program, and I'm certainly not trying to denigrate its value. But the
question of how many children react to being spanked by misbehaving more
often has ramifications regarding a much wider range of issues.

------
Dr. Embry's second reply:

The issues raised in my original study and subsequently in the whole
behavioral literature on the eitiology of conduct disorders is very
significant, and most of the missives I have seen in the various list serves
(I have serious trouble trying to go through the Google one for some
technical reason that I don't understand).

We had about twenty kids in the precision oriented observational study,
using a multiple baseline. Today there are ways to calculate the
equivalent sample size and effect sizes, compared to a randomized control
study. The effect size of the safe playing study would be very, very large
because of the clarity of the repeated measures. Group designs only
estimate standard error: single subject designs directly measure standard
error. It would have been nearly impossible to have detected the fact that
spanking, scolding and reprimands served as "accidental attention to
dangerous behavior" except by a repeated measures, with 10-second coding.
That said, about a third of the kids had this effect, and they were the ones
that people often want to spank; that is, because these were the kids,
post-hoc, that would likely meet the definition of oppositionally defiant in
today's vernacular of the DSM-IV. The prevalence of this DSM-IV diagnoses
are clearly rising for a whole lot of reasons that have nothing to do with
parenting, yet parenting/teacher behavior can seriously worse the biological
and socially induced predispositions.

For these kids, spanking, etc. did not meet the operant definition of a
punisher; rather, it met the definition of reinforcement. This is whole
consistent with the long-term, precision studies of the etiology of
multi-problem kids (see the book by Anthony Biglan et al. Helping
Adolescents at At Risk, from Guilford Press). Dr. Biglan is my close
colleague and the president of the society for prevention research. Dr.
Biglan's synthesis book does a nice job of reviewing the cycle of coercion
work of people like Gerry Patterson and colleagues, which has been
replicated by other investigators. It is very parsimonious, and fits both
behavioral and evolutionary theory.

By the way, it is important to note gender effects. Boys are more prone to
have oppositional defiance and conduct disorders, and it is my opinion that
this is because of evolutionary pressure. About 1/3 of boys were killed in
neolithic societies as a result of tribal and clan wars; that is the
prevailing new authority or counter authority. Oppositional defiance and
conduct disorders seem to confer a sectionist advantage. Parental, teacher
and other coercion of children disposed to these traits (which now are known
to have polygenic mechanisms, not known even 10 years ago) clearly elicits
and then solidifies such a trajectory, causing immense social and personal
costs.

Folks might like to see the other papers I have published on what prevention
science is suggesting might work better to prevent these issues, based on
the continued unfolding of child development science.

Can you direct me to these list-serves that have all this going on? I would
like to read them more directly.

-----
My third message to Dr. Embry:

Thanks again. The discussion I'm involved in is on the Usenet newsgroup
alt.parenting.spanking. The discussion thread's title is "Teenagers faced
with spankings," and no one ever thought to rename the thread when it very
quickly drifted off onto other subjects. The discussion there is actually a
very small one, with just me and one other person engaged in anything
resembling real debate.

That discussion led me to look for more information on the Web. The first
Google hit using the search terms "dennis embry street children" comes up
with the page http://www.neverhitachild.org/embry.html which precedes the
text of your letter with the caption, "'Spanking... increases the rate of
street entries by children', wrote Dr. Dennis Embry in a letter to Children
Magazine." The third Google hit on those terms points to a closely related
page, http://www.geocities.com/cddugan/SpkEmbry.html which also tries to use
your letter to support a blanket denunciation of spanking. (That becomes
especially clear looking at the web site that the page is a part of.)
Unfortunately, if the study itself is available on the Web, or even good,
unbiased information about it, that information was either far enough down
in the search results or hard enough to recognize from what Google returned
that I missed it with the combinations of search terms I tried.

I have two more questions, if you don't mind. First, what underlying
population were the "about twenty" kids drawn from? That has important
ramifications regarding what the "about a third" you refer to is about a
third of, and I don't currently have a copy of the study to check.

Also, my expectation would be that in borderline cases, children could make
a game out of resisting minor adverse consequences in order to get attention
but not view the game as worth the cost if the consequences are more
serious, or could resist minor adverse consequences because they don't like
being told what to do but regard the cost of resisting more serious
consequences as too high. Does that fit with your understanding of
children's behavior? (I'm definitely aware that it can be dangerous to
repeatedly escalate punishments that aren't working, but when I see a danger
in one extreme, I try to look for the possibility that the truth is
somewhere in the middle rather than rushing to the opposite extreme.)

------
Dr. Embry's third reply interspersed his response with what I'd just written
(above). In order to post plain text, I'm reformatting to put NB in front
of the lines of material he quoted from me. Also, he included a graph
which, unfortunately, can't be included in a post to a text newsgroup

Dr. Embry's third reply (reformatted):

Thank you for this info.? I will answer the questions further below.? I
didn't have the study available, as I was on a plane (and it is on paper
only, not PDF, etc. having been done in 1979-1981.? I could not remember all
the details.? I am going to have to scan this damn thing and put it up, or
resubmit it to JABA or some such, as it is one of the few actual
experimental studies on pedestrian safety in the world.??

On Dec 13, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

NB Thanks again.? The discussion I'm involved in is on the Usenet
NB newsgroup alt.parenting.spanking.??The discussion thread's
NB title?is? "Teenagers faced with spankings," and no one ever
NB thought to rename?the thread?when it very quickly drifted
NB off onto other subjects.? The discussion there is actually a
NB very small one, with just me and one other person engaged
NB in anything resembling real debate.
NB?
NB That discussion led me to look for more information on the
NB Web.? The first Google hit using the search terms "dennis
NB embry street children" comes up with the page
NB http://www.neverhitachild.org/embry.html which precedes
NB the text of your letter with the caption,?"'Spanking... increases
NB the rate of street entries by children', wrote Dr. Dennis Embry in
NB a letter to Children Magazine."? The third Google hit on those
NB terms points to a closely related page,
NB http://www.geocities.com/cddugan/SpkEmbry.html?which also
NB tries to use your letter to support a blanket denunciation of
NB spanking.? (That becomes especially clear looking at the web
NB site that the page is a part of.)? Unfortunately, if the study itself
NB is available on the Web, or even good, unbiased information
NB about it,?that information?was either far enough down in the
NB search results or hard enough to recognize from what Google
NB returned?that I missed it with the combinations of search terms I tried.
NB?
NB I have two?more?questions, if you don't mind.??First, what
NB underlying population were the "about twenty" kids drawn from??
NB That has important ramifications regarding what the "about a third"
NB you refer to is about a third of, and I don't currently have a copy
NB of the study to check.

There were a total of 33 preschool-age children in the study, all but three
enrolled in the university affiliated preschool.? The school had a mix of
children and parents, including normative and high-risk kids.? I have a
table of special characteristics, if known.? Eleven of the 33 had some
"condition, such as aggression, language delays, etc.? Out of the 33
children/families, 13 of those were intensively observed.? One of the
observed kids (S4) clearly had a "label" of what we might now call
oppositional defiance.?

Here is the graph of the "high rate entry" kids.

[Graph lost in conversion to text format]

These kids needed both the reinforcement/self-modeling AND sit-and-watch, a
variant of Time Out (but emphasizes re-engaging in the positive behavior
ASAP.? Sit and Watch interrupts the negative reinforcement for bad behavior.

The low rate kids responded to reinforcement and self-modeling alone.

NB Also, my expectation would be that in borderline cases, children
NB could make a game out of resisting minor adverse consequences
NB in order to get attention?but not view the game as worth the cost
NB if the consequences are more serious, or could resist minor adverse
NB consequences because they don't like being told what to do but
NB regard the cost of resisting more serious consequences as too high
NB.? Does that fit with your understanding of children's behavior??
NB (I'm definitely aware that it can be?dangerous to repeatedly escalate
NB punishments that aren't working, but when I see a danger in one
NB extreme, I try to look for the possibility that the truth is somewhere
NB in the middle rather than rushing to the opposite extreme.)

We saw kids get their butts hit pretty smartly in baseline, then go into the
street AGAIN within a few seconds or minutes, showing the mathematical
relationship of a reinforcer.? That only was true for the high-rate kids,
though.??

This is what caused my jaw to drop, observing the temporal sequence of both
the topography and function of reinforcer.? One sees this in micro-coding of
regular, daily parenting in the studies such as Hill Walker's and Gerry
Patterson's of highly deviant kids and families.? Those kids tend to get
nuked, but I never expected this in the context of dangerous behavior.? I
should scan the pages on the time relationships.

We had one child and parent that showed no behavior change at all, except
for the brief modeling effect (that we saw in the earlier study) S13.? This
child's parent was one of the "worst offenders" of negative attention, and
never did any positive attention that we observed.? Children with such a
serious imbalance are very high risk for developmental pathologies.? This
would be the type of parent who alternates between very permissive and
highly punitive.?

If I were to make a thumbnail of the findings (and informed by other
research), spanking kids who rowdy attention seekers (mostly boys) as young
children is likely to backfire and increase deviant behavior. This is a
functional, empirical assessment, not a moral or religious one. This effect
is almost certain if the positive attention for the child's behavior is
below accidental attention to negative.? Very nice longitudinal data on
this.? It is the frequent reliance rather than very, very rare reliance on
spanking that seems to have adverse effects. (All this follows a very nice
mathematical law, called the Matching Law.)

Parenthetically, the Safe Playing study was being done concurrent to our
other work at the university of kansas parenting program, where we did
direct observations of families at home using very precise observational
codes every 10-seconds, with independent observers.? About 85% of the sample
had open case files with child protective services, and our observers
routinely witnessed what can only be described as physical hitting
(spanking, slapping, pinching, etc.) many times per hour in about 80% of the
families (85% x 80% = 68%).? We never observed such things in the normative
families.? These families had very, very low rates of positive attention,
very high rates of negative attention and the children were singularly
awful.??

We taught the parents to engage in a behavior change project and keep data.?
We also coached the parents at home and in public settings to increase
positive attention, reduce negative attention, and use various consequences
such as Time Out, put-throughs, over-correction, etc. (Time is not too
effective for under 3-year olds). These families became very skilled, and
their results maintained 18-24 months, with no repeat fillings with child
protective services.? ?High end families cannot learn to do these skills
without home-based coaching.? Only two-parent, intact families, with
low-stress and normal kids could take general parenting skills and apply
them at home without coaching.?

You are correct about the extremes. It is a bit like the Iraqi folks
fighting over their sects.? Not functional.

I prefer to take a clear look at the functional relationships and build up
from that. I hope this conversation helps.
..


  #2  
Old December 14th 06, 04:16 AM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default Conversation with Dr. Embry re Spanking and Street Entry


Kudos! ;-)

Doan

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

For anyone who hasn't been following it, the thread "Teenagers faced with
spankings" turned to a discussion of a study by Dr. Dennis Embry regarding
spankings and children entering the street. A question arose about a
quotation from Dr. Embry, so after Kane and I couldn't find an
interpretation we could both accept as valid, I tracked down an email
address for Dr. Embry and asked if he would be willing to clarify.

In the ensuing conversation, he provided a good bit of useful information
that clarifies his views on the problem of spanking and reprimands sometimes
causing children to enter the street more often. I asked his permission to
post the messages here, and he gave his consent.

---
My first message to Dr. Embry:

Are you the same Dr. Embry who worked on the Safe Playing program to reduce
traffic accidents due to children's entering the street? If so, I have a
couple questions I'd like to ask about a letter you wrote to Children
Magazine a number of years ago. I hate to bother you with this, but I've
seen the letter used to bolster claims that I'm extremely dubious about. So
if you're willing to take the time to offer some clarification, I'll greatly
appreciate it.

In your letter, you made the claim that spanking, scolding, reprimanding and
nagging increase the rate of street entry. Were you trying to say that this
is what normally results from parents' doing such things, or just that such
unintended results sometimes occur? And if you were saying that increased
street entry is the normal result, was that belief based on scientifically
valid research? Or could it have been a result of skewed perceptions
because children who keep entering the street even though they keep getting
in trouble for it are highly visible, while situations where children try
not to enter the street because they don't want to get in trouble are far
less visible?

------
Dr. Embry's first reply:

Hello Mr. Barclay,

Research and science are mean mistresses. I assume you are willing to have
whatever hypothesis you might have proved wrong? That is how I approach
things, as a more than passing good researcher.

I assume that you might be able to entertain that spanking could be good for
some kids, not good for some kids, and even harmful. Or, it could be
completely ineffective, neither good nor bad. If you cannot entertain that
results could be mixed or negative, you will not like any science that could
be completed. There are people who still insist that the world is flat, but
I don't think you are in that category if you are willing to write me.

I see that my work from 25 years ago is continuing to create all sorts of
crazy making behavior on various list serves. This amuses me.

Here is the nutshell

I did not set out to prove anything about spanking. That's a fact. So folks
can take a chill pill. In fact, I had recommended in my column and radio
show that it was OK for running into the street.

We did really good science, and you need to know that I am an A-list
behavioral scientist.

Basically, we discovered that kids who we would consider to be conduct
problems or oppositionally defiant (today) increased their rate of street
entry after spanking, nagging, scolding, etc.. Today, this no surprise in
developmental science. All this is behavioral psych 101. This is what we
call "accidental attention to negative behavior." That is, it functioned as
a reinforcer, not as punishment.

And no, these observations were standardized, with two or more observers. I
am not clear what your question is about observations otherwise. We
separated kids who were "high rate" versus "low rate." The high rate ones
were most interesting; the low rate kids were rarely bad, and responding
quickly to the interventions.

Let me know how I can help clarify.

------
My second message to Dr. Embry

Thanks for your reply! Would I be correct in interpreting your reply as
saying that you think only a relatively small (but still certainly
important) minority of children react to being spanked for entering the
street by entering the street more often? If so, that is very much in line
with what I expected would be the case.

By the way, I'm impressed with what I've seen so far about your Safe Playing
program, and I'm certainly not trying to denigrate its value. But the
question of how many children react to being spanked by misbehaving more
often has ramifications regarding a much wider range of issues.

------
Dr. Embry's second reply:

The issues raised in my original study and subsequently in the whole
behavioral literature on the eitiology of conduct disorders is very
significant, and most of the missives I have seen in the various list serves
(I have serious trouble trying to go through the Google one for some
technical reason that I don't understand).

We had about twenty kids in the precision oriented observational study,
using a multiple baseline. Today there are ways to calculate the
equivalent sample size and effect sizes, compared to a randomized control
study. The effect size of the safe playing study would be very, very large
because of the clarity of the repeated measures. Group designs only
estimate standard error: single subject designs directly measure standard
error. It would have been nearly impossible to have detected the fact that
spanking, scolding and reprimands served as "accidental attention to
dangerous behavior" except by a repeated measures, with 10-second coding.
That said, about a third of the kids had this effect, and they were the ones
that people often want to spank; that is, because these were the kids,
post-hoc, that would likely meet the definition of oppositionally defiant in
today's vernacular of the DSM-IV. The prevalence of this DSM-IV diagnoses
are clearly rising for a whole lot of reasons that have nothing to do with
parenting, yet parenting/teacher behavior can seriously worse the biological
and socially induced predispositions.

For these kids, spanking, etc. did not meet the operant definition of a
punisher; rather, it met the definition of reinforcement. This is whole
consistent with the long-term, precision studies of the etiology of
multi-problem kids (see the book by Anthony Biglan et al. Helping
Adolescents at At Risk, from Guilford Press). Dr. Biglan is my close
colleague and the president of the society for prevention research. Dr.
Biglan's synthesis book does a nice job of reviewing the cycle of coercion
work of people like Gerry Patterson and colleagues, which has been
replicated by other investigators. It is very parsimonious, and fits both
behavioral and evolutionary theory.

By the way, it is important to note gender effects. Boys are more prone to
have oppositional defiance and conduct disorders, and it is my opinion that
this is because of evolutionary pressure. About 1/3 of boys were killed in
neolithic societies as a result of tribal and clan wars; that is the
prevailing new authority or counter authority. Oppositional defiance and
conduct disorders seem to confer a sectionist advantage. Parental, teacher
and other coercion of children disposed to these traits (which now are known
to have polygenic mechanisms, not known even 10 years ago) clearly elicits
and then solidifies such a trajectory, causing immense social and personal
costs.

Folks might like to see the other papers I have published on what prevention
science is suggesting might work better to prevent these issues, based on
the continued unfolding of child development science.

Can you direct me to these list-serves that have all this going on? I would
like to read them more directly.

-----
My third message to Dr. Embry:

Thanks again. The discussion I'm involved in is on the Usenet newsgroup
alt.parenting.spanking. The discussion thread's title is "Teenagers faced
with spankings," and no one ever thought to rename the thread when it very
quickly drifted off onto other subjects. The discussion there is actually a
very small one, with just me and one other person engaged in anything
resembling real debate.

That discussion led me to look for more information on the Web. The first
Google hit using the search terms "dennis embry street children" comes up
with the page http://www.neverhitachild.org/embry.html which precedes the
text of your letter with the caption, "'Spanking... increases the rate of
street entries by children', wrote Dr. Dennis Embry in a letter to Children
Magazine." The third Google hit on those terms points to a closely related
page, http://www.geocities.com/cddugan/SpkEmbry.html which also tries to use
your letter to support a blanket denunciation of spanking. (That becomes
especially clear looking at the web site that the page is a part of.)
Unfortunately, if the study itself is available on the Web, or even good,
unbiased information about it, that information was either far enough down
in the search results or hard enough to recognize from what Google returned
that I missed it with the combinations of search terms I tried.

I have two more questions, if you don't mind. First, what underlying
population were the "about twenty" kids drawn from? That has important
ramifications regarding what the "about a third" you refer to is about a
third of, and I don't currently have a copy of the study to check.

Also, my expectation would be that in borderline cases, children could make
a game out of resisting minor adverse consequences in order to get attention
but not view the game as worth the cost if the consequences are more
serious, or could resist minor adverse consequences because they don't like
being told what to do but regard the cost of resisting more serious
consequences as too high. Does that fit with your understanding of
children's behavior? (I'm definitely aware that it can be dangerous to
repeatedly escalate punishments that aren't working, but when I see a danger
in one extreme, I try to look for the possibility that the truth is
somewhere in the middle rather than rushing to the opposite extreme.)

------
Dr. Embry's third reply interspersed his response with what I'd just written
(above). In order to post plain text, I'm reformatting to put NB in front
of the lines of material he quoted from me. Also, he included a graph
which, unfortunately, can't be included in a post to a text newsgroup

Dr. Embry's third reply (reformatted):

Thank you for this info.? I will answer the questions further below.? I
didn't have the study available, as I was on a plane (and it is on paper
only, not PDF, etc. having been done in 1979-1981.? I could not remember all
the details.? I am going to have to scan this damn thing and put it up, or
resubmit it to JABA or some such, as it is one of the few actual
experimental studies on pedestrian safety in the world.??

On Dec 13, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

NB Thanks again.? The discussion I'm involved in is on the Usenet
NB newsgroup alt.parenting.spanking.??The discussion thread's
NB title?is? "Teenagers faced with spankings," and no one ever
NB thought to rename?the thread?when it very quickly drifted
NB off onto other subjects.? The discussion there is actually a
NB very small one, with just me and one other person engaged
NB in anything resembling real debate.
NB?
NB That discussion led me to look for more information on the
NB Web.? The first Google hit using the search terms "dennis
NB embry street children" comes up with the page
NB http://www.neverhitachild.org/embry.html which precedes
NB the text of your letter with the caption,?"'Spanking... increases
NB the rate of street entries by children', wrote Dr. Dennis Embry in
NB a letter to Children Magazine."? The third Google hit on those
NB terms points to a closely related page,
NB http://www.geocities.com/cddugan/SpkEmbry.html?which also
NB tries to use your letter to support a blanket denunciation of
NB spanking.? (That becomes especially clear looking at the web
NB site that the page is a part of.)? Unfortunately, if the study itself
NB is available on the Web, or even good, unbiased information
NB about it,?that information?was either far enough down in the
NB search results or hard enough to recognize from what Google
NB returned?that I missed it with the combinations of search terms I tried.
NB?
NB I have two?more?questions, if you don't mind.??First, what
NB underlying population were the "about twenty" kids drawn from??
NB That has important ramifications regarding what the "about a third"
NB you refer to is about a third of, and I don't currently have a copy
NB of the study to check.

There were a total of 33 preschool-age children in the study, all but three
enrolled in the university affiliated preschool.? The school had a mix of
children and parents, including normative and high-risk kids.? I have a
table of special characteristics, if known.? Eleven of the 33 had some
"condition, such as aggression, language delays, etc.? Out of the 33
children/families, 13 of those were intensively observed.? One of the
observed kids (S4) clearly had a "label" of what we might now call
oppositional defiance.?

Here is the graph of the "high rate entry" kids.

[Graph lost in conversion to text format]

These kids needed both the reinforcement/self-modeling AND sit-and-watch, a
variant of Time Out (but emphasizes re-engaging in the positive behavior
ASAP.? Sit and Watch interrupts the negative reinforcement for bad behavior.

The low rate kids responded to reinforcement and self-modeling alone.

NB Also, my expectation would be that in borderline cases, children
NB could make a game out of resisting minor adverse consequences
NB in order to get attention?but not view the game as worth the cost
NB if the consequences are more serious, or could resist minor adverse
NB consequences because they don't like being told what to do but
NB regard the cost of resisting more serious consequences as too high
NB.? Does that fit with your understanding of children's behavior??
NB (I'm definitely aware that it can be?dangerous to repeatedly escalate
NB punishments that aren't working, but when I see a danger in one
NB extreme, I try to look for the possibility that the truth is somewhere
NB in the middle rather than rushing to the opposite extreme.)

We saw kids get their butts hit pretty smartly in baseline, then go into the
street AGAIN within a few seconds or minutes, showing the mathematical
relationship of a reinforcer.? That only was true for the high-rate kids,
though.??

This is what caused my jaw to drop, observing the temporal sequence of both
the topography and function of reinforcer.? One sees this in micro-coding of
regular, daily parenting in the studies such as Hill Walker's and Gerry
Patterson's of highly deviant kids and families.? Those kids tend to get
nuked, but I never expected this in the context of dangerous behavior.? I
should scan the pages on the time relationships.

We had one child and parent that showed no behavior change at all, except
for the brief modeling effect (that we saw in the earlier study) S13.? This
child's parent was one of the "worst offenders" of negative attention, and
never did any positive attention that we observed.? Children with such a
serious imbalance are very high risk for developmental pathologies.? This
would be the type of parent who alternates between very permissive and
highly punitive.?

If I were to make a thumbnail of the findings (and informed by other
research), spanking kids who rowdy attention seekers (mostly boys) as young
children is likely to backfire and increase deviant behavior. This is a
functional, empirical assessment, not a moral or religious one. This effect
is almost certain if the positive attention for the child's behavior is
below accidental attention to negative.? Very nice longitudinal data on
this.? It is the frequent reliance rather than very, very rare reliance on
spanking that seems to have adverse effects. (All this follows a very nice
mathematical law, called the Matching Law.)

Parenthetically, the Safe Playing study was being done concurrent to our
other work at the university of kansas parenting program, where we did
direct observations of families at home using very precise observational
codes every 10-seconds, with independent observers.? About 85% of the sample
had open case files with child protective services, and our observers
routinely witnessed what can only be described as physical hitting
(spanking, slapping, pinching, etc.) many times per hour in about 80% of the
families (85% x 80% = 68%).? We never observed such things in the normative
families.? These families had very, very low rates of positive attention,
very high rates of negative attention and the children were singularly
awful.??

We taught the parents to engage in a behavior change project and keep data.?
We also coached the parents at home and in public settings to increase
positive attention, reduce negative attention, and use various consequences
such as Time Out, put-throughs, over-correction, etc. (Time is not too
effective for under 3-year olds). These families became very skilled, and
their results maintained 18-24 months, with no repeat fillings with child
protective services.? ?High end families cannot learn to do these skills
without home-based coaching.? Only two-parent, intact families, with
low-stress and normal kids could take general parenting skills and apply
them at home without coaching.?

You are correct about the extremes. It is a bit like the Iraqi folks
fighting over their sects.? Not functional.

I prefer to take a clear look at the functional relationships and build up
from that. I hope this conversation helps.
.




  #3  
Old December 14th 06, 04:31 AM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
0:->
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,968
Default Conversation with Dr. Embry re Spanking and Street Entry


Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
For anyone who hasn't been following it, the thread "Teenagers faced with
spankings" turned to a discussion of a study by Dr. Dennis Embry regarding
spankings and children entering the street. A question arose about a
quotation from Dr. Embry, so after Kane and I couldn't find an
interpretation we could both accept as valid, I tracked down an email
address for Dr. Embry and asked if he would be willing to clarify.

In the ensuing conversation, he provided a good bit of useful information
that clarifies his views on the problem of spanking and reprimands sometimes
causing children to enter the street more often. I asked his permission to
post the messages here, and he gave his consent.

---
My first message to Dr. Embry:

Are you the same Dr. Embry who worked on the Safe Playing program to reduce
traffic accidents due to children's entering the street? If so, I have a
couple questions I'd like to ask about a letter you wrote to Children
Magazine a number of years ago. I hate to bother you with this, but I've
seen the letter used to bolster claims that I'm extremely dubious about. So
if you're willing to take the time to offer some clarification, I'll greatly
appreciate it.

In your letter, you made the claim that spanking, scolding, reprimanding and
nagging increase the rate of street entry. Were you trying to say that this
is what normally results from parents' doing such things, or just that such
unintended results sometimes occur? And if you were saying that increased
street entry is the normal result, was that belief based on scientifically
valid research? Or could it have been a result of skewed perceptions
because children who keep entering the street even though they keep getting
in trouble for it are highly visible, while situations where children try
not to enter the street because they don't want to get in trouble are far
less visible?

------
Dr. Embry's first reply:

Hello Mr. Barclay,

Research and science are mean mistresses. I assume you are willing to have
whatever hypothesis you might have proved wrong? That is how I approach
things, as a more than passing good researcher.

I assume that you might be able to entertain that spanking could be good for
some kids, not good for some kids, and even harmful. Or, it could be
completely ineffective, neither good nor bad. If you cannot entertain that
results could be mixed or negative, you will not like any science that could
be completed. There are people who still insist that the world is flat, but
I don't think you are in that category if you are willing to write me.

I see that my work from 25 years ago is continuing to create all sorts of
crazy making behavior on various list serves. This amuses me.

Here is the nutshell

I did not set out to prove anything about spanking. That's a fact. So folks
can take a chill pill. In fact, I had recommended in my column and radio
show that it was OK for running into the street.

We did really good science, and you need to know that I am an A-list
behavioral scientist.

Basically, we discovered that kids who we would consider to be conduct
problems or oppositionally defiant (today) increased their rate of street
entry after spanking, nagging, scolding, etc.. Today, this no surprise in
developmental science. All this is behavioral psych 101. This is what we
call "accidental attention to negative behavior." That is, it functioned as
a reinforcer, not as punishment.

And no, these observations were standardized, with two or more observers. I
am not clear what your question is about observations otherwise. We
separated kids who were "high rate" versus "low rate." The high rate ones
were most interesting; the low rate kids were rarely bad, and responding
quickly to the interventions.

Let me know how I can help clarify.

------
My second message to Dr. Embry

Thanks for your reply! Would I be correct in interpreting your reply as
saying that you think only a relatively small (but still certainly
important) minority of children react to being spanked for entering the
street by entering the street more often? If so, that is very much in line
with what I expected would be the case.

By the way, I'm impressed with what I've seen so far about your Safe Playing
program, and I'm certainly not trying to denigrate its value. But the
question of how many children react to being spanked by misbehaving more
often has ramifications regarding a much wider range of issues.

------
Dr. Embry's second reply:

The issues raised in my original study and subsequently in the whole
behavioral literature on the eitiology of conduct disorders is very
significant, and most of the missives I have seen in the various list serves
(I have serious trouble trying to go through the Google one for some
technical reason that I don't understand).

We had about twenty kids in the precision oriented observational study,
using a multiple baseline. Today there are ways to calculate the
equivalent sample size and effect sizes, compared to a randomized control
study. The effect size of the safe playing study would be very, very large
because of the clarity of the repeated measures. Group designs only
estimate standard error: single subject designs directly measure standard
error. It would have been nearly impossible to have detected the fact that
spanking, scolding and reprimands served as "accidental attention to
dangerous behavior" except by a repeated measures, with 10-second coding.
That said, about a third of the kids had this effect, and they were the ones
that people often want to spank; that is, because these were the kids,
post-hoc, that would likely meet the definition of oppositionally defiant in
today's vernacular of the DSM-IV. The prevalence of this DSM-IV diagnoses
are clearly rising for a whole lot of reasons that have nothing to do with
parenting, yet parenting/teacher behavior can seriously worse the biological
and socially induced predispositions.

For these kids, spanking, etc. did not meet the operant definition of a
punisher; rather, it met the definition of reinforcement. This is whole
consistent with the long-term, precision studies of the etiology of
multi-problem kids (see the book by Anthony Biglan et al. Helping
Adolescents at At Risk, from Guilford Press). Dr. Biglan is my close
colleague and the president of the society for prevention research. Dr.
Biglan's synthesis book does a nice job of reviewing the cycle of coercion
work of people like Gerry Patterson and colleagues, which has been
replicated by other investigators. It is very parsimonious, and fits both
behavioral and evolutionary theory.

By the way, it is important to note gender effects. Boys are more prone to
have oppositional defiance and conduct disorders, and it is my opinion that
this is because of evolutionary pressure. About 1/3 of boys were killed in
neolithic societies as a result of tribal and clan wars; that is the
prevailing new authority or counter authority. Oppositional defiance and
conduct disorders seem to confer a sectionist advantage. Parental, teacher
and other coercion of children disposed to these traits (which now are known
to have polygenic mechanisms, not known even 10 years ago) clearly elicits
and then solidifies such a trajectory, causing immense social and personal
costs.

Folks might like to see the other papers I have published on what prevention
science is suggesting might work better to prevent these issues, based on
the continued unfolding of child development science.

Can you direct me to these list-serves that have all this going on? I would
like to read them more directly.

-----
My third message to Dr. Embry:

Thanks again. The discussion I'm involved in is on the Usenet newsgroup
alt.parenting.spanking. The discussion thread's title is "Teenagers faced
with spankings," and no one ever thought to rename the thread when it very
quickly drifted off onto other subjects. The discussion there is actually a
very small one, with just me and one other person engaged in anything
resembling real debate.

That discussion led me to look for more information on the Web. The first
Google hit using the search terms "dennis embry street children" comes up
with the page http://www.neverhitachild.org/embry.html which precedes the
text of your letter with the caption, "'Spanking... increases the rate of
street entries by children', wrote Dr. Dennis Embry in a letter to Children
Magazine." The third Google hit on those terms points to a closely related
page, http://www.geocities.com/cddugan/SpkEmbry.html which also tries to use
your letter to support a blanket denunciation of spanking. (That becomes
especially clear looking at the web site that the page is a part of.)
Unfortunately, if the study itself is available on the Web, or even good,
unbiased information about it, that information was either far enough down
in the search results or hard enough to recognize from what Google returned
that I missed it with the combinations of search terms I tried.

I have two more questions, if you don't mind. First, what underlying
population were the "about twenty" kids drawn from? That has important
ramifications regarding what the "about a third" you refer to is about a
third of, and I don't currently have a copy of the study to check.

Also, my expectation would be that in borderline cases, children could make
a game out of resisting minor adverse consequences in order to get attention
but not view the game as worth the cost if the consequences are more
serious, or could resist minor adverse consequences because they don't like
being told what to do but regard the cost of resisting more serious
consequences as too high. Does that fit with your understanding of
children's behavior? (I'm definitely aware that it can be dangerous to
repeatedly escalate punishments that aren't working, but when I see a danger
in one extreme, I try to look for the possibility that the truth is
somewhere in the middle rather than rushing to the opposite extreme.)

------
Dr. Embry's third reply interspersed his response with what I'd just written
(above). In order to post plain text, I'm reformatting to put NB in front
of the lines of material he quoted from me. Also, he included a graph
which, unfortunately, can't be included in a post to a text newsgroup

Dr. Embry's third reply (reformatted):

Thank you for this info.? I will answer the questions further below.? I
didn't have the study available, as I was on a plane (and it is on paper
only, not PDF, etc. having been done in 1979-1981.? I could not remember all
the details.? I am going to have to scan this damn thing and put it up, or
resubmit it to JABA or some such, as it is one of the few actual
experimental studies on pedestrian safety in the world.??

On Dec 13, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

NB Thanks again.? The discussion I'm involved in is on the Usenet
NB newsgroup alt.parenting.spanking.??The discussion thread's
NB title?is? "Teenagers faced with spankings," and no one ever
NB thought to rename?the thread?when it very quickly drifted
NB off onto other subjects.? The discussion there is actually a
NB very small one, with just me and one other person engaged
NB in anything resembling real debate.
NB?
NB That discussion led me to look for more information on the
NB Web.? The first Google hit using the search terms "dennis
NB embry street children" comes up with the page
NB http://www.neverhitachild.org/embry.html which precedes
NB the text of your letter with the caption,?"'Spanking... increases
NB the rate of street entries by children', wrote Dr. Dennis Embry in
NB a letter to Children Magazine."? The third Google hit on those
NB terms points to a closely related page,
NB http://www.geocities.com/cddugan/SpkEmbry.html?which also
NB tries to use your letter to support a blanket denunciation of
NB spanking.? (That becomes especially clear looking at the web
NB site that the page is a part of.)? Unfortunately, if the study itself
NB is available on the Web, or even good, unbiased information
NB about it,?that information?was either far enough down in the
NB search results or hard enough to recognize from what Google
NB returned?that I missed it with the combinations of search terms I tried.
NB?
NB I have two?more?questions, if you don't mind.??First, what
NB underlying population were the "about twenty" kids drawn from??
NB That has important ramifications regarding what the "about a third"
NB you refer to is about a third of, and I don't currently have a copy
NB of the study to check.

There were a total of 33 preschool-age children in the study, all but three
enrolled in the university affiliated preschool.? The school had a mix of
children and parents, including normative and high-risk kids.? I have a
table of special characteristics, if known.? Eleven of the 33 had some
"condition, such as aggression, language delays, etc.? Out of the 33
children/families, 13 of those were intensively observed.? One of the
observed kids (S4) clearly had a "label" of what we might now call
oppositional defiance.?

Here is the graph of the "high rate entry" kids.

[Graph lost in conversion to text format]

These kids needed both the reinforcement/self-modeling AND sit-and-watch, a
variant of Time Out (but emphasizes re-engaging in the positive behavior
ASAP.? Sit and Watch interrupts the negative reinforcement for bad behavior.

The low rate kids responded to reinforcement and self-modeling alone.

NB Also, my expectation would be that in borderline cases, children
NB could make a game out of resisting minor adverse consequences
NB in order to get attention?but not view the game as worth the cost
NB if the consequences are more serious, or could resist minor adverse
NB consequences because they don't like being told what to do but
NB regard the cost of resisting more serious consequences as too high
NB.? Does that fit with your understanding of children's behavior??
NB (I'm definitely aware that it can be?dangerous to repeatedly escalate
NB punishments that aren't working, but when I see a danger in one
NB extreme, I try to look for the possibility that the truth is somewhere
NB in the middle rather than rushing to the opposite extreme.)

We saw kids get their butts hit pretty smartly in baseline, then go into the
street AGAIN within a few seconds or minutes, showing the mathematical
relationship of a reinforcer.? That only was true for the high-rate kids,
though.??

This is what caused my jaw to drop, observing the temporal sequence of both
the topography and function of reinforcer.? One sees this in micro-coding of
regular, daily parenting in the studies such as Hill Walker's and Gerry
Patterson's of highly deviant kids and families.? Those kids tend to get
nuked, but I never expected this in the context of dangerous behavior.? I
should scan the pages on the time relationships.

We had one child and parent that showed no behavior change at all, except
for the brief modeling effect (that we saw in the earlier study) S13.? This
child's parent was one of the "worst offenders" of negative attention, and
never did any positive attention that we observed.? Children with such a
serious imbalance are very high risk for developmental pathologies.? This
would be the type of parent who alternates between very permissive and
highly punitive.?

If I were to make a thumbnail of the findings (and informed by other
research), spanking kids who rowdy attention seekers (mostly boys) as young
children is likely to backfire and increase deviant behavior. This is a
functional, empirical assessment, not a moral or religious one. This effect
is almost certain if the positive attention for the child's behavior is
below accidental attention to negative.? Very nice longitudinal data on
this.? It is the frequent reliance rather than very, very rare reliance on
spanking that seems to have adverse effects. (All this follows a very nice
mathematical law, called the Matching Law.)

Parenthetically, the Safe Playing study was being done concurrent to our
other work at the university of kansas parenting program, where we did
direct observations of families at home using very precise observational
codes every 10-seconds, with independent observers.? About 85% of the sample
had open case files with child protective services, and our observers
routinely witnessed what can only be described as physical hitting
(spanking, slapping, pinching, etc.) many times per hour in about 80% of the
families (85% x 80% = 68%).? We never observed such things in the normative
families.? These families had very, very low rates of positive attention,
very high rates of negative attention and the children were singularly
awful.??

We taught the parents to engage in a behavior change project and keep data.?
We also coached the parents at home and in public settings to increase
positive attention, reduce negative attention, and use various consequences
such as Time Out, put-throughs, over-correction, etc. (Time is not too
effective for under 3-year olds). These families became very skilled, and
their results maintained 18-24 months, with no repeat fillings with child
protective services.? ?High end families cannot learn to do these skills
without home-based coaching.? Only two-parent, intact families, with
low-stress and normal kids could take general parenting skills and apply
them at home without coaching.?

You are correct about the extremes. It is a bit like the Iraqi folks
fighting over their sects.? Not functional.

I prefer to take a clear look at the functional relationships and build up
from that. I hope this conversation helps.
.

It certainly does.

Thanks Nathan, for contact Dr. Embry.

Good work.

I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
matter.

It all is consistent with the report as I understood it and it's
conclusions.

And Dr. Embry's emphasis now on how the children most likely to be
spanked because of their behaviors in fact become oppositional is
consistent with all the training and experience I had with mentally ill
teens (that was a Federal Dollars designation and they were truly
socially dysfunctional...the ones with physiological problems were
screened out to hospital settings...psych wards).

I worked where I had full access and occasionally client contact with
younger children too, down to about 8 years old. What we called back
then, "latency age."

Again we saw the same phenomena that Dr. Embry so eloquently defines
and reveals. The more punishment the more opposition of one kind or
another.

Some shut down, some fight back, some go behind your back and burn down
the neighborhood Historical Preserveation Barn (that happened to a kid
on my caseload that our local treatment director put the screws to one
day, then walked out as the kid heated up...I was not there to
intervene, and he knocked out windows for awhile then ran off and
burned down that 150 year old landmark barn.)

Anyway, you have your answer.

If you still wish a copy, I will snail mail you but not send the
botched PDF file. It does not transmit anyway. At the other end it
always blows out as before the content will load, with a error message.


Doan of course will say I'm lying, but you can guess by now I'm not
impressed with his games.

Never tried to download a corrupted PDF file?

Even ones that should be good, like from sources that created them to
sell they blow out.

This one won't load and open. Sometimes, even for me. So I quite trying
long ago.

If Doan won't mail you his copy, just ask.

I'll even cover postage, as I did for everyone else I sent it to.

Thanks again, and sorry for doubting you, but if you've googled Doan's
history here you can understand why I don't play his games.

Kane

Kane

  #4  
Old December 14th 06, 09:23 AM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
Nathan A. Barclay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default Conversation with Dr. Embry re Spanking and Street Entry

Kane, did you notice what Dr. Embry wrote about how enormously more likely
children are to develop pathological conditions when there is an imbalance
that gives children a lot more negative attention than positive attention?

In my economics class back in college, one of the principles brought up was
the idea that the more of something a person has, the less value the person
will normally place on getting more of it. For example, getting a computer
when you don't have one at all is more valuable than getting a second one
when you already have one, or especially than getting a tenth one when you
already have nine.

That same principle would generally apply to children's desire for
attention. If a child gets a lot of positive attention when he is good, the
value of getting a little bit of attention in the process of being scolded
or spanked is likely to be small, and easily outweighed by how unpleasant it
is to be scolded or spanked. But if attention in the form of scoldings and
spankings is about the only attention a child is able to get, the value the
child places on getting that attention can be expected to be a whole lot
higher.

That poses a huge potential for disaster if a child's personality is
predisposed to want a lot of attention and not especially care what form the
attention takes. The child keeps (at least subconsciously) seeking out
negative attention because it's the only way he can meet his need for
attention. But because the attention is negative, it builds up over time to
more and more toxic levels. (I'll note here that many things that have
medicinal value at small levels become dangerous toxins at higher levels, so
the fact that something is toxic in large doses doesn't automatically mean
that it's dangerous in smaller doses.)

I draw two important lessons from what Dr. Embry wrote. First, positive
attention is important. Situations where children want attention so badly
that they feel a need to misbehave in order to get it should be, at most,
extremely rare.

And second, if parents spank, they need to watch carefully how their
children react after they are spanked. If there is an ongoing pattern of
their children's not reacting by behaving better, or of spanking causing
anger or resentment for more than a brief period, something is probably
wrong at a deeper level than spanking can possibly fix, and more spanking
could easily cause additional damage.

(Note that this, in turn, suggests that it is extremely dangerous if parents
create a situation where their children feel a need to mask how they feel
about getting spanked in order to avoid getting in further trouble for their
attitude. That's not to say that children should be allowed to express
their feelings in whatever manner they want, but they shouldn't be prevented
from making their feelings reasonably clear.)

But as long as parents give their children plenty of positive attention, Dr.
Embry's views indicate that such adverse reactions are atypical, not normal.
They are a danger parents need to keep an eye open for if they spank,
especially with boys. But if parents watch for the danger, they should be
able to modify their tactics long before problems threaten to spiral out of
control.

Finally, I'll ask you to think very carefully about something. Of the
troubled teenagers you worked with, how many grew up in homes where they
could pretty reliably get plenty of positive attention when they were being
good? Note the words :"pretty reliably" since some parents have
Jekyll-and-Hyde personalities that make opportunities to get positive
attention safely a hit-or-miss proposition depending on their parents'
moods. I think you're probably focusing too much on the issue of spanking
and not enough on the issue of inadequate positive attention.


"0:-" wrote in message
oups.com...

Thanks Nathan, for contact Dr. Embry.

Good work.

I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
matter.

It all is consistent with the report as I understood it and it's
conclusions.

And Dr. Embry's emphasis now on how the children most likely to be
spanked because of their behaviors in fact become oppositional is
consistent with all the training and experience I had with mentally ill
teens (that was a Federal Dollars designation and they were truly
socially dysfunctional...the ones with physiological problems were
screened out to hospital settings...psych wards).

I worked where I had full access and occasionally client contact with
younger children too, down to about 8 years old. What we called back
then, "latency age."

Again we saw the same phenomena that Dr. Embry so eloquently defines
and reveals. The more punishment the more opposition of one kind or
another.

Some shut down, some fight back, some go behind your back and burn down
the neighborhood Historical Preserveation Barn (that happened to a kid
on my caseload that our local treatment director put the screws to one
day, then walked out as the kid heated up...I was not there to
intervene, and he knocked out windows for awhile then ran off and
burned down that 150 year old landmark barn.)

Anyway, you have your answer.



  #5  
Old December 14th 06, 05:28 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
0:->
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,968
Default Conversation with Dr. Embry re Spanking and Street Entry

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
Kane, did you notice what Dr. Embry wrote about how enormously more likely
children are to develop pathological conditions when there is an imbalance
that gives children a lot more negative attention than positive attention?


Here is what he had to say on the subject.

"Basically, we discovered that kids who we would consider to be conduct

problems or oppositionally defiant (today) increased their rate of
street
entry after spanking, nagging, scolding, etc.. Today, this no surprise
in
developmental science. All this is behavioral psych 101. This is
what we
call "accidental attention to negative behavior." That is, it
functioned as
a reinforcer, not as punishment."

Nathan you replied:

"Would I be correct in interpreting your reply as
saying that you think only a relatively small (but still certainly
important) minority of children react to being spanked for entering the

street by entering the street more often? If so, that is very much in
line
with what I expected would be the case. "

Now Nathan correct me if I'm wrong but in fact I believe you did not
expect that result. And in fact you argued counter to that with me. Is
that not correct?

That piece of information from Embry you NOW concur with in fact
supports the argument I've made for years here and had opposition to it
for years.

I'm not intrested in making you wrong. I'm interested in clarifying
positions, the facts, and any changes we have in our views after
gaining more facts, as shared, for instance, by Dr. Embry.

You seem to me to have moved your position.

Dr. Embry went on to say:

"For these kids, spanking, etc. did not meet the operant definition of
a
punisher; rather, it met the definition of reinforcement."

"These kids," being the opposition defiant ones according to DSM-IV.

I'm not sure if I'm in conflict with Dr. Embry's view or not, but my
own observation has been that even with children not so Dx'd, there are
many that become oppositional in one way or another when
spanked...especially over time.

I have to question if some of the children Dx'd as ODD, did not start
out without it and "gained" that condition by way of spanking and other
forms of CP.

As yet I am unable to find any study that would shed light on that
possibility, yet it certainly is there as a fact in my experience. And
I'm not refering to my work with mentally ill youth.

In my economics class back in college, one of the principles brought up was
the idea that the more of something a person has, the less value the person
will normally place on getting more of it. For example, getting a computer
when you don't have one at all is more valuable than getting a second one
when you already have one, or especially than getting a tenth one when you
already have nine.


I have to laugh. Tell me that a rich man places less value on a dollar
in terms of desire for it than a poor man. Yes, I took economics also.
The more I took the more I valued the information. 0:-]

That same principle would generally apply to children's desire for
attention. If a child gets a lot of positive attention when he is good, the
value of getting a little bit of attention in the process of being scolded
or spanked is likely to be small, and easily outweighed by how unpleasant it
is to be scolded or spanked.


Nathan, stop and think about that for a second or two.

The contrast, as you describe it would, make the interjection of a
little bit of negative attention in the midsts of generally positive or
neutral attention would make the "value" consist of more not less
desire.

You don't identify value except in terms of whether or not it's
desirable. Are you wishing to compare the EFFECTIVENESS of negative
versus positive attention in terms of outcomes? Which will produce the
desired effect in behavior?

Can you clarify this a bit? I'm completely at sea as to what your point
is.

But if attention in the form of scoldings and
spankings is about the only attention a child is able to get, the value the
child places on getting that attention can be expected to be a whole lot
higher.


So then you are saying that a child will behave according to the value
he or she places on some effect on them?

Wouldn't the value, according to your economics model, be less if he
got more of it....the abundance of scoldings and spankings? And if
value equates with performance level of a behavior, then would this
much spanked and scolded child do less of a behavior?

At least according to your argument?

The long argued desired effect of spanking is to reduce an unwanted
behavior (mostly -- though some people spank to force a wanted behavior
to appear).

The problem is, if I read you correctly, that Dr. Embry's point is, and
he's well supported not just by his clinical or research observations,
but by the literature, more spanking equates with more unwanted
behavior in such children.

Possibly I'm not understanding the model you wished to create.

That poses a huge potential for disaster if a child's personality is
predisposed to want a lot of attention and not especially care what form the
attention takes.


Too much speculative material for me. I can "yes but," and "what if"
with the best of them, I suppose, but I'm much more interested in "this
is what and how it happens."

I think Embry's safe play experiment concludes something similar to
your speculation though.

The anecdotes he relates, as to the parenting style and "worst child"
shows clearly that lots of negative attention produced the most
difficult child, in terms of behavior.

Did it with none ODD children? That would be the question to explore,
and he does not.

What do none ODD children do over time when spanked? Do they always
comply? Do they have much later appearing problems? Is defiance itself
a completely bad thing? Are there other conditions that migth be worse,
such as drug use, depression, criminality, etc.?

He may have explored such things in the other papers he mentions. That
would be most interesting to me.

The child keeps (at least subconsciously) seeking out
negative attention because it's the only way he can meet his need for
attention.


I'm not a Fruedian. The child can be unaware of his need intellectually
if that's what you mean. I prefer to use "unconsciously" as it fits my
observations better.

The child had an endless supply of attention getting behaviors. So
what?

Let's stay on the real topic.

Embry's study, as you recall, showed massive improvement in the top
five baseline high rate of street entry kids. During the intervention
period they got, apparently, far less negative attention than before,
only one time out per child for four of them, none for the fifth, and
quite a bit of positive attention. The times outs may not have all
been negative in fact.

I noted that some of the positive reinforcement events took place in
the time out interval (ten minute intervals remember).

I consider that very telling in terms of the power of the positive. The
time out may not have even been experienced by the child as negative. I
was not there to see, but it may have been a time out with positive
reinforcers. I refer to those at "time in." It just means positive
parent attention. Like instruction to watch the other chilren play in
the safe area, and "that's what good boys like you can do."

But because the attention is negative, it builds up over time to
more and more toxic levels. (I'll note here that many things that have
medicinal value at small levels become dangerous toxins at higher levels, so
the fact that something is toxic in large doses doesn't automatically mean
that it's dangerous in smaller doses.)


I'm not sure where you are going or if this build up is universal. Or
what "toxic" means in terms of it's effect on the child.

I suppose you are again arguing for spanking being okay. The fact is we
have not, as a society, clearly established that it is. The best we
have done is make an observation that it seems, SEEMS, to do little or
no harm in SOME children.

The trick is to decide which children. And I fear, under what specific
circumstances.

If I were to use that term, "toxic" I would be looking at bad outcomes,
and in your model, over long periods of time. The data collected by
survey from adult subjects in studies of outcomes shows higher levels
of suicide attempts, depression, subtance abuse, in those reporting
having been spanked.

But then at one time roughly 90% of us reported having been spanked as
children.

The evolutionary trajectory studies Embry mentions are something I'm
not familiar with but likely will look at.

If there is a subset of children more disposed to ODD then the question
is, who are they? How do we identify them and apply different
techniques to parenting them, and teaching, etc.

I'd like to see Embry's papers he mentions concerning that.

"Folks might like to see the other papers I have published on what
prevention
science is suggesting might work better to prevent these issues, based
on
the continued unfolding of child development science."

This goes back to a subject I've offered again and again in this
newsgroup...how much risk should we be taking with any child, and what
is the point of 'spanking' the easier-to-parent child, as well as the
lack of studies that would show or dispell the possibility that we are
making ODD children by the use of harsher punishment models.

The latter experiment would be very tough to do, ethically, as we
cannot isolate a study group of children who lack the symptoms of ODD
and spank them and over time watch for the appearance of ODD, or not.

Control of variables might present a problem as well.

Before moving on, let me comment finally on the models you've
presented. I can see little profit in attempting to explore the
motivations of the child as per your "value" one kind of treatment or
another. I presume you mean "desirable." Does the child internalize
positive versus negative attention and place value on it? These are
interesting questions but I'm not as interested in terms of decision
making about public policy, and child rearing practice.

If using other means than spanking works, and spanking has as much risk
as Embry seems to me to indicate in a fairly large portion of the
population, then it may be time to take social action against spanking.
Sanctions that don't include harsh penalties, and provide easy access
to education and training (read the study and note how each is
defined..education, and training) as per the Swedish model need to be
considered.

Frankly, I'm more concerned with the behavioral model than all this
motives stuff.

How does the child perform in a given set of circumstances. I can't
control his motives. I have some chance with his behaviors. The same
can be said of the parents.

I can presume the motives for child rearing, sans pathology, is to
raise successful responsible citizens. Spanking is shows to not work
with some, and create the opposite.

Why risk it at all.

Am I being redundant?

I draw two important lessons from what Dr. Embry wrote. First, positive
attention is important. Situations where children want attention so badly
that they feel a need to misbehave in order to get it should be, at most,
extremely rare.


Yes. On the other hand, children do what children do, which is play
and that is their work...to explore. It may be far less about
"attention" only ONE need, and the much broader spectrum of their needs
they are reacting to when they "misbehavior." After all, such unwanted
behavior is an adult value, not a child's.

In other words, the amount of attention, positive or negative a child
needs both in intensity and time is quite small for most kids. When it
isn't we start looking for pathologies.

And it grows less as the child ages and develops autonomy. What works
for the three year old doesn't for the 8 year old.

When a child acts out with a need for attention the object should be to
give him or her positive attention instead of negative attention. It's
really not rocket science, but we have some cultural beliefs that do
get in the way. And so he get's smacked, as the Brits call it.

And second, if parents spank, they need to watch carefully how their
children react after they are spanked.


And what if they simply chose not to spank and use some other methods
and models?
Why work that hard on the spanking model and not on the alternatives?

The none spanking modes tend to get easier over time. Spanking? Well,
not for some of the population.

If there is an ongoing pattern of
their children's not reacting by behaving better, or of spanking causing
anger or resentment for more than a brief period, something is probably
wrong at a deeper level than spanking can possibly fix, and more spanking
could easily cause additional damage.


Is this consistent with your past arguments?

Others here have presented a very different view than that.

Again we have the problem of 'The Line.' What behaviors are going to
indicate clearly to the busy parent who may not have time to do
interval behavior coded recording, that the child is in duress from
being spanked?

It is not hard, despite your earlier argument to the contrary, to apply
another, even non-punitive, tactic to stop a behavior. Replacement has
always been a very powerful tactic.

I refer to it as the Tupperware Tactic. Ask a mom to explain why she
keeps them for toddlers while she's trying to work in the kitchen with
knives, hot water, and other dangerous to children tools and objects.
0:-]

Why make life so hard and complex? The none CP models have been around
forever. Use them more, and drop the CP. Risk is pretty much zero.

Also just instructing, as the Safe Play program does, in the wanted
behavior. Sometimes the kid just doesn't know what is wanted, and how
to get what they want by other means than hammering Sissy over the head
to get the toy truck away from her.

(Note that this, in turn, suggests that it is extremely dangerous if parents
create a situation where their children feel a need to mask how they feel
about getting spanked in order to avoid getting in further trouble for their
attitude. That's not to say that children should be allowed to express
their feelings in whatever manner they want, but they shouldn't be prevented
from making their feelings reasonably clear.)


I feel like I'm being drug far away from the issues of Dr. Embry's
study and his conversation with you.

His comments, bringing up a lot of terms I'm out of touch with, is
content rich enough to explore on it's own, without diving in to what
you accused me of, falsely, psychobabble.

But in fact it would be pretty hard not to create a situation were
children mask their feelings.

After all, the one applying pain to them is the trusted parent. I don't
think spanking as an emotional-expression-freeing exercise. But that's
not relevant to the issue for me regarding our current discussion.

I'd rather explore what Embry said, and what it meant, since some of
his terms are not familiar to me.

More reading, rather than more speculation might be in order. Or we
could ask him.

I presume you reponded to his request to provide this newsgroup link?

If not please do.

If he has trouble with reading the group on google I'd be happy to help
him navigate.

He might try Agent as a better tool if he is only browser accessing the
group though. Other readers also handle threading better than google.
And the threads the thing.

But as long as parents give their children plenty of positive attention, Dr.
Embry's views indicate that such adverse reactions are atypical, not normal.


The masking of feelings? I don't think he went there at all.

And I don't recall him discussing "plenty of positive attention." Just
specifically applied instruction and direction. "Praise" would fall
under the attention category I suppose, and there was not "plenty" of
it, just more recorded during intervention than in baseline in the
study report.

Frankly I'm not all that sold on 'plenty of positive attention.'

Supervision, and just quietly being there when needed alway seemed to
work for me with normal kids, and even with the disturbed kids I worked
with. A lot of attention invites a lot of overbehaving, if you get my
drift. Manipulative interaction and smacks of pathology to me.

I watched a few thousand hours of video tapes in school of mothers and
babies and toddlers and the 'successful' babies, meeting developmental
milestones on time had mothers that were not interacting all that much
but attentive and present when needed.

Mothers that fawn over the child always make my skin crawl. It's like
watching a little girl play with her dolls. But then, maybe that's just
my bias, eh?

They are a danger parents need to keep an eye open for if they spank,
especially with boys. But if parents watch for the danger, they should be
able to modify their tactics long before problems threaten to spiral out of
control.


I wish that were true. It's not in real life. The very parents that
should don't.

Child protection records show something different in quite a few cases.
It would be rare for a family to present to CPS with physical abuse
allegations against them that didn't say they were just disciplining
and it got out of hand.

"Abusive" parents are rarely the few monsters we read about in the
news.

They are more often folks ignorant of what we discuss here and Embry
clarifies, if you think about it. And they do serious damage without
even being aware at the time they are doing it.

How many parents that spank really difficult children do you know that
even look for, let alone use a model like the Safe Play program?

I think the point, especially if you look at the demographics of the
study population in Embry's experiment, is that they tend to present
already in trouble, when they do present at all.

Most don't. Most end up with CPS, in a service plan, which on another
group I frequent, is supposed to be '"Evil CPS" forcing the innocent
parents to jump through hoops.'

You can see pretty easily what the mindset is of a large percent of
people about those "fuzzy headed liberal parenting method hawkers,"
right?

The very ones that should be moving from spanking to other models are
the least likely to do so.

I was converted very reluctantly to a position where I now support a
'soft' law against the use of corporal punishment. While I didn't
believe in spanking, I believed that all those reluctant folks that
need to NOT use spanking and seek other means could be won over with
reason and facts in time.

How naive I was. But that's youth for you. Always hopeful.

Part of what turned me around in my thinking was this newsgroup. But
just reading the news had even more effect. And that year with CPS as a
student in 1980-81.

The rate of child abuse in this country, while dropping, still is very
high for a civilized country.

Finally, I'll ask you to think very carefully about something. Of the
troubled teenagers you worked with, how many grew up in homes where they
could pretty reliably get plenty of positive attention when they were being
good?


First, there were a few that had parents that gave lots of both. The
more pathological ones. Mothers most often. Not that fathers couldn't
be weird.

Second, don't presume that I worked only with "troubled" teenagers.
These were mentally ill children Dx'd as such by properly applied psych
evals. Some were classicly "troubled" kids as in delinquent, some were
frightened little kids still sleeping with their toys in their bed, at
12 and 13.

I worked with regular kids in other settings during my past.

Note the words :"pretty reliably" since some parents have
Jekyll-and-Hyde personalities that make opportunities to get positive
attention safely a hit-or-miss proposition depending on their parents'
moods.


You are describing the pathological parents of the children I worked
with in treatment. Very few were 'monsters' but rather ordinary looking
and acting folks.

I think you're probably focusing too much on the issue of spanking
and not enough on the issue of inadequate positive attention.


Nathan, that is so presumptuous of you. And this is about the third or
fourth accusation of that against me.

What's the title of this newsgroup?

Treatment professionals don't live in the world of the mentally ill.
They have lives, raise their own kids, have extended family, likely
participate in other activities that put them in contact with families
that are not Dx'd as "troubled."

And I had a life before and after that work, as well. Some of it with
children.

Why, given what I've posted here, other than my occasional opposition
to your arguments, would you presume I don't give enough focus to lack
of positive attention?

What has my argument been BUT that more positive methods need to be
used?

"Attention," by the way is overrated. Kids don't need more than about
20 - 30 minutes a day of direct one to one caregiver attention to be
perfectly healthy kids psychologically - devopmentally.

Who has argued from the Embry study contents as a desirable model here
for three years? His name starts with a "K."

Who, by the way, argued against it?

Now, be so kind as to go to my posts, any you wish, and point out
anything I've said that indicates I'm "probably focusing too much on
the issue of spanking and not enough on the issue of inadequate
positive attention."

And you might, in the course of mounting your argument, clarify your
terms. What do YOU call positive attention? Actual behaviors please.
I'm a little tired of "motives" and "values," when it comes to dealing
with little kids. And their parents. We already know pretty well what
those are.

If you'd like then to get back to what Dr. Embry actually said and
explore it with me, and argue it pro or con if you like, I'm right
here.

I'm curious as to terms. I welcome Dr. Embry telling us what some of
the newer research terminology means. Some I've searched for and not
found definitions as yet.

Have you?

Sometime this next week I'll be looking for material on the subject of
evolutional imperatives in child and human development. It's not an
area I've looked at before seriously. I didn't catch on to the
relationship to our discussions here. I do now. So I thank you for
contacting Dr. Embry.

Kane



"0:-" wrote in message
oups.com...

Thanks Nathan, for contact Dr. Embry.

Good work.

I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
matter.

It all is consistent with the report as I understood it and it's
conclusions.

And Dr. Embry's emphasis now on how the children most likely to be
spanked because of their behaviors in fact become oppositional is
consistent with all the training and experience I had with mentally ill
teens (that was a Federal Dollars designation and they were truly
socially dysfunctional...the ones with physiological problems were
screened out to hospital settings...psych wards).

I worked where I had full access and occasionally client contact with
younger children too, down to about 8 years old. What we called back
then, "latency age."

Again we saw the same phenomena that Dr. Embry so eloquently defines
and reveals. The more punishment the more opposition of one kind or
another.

Some shut down, some fight back, some go behind your back and burn down
the neighborhood Historical Preserveation Barn (that happened to a kid
on my caseload that our local treatment director put the screws to one
day, then walked out as the kid heated up...I was not there to
intervene, and he knocked out windows for awhile then ran off and
burned down that 150 year old landmark barn.)

Anyway, you have your answer.


  #6  
Old December 15th 06, 12:45 AM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default Conversation with Dr. Embry re Spanking and Street Entry

Kane wrote:

I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
matter.

I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."

It all is consistent with the report as I understood it and it's
conclusions.


Hihihi!

Doan of course will say I'm lying, but you can guess by now I'm not
impressed with his games.

Now, why would I say you are lying? ;-)

Never tried to download a corrupted PDF file?

You created a corrupted PDF file? ;-) What is the size of this file?

Even ones that should be good, like from sources that created them to
sell they blow out.

This one won't load and open. Sometimes, even for me. So I quite trying
long ago.

Yeah! Don't you just hate that? ;-)

If Doan won't mail you his copy, just ask.

Couldn't he got one straight from Dr. Embry, Kane? ;-)

I'll even cover postage, as I did for everyone else I sent it to.

Thanks again, and sorry for doubting you, but if you've googled Doan's
history here you can understand why I don't play his games.

Hihihi!

Doan


  #7  
Old December 15th 06, 07:22 AM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
Nathan A. Barclay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default Conversation with Dr. Embry re Spanking and Street Entry


"Doan" wrote in message
...
Kane wrote:

I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
matter.

I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."


At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.

The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
more often.

Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
going to use spanking. But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
spanking as inherently harmful. Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
better ways to get attention.


  #8  
Old December 15th 06, 11:28 AM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
Greegor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,243
Default Conversation with Dr. Embry re Spanking and Street Entry

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
going to use spanking. But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
spanking as inherently harmful.


Isn't that why some have said that parenting involves
adaptability and even creativity?

It's commonly said that what works for one kid
will not necessarily work for another.

In one training class a woman talked up her
anti-spanking zeal and bragged that she
never had to spank her two sons.
She was a former caseworker who ended
up in prison for duct taping Logan Marr to
a High Chair in her basement, covering her
mouth and causing her death.

If she had not been such a zealot for anti-spanking
perhaps she could have had another option
short of duct taping a child to death?

But when her anti-spanking methods
failed, she turned to duct tape.

Fosters, where spanking is not allowed,
recently killed a child by making the kid
drink chili powder in water and the
salt in it poisoned the child to death.

  #9  
Old December 16th 06, 01:13 AM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default Conversation with Dr. Embry re Spanking and Street Entry

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...
Kane wrote:

I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
matter.

I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."


At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.

It is not "quibbling over details", Nathan. It goes the heart of the
accusation that Kane made about me regarding this study, that I was lying
when I said this study was not about spanking and street entries. Again,
if there is data to support the claim that spanking increase street
entries, I would like to see it.

The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
more often.

Agree. Do you see that fact mention anywhere by anti-spanking zealots
when they referenced this study. Did Kane ever mention this fact to you?
Does that fit the standard of "lying by omission"? ;-)

Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
going to use spanking. But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
spanking as inherently harmful. Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
better ways to get attention.

Agree, but I would say that would include any type of punishment, not just
spanking alone.

Doan

  #10  
Old December 16th 06, 08:01 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default Conversation with Dr. Embry re Spanking and Street Entry

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Doan wrote:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...
Kane wrote:

I'll be interested to see what Doan makes of it, and you, for that
matter.

I am still interested in data on the claim that spanking increases
street entries. Personal observation is ok but to be scientifically
valid, one needs more than that. Like I said, the only data I saw
on the study was the analysis with "reprimands."


At the very least, Dr. Embry's team identified a subset of cases in which
spanking is so thoroughly useless as to create an appearance of its having a
net effect of reinforcing rather than punishing the unwanted behavior. In
cases where spanking looks that bad, I see no point in quibbling over
details of exactly how bad it is. I think you're splitting hairs way too
much in your fuss over "reprimands" versus spankings.

It is not "quibbling over details", Nathan. It goes the heart of the
accusation that Kane made about me regarding this study, that I was lying
when I said this study was not about spanking and street entries. Again,
if there is data to support the claim that spanking increase street
entries, I would like to see it.

The important thing to recognize is that something can be true in certain
special cases without being true as a general rule. Nothing in what Dr.
Embry found indicated that it was normal, or even close to normal, for
children to respond to being reprimanded or spanked by entering the street
more often.

Agree. Do you see that fact mention anywhere by anti-spanking zealots
when they referenced this study. Did Kane ever mention this fact to you?
Does that fit the standard of "lying by omission"? ;-)

Thus, Dr. Embry's research suggests that if parents spank, they need to pay
attention to whether the spankings are really resulting in an improvement in
the children's behavior. It also points to a risk factor that parents can
reasonably take into consideration in deciding whether and when they are
going to use spanking. But it does not justify a blanket condemnation of
spanking as inherently harmful. Nor, if Dr. Embry is right about the reason
for the continuing misbehavior after spankings being to get attention, is
there reason to believe it poses a significant risk as long as children have
better ways to get attention.

Agree, but I would say that would include any type of punishment, not just
spanking alone.

Just to add, this quotes is from the Embry study:

"... Thus, suggestions to parents that they talk to or reason with
their children about dashing into the street will likely have the
opposite impact. Reprimands do not punish unsafe behavior; they reward
it."

If what you said is true about spanking, can the same be said about other
non-cp alternatives like talking and reasoning with your children?

Doan


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
| | Kids should work... Kane General 13 December 10th 03 03:30 AM
| | Kids should work... Kane Spanking 12 December 10th 03 03:30 AM
| | Kids should work... Kane Foster Parents 3 December 9th 03 12:53 AM
Kids should work. LaVonne Carlson General 22 December 7th 03 05:27 AM
Kids should work. ChrisScaife Foster Parents 16 December 7th 03 05:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.