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 » misc.kids » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Relationship between Spanking and Misbehaviour



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 24th 05, 11:31 PM
Catherine Woodgold
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Relationship between Spanking and Misbehaviour


Betty Wolf said:
(I am not talking about black-and-white studies of adult violent
criminals - I'm talking about attempts to prove that *any* spanking has
a long-lasting negative affect.)


Life is complex and you never know what might
happen. In a particular individual case, having
one's leg accidentally broken could turn out to
provide more benefit than harm: it could happen
to result in being in the right place at the right
time for some wonderful result. However, on average,
having one's leg accidentally broken is a harmful
thing. I'm not attempting to prove that every single
spanking causes more harm than good. However, in general,
on average, when parents do it with intention to control
misbehaviour, it causes more harm than good. On average,
it doesn't even improve behaviour in the long run. No one
has succeeded in identifying particular subclasses
of spanking situations where it does more good than
harm on average. In fact, no long-term benefit from
spanking has been established in any scientific study as
far as I know. So I don't think a person about to spank
a child can reasonably know that it will probably do
more good than harm.

It's not necessary for me to prove that I would certainly
get run over by a car if I were to try to cross the
road right now; I can wait until it looks safer anyway.
Similarly, it's not necessary to prove that a particular
spanking is certainly going to cause more harm than good;
the parent can choose a more positive parenting method anyway.
Spanking always causes pain, which is a form of harm.

Betty Wolf said:
I think the purpose of citing, unasked, an over-simplified
study summary, coupled with an opinion that the poster is damaging her
children, *is* to make parents feel bad.


I don't know whether you were talking about me here, but
if you were you were mistaken. Making people feel bad
is not the purpose of any of my posts. I realize that
some people feel bad when they read material, whether
written by me or by others, which provides information
comparing the relative effectiveness of various
parenting methods. However, the purpose of providing
the information, at least when I do it, is not to make
people feel bad but to provide people with an opportunity
to make a more informed choice. I hope that choosing
better parenting methods will make both parents and
children feel better in the long run. The more good
information available, the better informed choices
people can make.

The purpose of providing a simplified summary of a
study was to make some information available to people
who might not have time to read either the whole study,
or a longer summary which I could have written instead
(I actually spent more time editing it down so it
could be read quickly). I said I would provide more
information if asked. I'm sorry it's taken me so
long to get around to providing more information.
I was busy. I also provided the references to the
studies and I hope some people will look them up in
the library and carefully read them and form their
own opinions. (See references at end of this post.)

I am not sure the studies can isolate spanking from other aspects of
parenting that may cause increased misbehavior.


Numerous studies have found correlations between spanking
and misbehaviour. These correlations continue to be
found in spite of controlling for many possible confounding
variables such as socio-economic status.

(CW had said
Straus & Mouradian (1998) reported that children whose mothers never
spanked them in their entire lives were significantly less antisocial than
even
the most infrequently-spanked children.


I would need to know more about the design of the study.

If the results are based on the mothers filling out surveys, why should
we believe the mothers are not lying?


Why should the mothers lie on an anonymous telephone survey
conducted for scientific purposes?

If the mothers lied, why should a large enough number of them
lie and why should they just happen to lie in such a pattern as
to produce a statistcially significant correlation between
reported spanking and reported misbehaviour?

If the results are based on recollections of children, what is the
assurance that their memories are correct about what happened to them as
toddlers?


This study (Straus and Mouradian, 1998) is based on a telephone
survey of mothers of children aged 2 to 14.

Is it only mothers this study was concerned with, as the above summary
suggests? If so, why?


"The limited budget for this study prevented interviewing both
parents. Mothers were chosen as the respondents because
mothers have much more of the day to day responsibility
for child care."

What was the age of children assessed? How was antisocial behavior defined?


Ages 2 to 14.

ASB (anti-social behaviour) was measured using questions about 11 behaviours,
3 of which were modified based on the age of the child.
The 8 constant items asked how often in the past six months
the child was "cruel or mean to other kids, bullies;
cruel or mean to or insults you; denies doing something he
or she really did; hit a brother or sister, hit other kids;
hit you or other adults; damages or destroys things; and stolen
money or something else."

I don't actually expect answers to these questions, because every time
I've asked similar questions of the "never-ever-spank" crowd, they've
ignored me.


I've been meaning to reply to your message but was too busy
to get to newsgroups at all for a while. When I said I was
willing to provide more information I assumed I would
be able to provide it within a couple of days, but
didn't realize how busy I would be.

If spaanking as normally used in families causes harm on average,
why do you think smaller amounts of spanking wouldn't also cause
harm -- just less harm? What is it about the rareness of the
spanking that makes you think it's less harmful?


It is, of course, impossible to quantify the amount of harm that might
occur from a single spanking, but it is infinitely less harm than a
child getting run over by a car, for example.


It is possible to estimate the amount of harm from a single
spanking by measuring the approximate average amount of harm
from a large number of spankings, and then dividing.
Rare spankings could cause either more harm (because of
the surprise factor, the feeling of betrayal and loss of
feeling of safety, etc.) or less harm (because each
spanking may increase the child's anxiety level and
propensity to feel startled or traumatised).
I see no reason to assume rare spankings would cause
no harm.

I have occasionally treated my son in ways I wish I hadn't. This week,
for the first time ever, he ran out of the grocery store toward the
parking lot when I asked him to hold my hand. I dropped the groceries,
grabbed him by the shirt, and got down in his face and yelled at him. I
apologized immediately and explained how much he had scared me.


I've made a lot of mistakes and done a lot of things
I regretted, too.

How much did I damage our relationship? Would it have been more or less
damaged if I had swatted him instead?


I don't think anyone knows this.

I think that when spanking is rare, each individual spanking
somes as a great shock to the child and causes the child to
feel vulnerable, scared, hurt etc., causing more harm than
any one out of a larger number of spankings (which we
know tend to lead to more misbehaviour).


Do you have any evidence of this, or is it just what you think?


It's how I imagine I would react if someone tried to control
me by hitting me.

Do you think that the reason for spanking, a major safety infraction vs
an end-of-her rope mother swatting her toddler, make any difference in
the amount of harm? If not, why not? If so, how much?


The things which determine the amount of harm are not
the parent's motivation for spanking, but the way the
spanking is perceived by the child: expected versus
unexpected, perceived as just versus unjust, very painful versus
slightly painful, etc. The spanking is always perceived
by the child as an attempt to control the child's
behaviour using hitting -- that doesn't vary, and on average
tends to increase the child's tendency to hit others.

There are also those who initially intend to spank
rarely but find themselves on a slipperly slope.
Spanking causes other discipline methods to be
less effective. Some parents find themselves spanking more
and more often as time goes on.


I think that when spanking is very rare, it probably does address the
specific behavior to the point that the "slippery slope" argument is not
valid.


If, after the child grows up, with retrospect one can
say that the spankings were rare, then you can know that
the "slippery slope" was not slid down for that particular
child. If the child is still young, you can't know that.
Rare spankings this year might still increase to be
frequent spankings next year or the year after: it
happens in some families, and all too often progresses to
severe physical abuse.

Parents do not usually make a decision like "I'm going
to spank, but no more than 5 times in this child's lifetime."
Instead, they tend to make decisions like "I'm going
to spank, but only for really severe misbehaviour
such as X." If the child then begins to do X frequently,
what does the parent do?

I don't understand how addressing a particular
behaviour problem makes the "slippery slope" analogy
invalid. What I mean is that using spanking (even once)
not only has some effect on the particular behaviour it's
aimed at, but also affects the whole relationship: it
demonstrates the use of violence, which necessarily changes
the child's ideas about violence one way or another;
and it makes the parent-child relationship more control-
oriented. This has repercussions for other situations
later on, possibly leading to increased use of spanking.

What is the evidence that spanking makes other discipline methods less
effective?


Well, think about it. What do you do when someone tries
to forcefully make you do something you don't want to do?
Most people react by digging in their heels. If that
same person later comes to you and tries to ask you
nicely to do that same thing -- or even something else --
how are you going to react?

Betty Wolf said:
That's a very good point about another possible shortcoming of "the
studies." It's impossible to design studies to take into account all
the possible different kinds of punishments, and how each individual
child will respond to every possible punishment. My DH was not hit as a
child, but if he disagreed with his mother or acted in a way she didn't
like, she threatened to kill herself. Hard to believe that a swat or
two could be worse than that.


The existence of things that are worse than spanking does not
in any way prove that spanking is OK nor does it invalidate
the results of any scientific studies.

Catherine Woodgold wrote:
What particular variables do you believe can't be controlled for?

Betty Woolf ) writes:
I understand that the good studies ask about frequency of spanking,
whether it is done in anger, other discipline methods, etc. They
control for race, income level, SAHM/WOHM, amount and type of daycare,
parental situation, etc. I have no quarrel with that.

Let's say some of the other things a good study would have to try to
look at are other parenting decisions, such as cosleeping or
breastfeeding, to try isolate spanking as the ultimate cause of the
undesirable behavior. (ie one could argue that the lack of cosleeping
or breastfeeding could cause antisocial behavior, so a good study would
have to attempt to address that.) Then they would have to address
weaning from the family bed and from breastfeeding. They'd have to
quantify whether the child was actually ready to be weaned (was a rough
weaning to blame for the "antisocial behavior," whatever that means?).
And you'd have to get these answers trusting that the recollection was
accurate (My son is not even 4, but I can't remember if he weaned at 2y
1mo or 2y 3 mo.) and that the survey taker was telling an objective
truth ("He moved to his own bed when he was ready, at 11 months")

I don't think it's possible to separate one particular parenting
behavior from a whole parenting style and blame that one thing for how a
child acts on a particular day/set of days when they are being observed
for "antisocial behavior."


There are huge numbers of variables involved. When a statistical
study is done, averages are calculated and the other variables
generally average out and therefore have little or not effect on
the result. If a correlation is found, (and if it's not a fluke),
then there is some reason for it. The reason may be something
complex, such as that breastfed kids behave better on average (if they do)
or whatever. However, for a more complex relationship between the
variables to be the cause of the correlation, the correlation between
each pair of variables has to be even stronger than if it's a
direct causation one way or the other. The most parsimonious
explanation is that spanking causes misbehaviour in the long term.
Besides, there are theoretical reasons to explain why it would.

Do you have particular reasons for believing that some
particular variables, other than a direct cause-and-effect
relationship, may have caused the correlations in particular
spanking studies? That is, do you have reasonably plausible
alternative explanations for the results other than that
spanking causes misbehaviour in the long term?

I said I would provide more information on some particular
studies if people were interested. I'm planning to reply to
an earlier post of yours, but I'm working full-time and parenting
my children, so it may be several days before I have time to
carefully re-read the studies. Meanwhile, I encourage anyone who
wishes to to look up those studies; they can be obtained
by inter-library loan at public libraries, I believe.


I apologize if I came on too strong. I am interested in your answers.


I hope I answered your questions about the studies.
I'm interested in further discussion but I don't know
whether I'll have time for it or not. I hope I've
clarified for you my position. I think it would be
interesting to further clarify our positions and exactly
what we agree and disagree on.

I'm glad you got involved in this discussion and I hope
we can come to some understanding about what exactly
we disagree about (if anything) and why.


References:

Straus, M. and V.E. Mouradian, 1998. Impulsive
Corporal Punishment by Mothers and Antisocial Behavior
and Impulsiveness of Children. Behavioral Sciences
and the Law, 16, 353-374.

MacMillan, H.L, et al., 1999. Slapping and spanking
in childhood and its association with lifetime
prevalence of psychiatric disorders in a general
population sample. Journal of the Canadian Medical Assocation,
161 (7), p. 805-822.







--
Cathy Woodgold
http://www.ncf.ca/~an588/par_home.html
There are two types of people in the world: those
who divide the world into two types of people, and
  #2  
Old June 25th 05, 04:25 AM
Betty Woolf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Catherine Woodgold wrote:
Betty Woolf said:

(I am not talking about black-and-white studies of adult violent
criminals - I'm talking about attempts to prove that *any* spanking has
a long-lasting negative affect.)


I'm going to snip liberally to keep this from getting too long, but if I
inadvertently miss a point please correct me.

I'm not attempting to prove that every single
spanking causes more harm than good. However, in general,
on average, when parents do it with intention to control
misbehaviour, it causes more harm than good. On average,
it doesn't even improve behaviour in the long run. No one
has succeeded in identifying particular subclasses
of spanking situations where it does more good than
harm on average. In fact, no long-term benefit from
spanking has been established in any scientific study as
far as I know. So I don't think a person about to spank
a child can reasonably know that it will probably do
more good than harm.


I'm not arguing that spanking is the best way to deal with any
particular situation, and I don't do it myself. However, it is not
required of me to establish that spanking is beneficial, as you imply
above; Straus et al. hypothesize that it is harmful, so it is up to them
to "prove" it as best they can. The null hypothesis is that spanking
does no harm, not that it does good.

Spanking always causes pain, which is a form of harm.


One could substitute something else that causes pain into the above
sentence, such as "Falling off your bike always causes pain, which is a
form of harm." Yet no-one would suggest that kids should not learn to
ride a bike because of the pain involved in the inevitable falls.

I think that the valid arguments against even mild spanking are that it
sends the wrong message and that it can be a betrayal of trust. The
"any pain is harm" argument does not convince me in the least.

Betty Woolf said:

I think the purpose of citing, unasked, an over-simplified
study summary, coupled with an opinion that the poster is damaging her
children, *is* to make parents feel bad.



I don't know whether you were talking about me here, but
if you were you were mistaken. Making people feel bad
is not the purpose of any of my posts. I realize that
some people feel bad when they read material, whether
written by me or by others, which provides information
comparing the relative effectiveness of various
parenting methods. However, the purpose of providing
the information, at least when I do it, is not to make
people feel bad but to provide people with an opportunity
to make a more informed choice. I hope that choosing
better parenting methods will make both parents and
children feel better in the long run. The more good
information available, the better informed choices
people can make.


I obviously can't argue with people about what their intent is. It is
however possible to offer alternatives (which you do very well) without
playing the "studies say X causes harm." This is a hot button with me -
not directed at you - and the reason that I stopped reading
misc.kids.breastfeeding.


I am not sure the studies can isolate spanking from other aspects of
parenting that may cause increased misbehavior.



Numerous studies have found correlations between spanking
and misbehaviour. These correlations continue to be
found in spite of controlling for many possible confounding
variables such as socio-economic status.

(CW had said

Straus & Mouradian (1998) reported that children whose mothers never
spanked them in their entire lives were significantly less antisocial than
even
the most infrequently-spanked children.



I would need to know more about the design of the study.

If the results are based on the mothers filling out surveys, why should
we believe the mothers are not lying?



Why should the mothers lie on an anonymous telephone survey
conducted for scientific purposes?


I shouldn't have said lying - I should have said misremembered or
mis-answered.


If the mothers lied, why should a large enough number of them
lie and why should they just happen to lie in such a pattern as
to produce a statistcially significant correlation between
reported spanking and reported misbehaviour?


Respondents can be very sensitive to the wording of the question and try
to guess the "correct" answer, even in anonymous surveys. I personally
have a terrible time with telephone surveys because I see shades of grey
everywhere and I could choose one of several answers. For example, if
the question is "Have you ever spanked your child?" the answer is no.
If the question is "Have you ever physically disciplined your child?"
the answer is technically yes - I have physically carried him places he
doesn't want to go, and physically restrained him from doing things he
wants to do.

I'll look up the study when I can but I just don't see how you could ask
specific enough questions to reach a reasonable conclusion without
subconsciously leading the survey-taker to answer the way you want them to.


Is it only mothers this study was concerned with, as the above summary
suggests? If so, why?



"The limited budget for this study prevented interviewing both
parents. Mothers were chosen as the respondents because
mothers have much more of the day to day responsibility
for child care."


Was the question whether the mother had ever spanked the child (as both
your original quote and the study title indicate) or whether the child
had ever been spanked at all, to the mother's knowledge? If it's the
former, I have to say that I have huge doubts about the validity of this
study. How can you draw valid conclusions from a study that disregards
the input/behavior of the father?


What was the age of children assessed? How was antisocial behavior defined?



Ages 2 to 14.

ASB (anti-social behaviour) was measured using questions about 11 behaviours,
3 of which were modified based on the age of the child.
The 8 constant items asked how often in the past six months
the child was "cruel or mean to other kids, bullies;
cruel or mean to or insults you; denies doing something he
or she really did; hit a brother or sister, hit other kids;
hit you or other adults; damages or destroys things; and stolen
money or something else."


I don't expect you to summarize the whole thing, but here are my
thoughts on the above, in case anyone is interested in the kinds of
questions these statements raise for me:

First, IMO "In the last 6 months" is a *huge* amount of time when you're
asking a parent to recall behavior, and second, the questions are so
vague that they can be misinterpreted easily. Also, unless the mother
is with the kid 24 hours a day, she can't possibly answer with 100%
certainty.

If I was asked right now about my son's behavior in the last 6 months
(he's 3y 9 mo), I can tell you that there were a few times when his
behavior was a bit too physical for my taste. One was when my uncle
died suddenly and I was not very available to DS. One was when we got a
puppy and DS started playing with his friends the way the puppy was
playing with our older dog - lots of tackling and shoving. One was
right after my parents left and he was frustrated by the return to
structure. Depending on how the questions were worded, I could easily
end up misrepresenting the frequency or magnitude of his poor behavior.

It is possible to estimate the amount of harm from a single
spanking by measuring the approximate average amount of harm
from a large number of spankings, and then dividing.


I don't believe that is valid.

Rare spankings could cause either more harm (because of
the surprise factor, the feeling of betrayal and loss of
feeling of safety, etc.) or less harm (because each
spanking may increase the child's anxiety level and
propensity to feel startled or traumatised).


More harm or less harm than what, though? Is there anybody arguing that
frequent spanking is better than rare spanking? I don't think so - I
think the argument is whether rare spanking causes measurable harm over
no spanking.

I see no reason to assume rare spankings would cause
no harm.


I think this is the crux of our disagreement. I see no reason to assume
rare spankings would cause harm, just as I see no reason to assume that
one cigarette or one Big Mac or one alcoholic drink would cause harm, on
average.


Do you think that the reason for spanking, a major safety infraction vs
an end-of-her rope mother swatting her toddler, make any difference in
the amount of harm? If not, why not? If so, how much?



The things which determine the amount of harm are not
the parent's motivation for spanking, but the way the
spanking is perceived by the child: expected versus
unexpected, perceived as just versus unjust, very painful versus
slightly painful, etc. The spanking is always perceived
by the child as an attempt to control the child's
behaviour using hitting -- that doesn't vary, and on average
tends to increase the child's tendency to hit others.


I'm not comfortable taking anyone's word for how a toddler or
preschooler perceives the world. My son once ran into me and fell down
when he wasn't looking where he was going; I was standing still, talking
on the phone. He then started crying and announced to DH that I had
"pushed him down."


I don't understand how addressing a particular
behaviour problem makes the "slippery slope" analogy
invalid. What I mean is that using spanking (even once)
not only has some effect on the particular behaviour it's
aimed at, but also affects the whole relationship: it
demonstrates the use of violence, which necessarily changes
the child's ideas about violence one way or another;
and it makes the parent-child relationship more control-
oriented. This has repercussions for other situations
later on, possibly leading to increased use of spanking.


The "slippery slope" argument is that you shouldn't spank even once
because it will inevitably lead to more misbehavior, more spanking and a
spiral toward abuse. This is not the same as saying that even one
instance of physical punishment is going to damage your relationship
with your child.



What is the evidence that spanking makes other discipline methods less
effective?



Well, think about it. What do you do when someone tries
to forcefully make you do something you don't want to do?
Most people react by digging in their heels. If that
same person later comes to you and tries to ask you
nicely to do that same thing -- or even something else --
how are you going to react?


Are you speaking purely of physical force? If so, I can only imagine
how I would react, as that has not been a reality for me. I think I
would react as you describe. However, spanking is generally not used to
force someone to do something, but to deter them from doing something,
which is a different thing, behaviorally speaking.

Betty Woolf ) writes:


I don't think it's possible to separate one particular parenting
behavior from a whole parenting style and blame that one thing for how a
child acts on a particular day/set of days when they are being observed
for "antisocial behavior."



There are huge numbers of variables involved. When a statistical
study is done, averages are calculated and the other variables
generally average out and therefore have little or not effect on
the result. If a correlation is found, (and if it's not a fluke),
then there is some reason for it. The reason may be something
complex, such as that breastfed kids behave better on average (if they do)
or whatever. However, for a more complex relationship between the
variables to be the cause of the correlation, the correlation between
each pair of variables has to be even stronger than if it's a
direct causation one way or the other. The most parsimonious
explanation is that spanking causes misbehaviour in the long term.
Besides, there are theoretical reasons to explain why it would.


I'm not going to comment much until I do read the studies but if you
start with "theoretical reasons to explain X" I guarantee that you can
come up with a study design that will support your conclusions.


Do you have particular reasons for believing that some
particular variables, other than a direct cause-and-effect
relationship, may have caused the correlations in particular
spanking studies? That is, do you have reasonably plausible
alternative explanations for the results other than that
spanking causes misbehaviour in the long term?


I would have to read the studies before answering with specifics. I
would also have to think twice before accepting ASB between the ages of
2 and 14 as "long term" misbehavior.

I think that the question is too complex to be handled by surveys - you
would need a long term study (on the order of 20 years), frequently
interviewing both parents and children and also videotaping interactions
between parents and their children, interactions between children and
their peers, and possibly even between the parents for objective
characterization of behavior (not "how often did Johnny hit his sister
in the last six months?")

Possible alternative explanations to "spanking causes misbehavior" -

-Children who are neurologically atypical are more likely to engage in
behaviors that are both antisocial *and* on the list of behaviors that
average parents will spank for.

-The surveys are failing to even attempt to look for other explanations
and therefore don't question things that would provide alternative
answers.

-The study subjects are inappropriately chosen or classified.

I hope I answered your questions about the studies.
I'm interested in further discussion but I don't know
whether I'll have time for it or not. I hope I've
clarified for you my position. I think it would be
interesting to further clarify our positions and exactly
what we agree and disagree on.

I'm glad you got involved in this discussion and I hope
we can come to some understanding about what exactly
we disagree about (if anything) and why.


I think we agree that spanking is not desirable or effective and that
parents should be encouraged to practice other discipline strategies.

I think we disagree on the possible harmful effects of a few spankings.
I think we disagree about the place studies have in the discussion - I
don't trust them as you do.

If you have time, I'm interested in your responses but I don't think
there's a lot more to be said. I don't think we're going to see
eye-to-eye on the validity of the studies.

Thanks for an interesting discussion

Betty


References:

Straus, M. and V.E. Mouradian, 1998. Impulsive
Corporal Punishment by Mothers and Antisocial Behavior
and Impulsiveness of Children. Behavioral Sciences
and the Law, 16, 353-374.

MacMillan, H.L, et al., 1999. Slapping and spanking
in childhood and its association with lifetime
prevalence of psychiatric disorders in a general
population sample. Journal of the Canadian Medical Assocation,
161 (7), p. 805-822.

  #3  
Old June 25th 05, 04:53 AM
bizby40
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Catherine Woodgold" wrote in message
...
Numerous studies have found correlations between spanking
and misbehaviour. These correlations continue to be
found in spite of controlling for many possible confounding
variables such as socio-economic status.


It seems intuitive to me that children who misbehave more
would be spanked more. How do the studies rule out
this possibility?

It also seems intuitive to me that emotionally volatile
parents would have emotionally volatile children
(biological children), and therefore the children who
are most likely to misbehave, also have the parents
most likely to spank. How do the studies address
this issue?

Bizby


  #4  
Old June 26th 05, 10:25 PM
Catherine Woodgold
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Betty Woolf ) writes:
[excerpts from Betty's post]
Catherine Woodgold wrote:
I'm not attempting to prove that every single
spanking causes more harm than good. However, in general,
on average, when parents do it with intention to control
misbehaviour, it causes more harm than good. On average,
it doesn't even improve behaviour in the long run. No one
has succeeded in identifying particular subclasses
of spanking situations where it does more good than
harm on average. In fact, no long-term benefit from
spanking has been established in any scientific study as
far as I know. So I don't think a person about to spank
a child can reasonably know that it will probably do
more good than harm.


I'm not arguing that spanking is the best way to deal with any
particular situation, and I don't do it myself. However, it is not
required of me to establish that spanking is beneficial, as you imply
above; Straus et al. hypothesize that it is harmful, so it is up to them
to "prove" it as best they can.


I'm finding this discussion interesting and I'm glad
you're participating. I hope it'll continue (though
again I'm not sure about time constraints).
I hope you can interpret my post as a friendly discussion
and argument for the sake of learning and clarifying.

I didn't intend to imply that it was required of you to prove
anything. In general, I'd prefer that you reply to what I
actually say rather than to what you think I'm implying.

I don't think Straus et al have any more responsibility than
anyone else to prove something about spanking; they just happen
to be doing studies on that topic. I read recently that Straus
used to be a pro-spanker but changed his mind based on the results
of the various studies he's done over the years.

The null hypothesis is that spanking
does no harm, not that it does good.


I'm not sure what particular statistical test
you're referring to here.

Spanking always causes pain, which is a form of harm.


One could substitute something else that causes pain into the above
sentence, such as "Falling off your bike always causes pain, which is a
form of harm." Yet no-one would suggest that kids should not learn to
ride a bike because of the pain involved in the inevitable falls.


I pretty much agree with the above. Do you agree or
disagree (or neither) with the statement "Spanking always
causes pain, which is a form of harm"?

I think that the valid arguments against even mild spanking are that it
sends the wrong message and that it can be a betrayal of trust.


Those also strike me as valid arguments.

The "any pain is harm" argument does not convince me in the least.


I think it would be interesting to find out exactly where
this argument loses you. Do you agree that pain is harm?
I assume you're against painfully knocking kids off their
bikes for the fun of it. If so, why are you against it?
Because pain is harm, or for some other reason? Why does
the same reason, whatever it is, not also apply to spanking?

Betty Woolf said:

I think the purpose of citing, unasked, an over-simplified
study summary, coupled with an opinion that the poster is damaging her
children, *is* to make parents feel bad.


I don't know whether you were talking about me here, but
if you were you were mistaken. Making people feel bad
is not the purpose of any of my posts. I realize that
some people feel bad when they read material, whether
written by me or by others, which provides information
comparing the relative effectiveness of various
parenting methods. However, the purpose of providing
the information, at least when I do it, is not to make
people feel bad but to provide people with an opportunity
to make a more informed choice. I hope that choosing
better parenting methods will make both parents and
children feel better in the long run. The more good
information available, the better informed choices
people can make.


I obviously can't argue with people about what their intent is. It is
however possible to offer alternatives (which you do very well) without
playing the "studies say X causes harm." This is a hot button with me -
not directed at you - and the reason that I stopped reading
misc.kids.breastfeeding.


By the way, I also have other reasons for posting, including
that it's enjoyable and educational for me (and I hope for others),
and that I occasionally end up taking my own advice. :-)

Certainly it is possible to merely mention alternatives and
not discuss the reasons for doing one thing rather than another.
However, I don't choose to do so. I believe it's both interesting
and important to discuss the reasons for and effects of various
alternatives. In my opinion this is worth the risk that some
people might feel bad on reading some of the posts. I'm sorry
if such bad feelings happen. Occasionally I've put disclaimers
at the beginnings of some of my posts warning people that I'm
discussing relative advantages and disadvantages of different parenting
methods and that they might want to skip reading my post if that sort
of thing might make them feel bad. Maybe the newsgroup could
come up with a short code-word that people could insert in
the subject line if they're discussing advantages and disadvantages
rather than just mentioning alternatives; or, maybe there
could be a code-word to identify those posts which just
mention alternatives without any evaluation of them, so that
those who only want to read lists of alternatives could
limit themselves to just those posts. However, I think
most people are capable of figuring out what type of post
it is and skipping the rest of the post if it's the type
they don't want to read. Many people have put the word "spanking"
into a killfile so that they never see posts about spanking.

I am not sure the studies can isolate spanking from other aspects of
parenting that may cause increased misbehavior.

(CW had said

Straus & Mouradian (1998) reported that children whose mothers never
spanked them in their entire lives were significantly less antisocial than
even the most infrequently-spanked children.


If the mothers lied, why should a large enough number of them
lie and why should they just happen to lie in such a pattern as
to produce a statistcially significant correlation between
reported spanking and reported misbehaviour?


Respondents can be very sensitive to the wording of the question and try
to guess the "correct" answer, even in anonymous surveys. I personally
have a terrible time with telephone surveys because I see shades of grey
everywhere and I could choose one of several answers. For example, if
the question is "Have you ever spanked your child?" the answer is no.
If the question is "Have you ever physically disciplined your child?"
the answer is technically yes - I have physically carried him places he
doesn't want to go, and physically restrained him from doing things he
wants to do.


I would think those sorts of effects would contribute to the
"noise" in the results. Usually this sort of "noise" tends to
cancel out when averages are taken over large numbers of respondents.
If a statistically significant correlation is found, there
has to be some reason for it (unless it's a fluke, which
becomes less likely as studies are replicated and depending
on the level of statistical significance). Until someone
comes up with some alternative explanation of the results,
it seems reasonable to suppose that they show a statistical
correlation between spanking and misbehaviour.

I'll look up the study when I can but I just don't see how you could ask
specific enough questions to reach a reasonable conclusion without
subconsciously leading the survey-taker to answer the way you want them to.


I think the survey questions were asked by professional
survey-takers who presumably didn't care what the answers
were. The wording of the questions was predetermined.

Was the question whether the mother had ever spanked the child (as both
your original quote and the study title indicate) or whether the child
had ever been spanked at all, to the mother's knowledge?


"Mothers were asked how often in the past six months they had
'spanked, slapped or hit' the target child when the child 'does
something bad or something you don't like, or is disobedient.'"

If it's the
former, I have to say that I have huge doubts about the validity of this
study. How can you draw valid conclusions from a study that disregards
the input/behavior of the father?


It's very simple. I think it's a very valid assumption that
children who are spanked by their mothers are, on average, spanked
more than children who are not spanked by their mothers.
In any case, if you don't believe that assumption, then the
study results can still be interpreted validly as showing
a correlation between spanking by mothers and misbehaviour.

I don't expect you to summarize the whole thing, but here are my
thoughts on the above, in case anyone is interested in the kinds of
questions these statements raise for me:

First, IMO "In the last 6 months" is a *huge* amount of time when you're
asking a parent to recall behavior, and second, the questions are so
vague that they can be misinterpreted easily.


Again, it seems to me that those factors would contribute to
the "noise" or experimental error and would tend to cancel out
when large numbers of results are averaged. Increased noise
generally reduces the chance that any correlations of any sort
will be found. If a correlation is found, it usually means
that there is some pattern which is strong enough to be
seen in spite of the noise. You haven't provided any explanation
of how the statistically significant correlations between
variables designed to measure spanking and misbehaviour
could have occurred if there is no actual correlation between
those variables. I'm not trying to imply that you have
any responsibility to provide such an explanation.
However, as long as no-one has come up with any plausible
alternative explanation, it's reasonable to interpret the
results as showing a correlation between spanking (by mothers)
and misbehaviour.

Also, unless the mother
is with the kid 24 hours a day, she can't possibly answer with 100%
certainty.


She answered about her own spanking behaviour.

If I was asked right now about my son's behavior in the last 6 months
(he's 3y 9 mo), I can tell you that there were a few times when his
behavior was a bit too physical for my taste. One was when my uncle
died suddenly and I was not very available to DS. One was when we got a
puppy and DS started playing with his friends the way the puppy was
playing with our older dog - lots of tackling and shoving. One was
right after my parents left and he was frustrated by the return to
structure. Depending on how the questions were worded, I could easily
end up misrepresenting the frequency or magnitude of his poor behavior.


Again, this would tend to contribute to the noise.

It is possible to estimate the amount of harm from a single
spanking by measuring the approximate average amount of harm
from a large number of spankings, and then dividing.


I don't believe that is valid.


Could you explain in more detail what you mean here?
Do you agree that it is possible to carry out such
a calculation? Can you suggest any better way to
estimate the amount of harm from a single spanking?
Parents need estimates of such harm to make ordinary,
day-to-day decisions, even if they don't think about
it in mathematical terms.

Rare spankings could cause either more harm (because of
the surprise factor, the feeling of betrayal and loss of
feeling of safety, etc.) or less harm (because each
spanking may increase the child's anxiety level and
propensity to feel startled or traumatised).


More harm or less harm than what, though?


What I meant was, I was comparing the amount of harm of
a single spanking imposed on a child who is not
accustomed to frequent spankings, compared to the
amount of harm of a single spanking imposed on a child
who is accustomed to frequent spanking.

Is there anybody arguing that
frequent spanking is better than rare spanking?


I don't know.

I don't think so - I
think the argument is whether rare spanking causes measurable harm over
no spanking.


Correlations between spanking and misbehaviour have been
established in scientific studies. No-one has established
that any specific type of spanking (e.g. rare spanking)
is exempt from the same dynamics.

What do you believe? Do you believe rare spanking causes
harm? Do you believe it doesn't cause harm?

I think it's reasonable to suppose that similar
dynamics apply to rare spankings as to frequent
spankings. Actually, the Straus and Mouradian (1998)
also provide supportive evidence: the children
reported as never spanked by the mothers had the best
(lowest) ASB scores compared to children who had
been spanked but not in the past 6 months, and all other
categories.

I see no reason to assume rare spankings would cause
no harm.


I think this is the crux of our disagreement. I see no reason to assume
rare spankings would cause harm, just as I see no reason to assume that
one cigarette or one Big Mac or one alcoholic drink would cause harm, on
average.


OK, it looks as if we're getting close to identifying
something we disagree about.

It's been established that smoking tends to cause lung
cancer and other health problems, and to shorten average
lifespan. This means that the average effect of smoking a
cigarette is a small increase in probability of certain
health problems and a small decrease in life span.
Here, average effect is defined as the total effect of
a large number of cigarettes divided by the total
number of cigarettes smoked.

However, that's the average effect of a cigarette when
in most cases the cigarette is smoked by a frequent smoker.
I think your point is that if someone smokes only
one cigarette in their lifetime, the estimated effect
of that cigarette might be quite different from the
average effect of a cigarette in general.

I assume the effect would be similar.

One could imagine that smoking one cigarette is
like pouring one spoonful of water into an
initially empty cup: just one has no chance of
causing the cup to overflow, but a large number
of spoonfuls could cause overflow.

I don't think smoking is like that, and I don't
think spanking is like that. I think it's more
like pouring a spoonful into a cup which already
has an unknown amount of water in it.

What do you think? Do you think we just don't
know? Or do you think people can spank their
kids a small number of times with confidence that
each of those spankings will do far less harm than
each spanking would do to a child who was
accustomed to frequent spanking? Or what?

I don't understand how addressing a particular
behaviour problem makes the "slippery slope" analogy
invalid. What I mean is that using spanking (even once)
not only has some effect on the particular behaviour it's
aimed at, but also affects the whole relationship: it
demonstrates the use of violence, which necessarily changes
the child's ideas about violence one way or another;
and it makes the parent-child relationship more control-
oriented. This has repercussions for other situations
later on, possibly leading to increased use of spanking.


The "slippery slope" argument is that you shouldn't spank even once
because it will inevitably lead to more misbehavior, more spanking and a
spiral toward abuse.


Although I used the phrase "slippery slope", I didn't mean
what you describe here as the "'slippery slope' argument".

What is the evidence that spanking makes other discipline methods less
effective?


Well, think about it. What do you do when someone tries
to forcefully make you do something you don't want to do?
Most people react by digging in their heels. If that
same person later comes to you and tries to ask you
nicely to do that same thing -- or even something else --
how are you going to react?


Are you speaking purely of physical force?


No, it can be other forms of overt manipulation such
as punishment. The more forceful, severe and threatening
the punishment, the more a person tends to resent it
and to try to oppose further manipulation by the same person.

If so, I can only imagine
how I would react, as that has not been a reality for me. I think I
would react as you describe. However, spanking is generally not used to
force someone to do something, but to deter them from doing something,
which is a different thing, behaviorally speaking.


Well, how do you react when someone uses punishment, anger or threats to
try to stop you from doing something?

I'm not going to comment much until I do read the studies but if you
start with "theoretical reasons to explain X" I guarantee that you can
come up with a study design that will support your conclusions.


Many people have tried to come up with a study design
which establishes a correlation between spanking and any
form of long-term benefit, but they have all failed.
This seems to be a counterexample to the idea that
you can find a study that shows whatever you want
(though I'm not sure whether that's what you meant).

I would also have to think twice before accepting ASB between the ages of
2 and 14 as "long term" misbehavior.


When I've said "long term" in this discussion I've
generally meant about 1 or 2 years or more. You can use
the phrase to mean whatever you want when you use it;
I hope you'll make the meaning clear enough in context.

I think that the question is too complex to be handled by surveys - you
would need a long term study (on the order of 20 years), frequently
interviewing both parents and children and also videotaping interactions
between parents and their children, interactions between children and
their peers, and possibly even between the parents for objective
characterization of behavior (not "how often did Johnny hit his sister
in the last six months?")


Can you explain why the statistical correlations found
in Straus and Mouradian (1998) are not adequate, in your
opinion, to establish a correlation between spanking
and misbehaviour?

Possible alternative explanations to "spanking causes misbehavior" -

-Children who are neurologically atypical are more likely to engage in
behaviors that are both antisocial *and* on the list of behaviors that
average parents will spank for.


This was a valid criticism of all the studies finding
correlations between spanking and misbehaviour until 1997.
In 1997, two important studies were published side-by-side
in a medical journal (Straus et al 1997 and Gunnoe and
Mariner 1997). Each of these studies looked at spanking
and misbehaviour varying over a 2- or 5-year time period.
The amount of increase or decrease in misbehaviour could
be measured. It was found that, on average, there was
more of an increase in misbehaviour in the kids who
were being spanked more at the beginning of the time
period, controlling for the amount of misbehaviour at
the beginning.

This is a correlation between spanking and misbehaviour
which could not be caused by pre-existing tendencies
of the child to misbehave.

-The surveys are failing to even attempt to look for other explanations
and therefore don't question things that would provide alternative
answers.


That is simply not true. These studies carefully control
for a number of variables such as sex, socio-economic status,
a parental warmth variable and a number of other variables which
could otherwise confound the results.

-The study subjects are inappropriately chosen or classified.


How could that do other than contribute to the noise?
Actually, in Straus and Mouradian, the subjects were
chosen by dialing random telephone numbers. This seems
an appropriate method to find a random sample
of subjects.

I hope I answered your questions about the studies.
I'm interested in further discussion but I don't know
whether I'll have time for it or not. I hope I've
clarified for you my position. I think it would be
interesting to further clarify our positions and exactly
what we agree and disagree on.

I'm glad you got involved in this discussion and I hope
we can come to some understanding about what exactly
we disagree about (if anything) and why.


I think we agree that spanking is not desirable or effective and that
parents should be encouraged to practice other discipline strategies.

I think we disagree on the possible harmful effects of a few spankings.


It would be interesting to find out exactly what the
disagreement is. I believe that spanking is harmful
whether it is done to a child who is used to it or not.
What do you believe?

I think we disagree about the place studies have in the discussion - I
don't trust them as you do.


Can you identify specific statements I've made that
you disagree with?

Thanks for an interesting discussion


Thank you, too!

References:

Straus, M. and V.E. Mouradian, 1998. Impulsive
Corporal Punishment by Mothers and Antisocial Behavior
and Impulsiveness of Children. Behavioral Sciences
and the Law, 16, 353-374.

MacMillan, H.L, et al., 1999. Slapping and spanking
in childhood and its association with lifetime
prevalence of psychiatric disorders in a general
population sample. Journal of the Canadian Medical Assocation,
161 (7), p. 805-822.


Straus M. A., D.B. Sugarman and J. Giles-Sims,
1997. Spanking by Parents and Subsequent
Antisocial Behavior of Children. Arch. Pediatr.
Adolesc. Med. Vol. 151, Aug 1997. pp. 761-767

Gunnoe, M.L., C.L. Mariner, 1997. Toward a
developmental-contextual model of the effects
of parental spanking on children's aggression.
Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. Vol. 151, Aug. 1997,
pp. 768-775.

Oh -- I just remembered: I think those last two studies are
available on the Internet! Oh, maybe only the abstracts, but
you can also find replies published in the same journal.
You can do a Google search on the name of the journal.
(Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.)
I just did and it works, but the URL is rather long.
I think they only supply the abstracts, though.
The full articles can be obtained via interlibrary loan
from public libraries.
--
Cathy Woodgold
http://www.ncf.ca/~an588/par_home.html
There are two types of people in the world: those
who divide the world into two types of people, and
  #5  
Old June 27th 05, 04:20 AM
Betty Woolf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Catherine Woodgold wrote:
Betty Woolf ) writes:
[excerpts from Betty's post]

Catherine Woodgold wrote:

snips
I don't think Straus et al have any more responsibility than
anyone else to prove something about spanking; they just happen
to be doing studies on that topic. I read recently that Straus
used to be a pro-spanker but changed his mind based on the results
of the various studies he's done over the years.


Well, people usually do studies trying to prove something, at least in
my experience. Spanking either has a positive effect, a negative
effect, or no effect on a child's behavior. My stance is colored by
what studies mean in my line of work, and you may not realize that the
way you state things has a particular meaning in the world of the harder
sciences. It is that that I am reacting to when I may seem to be
responding to things you think you didn't say; by my frame of
reference, I am responding to what I think you said.


The null hypothesis is that spanking
does no harm, not that it does good.



I'm not sure what particular statistical test
you're referring to here.


It's not a statistical test, but a basic principal within statistics.
You can't have statistical significance without a null hypothesis -
generally expressed as measuring the probability that whatever you've
observed could have occurred by chance. When I typed the above, I was
speaking of the null hypothesis as I use it in my job as a molecular
biologist. I went ahead and looked up the statistical definition.

Excerpts from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

"In statistics, a null hypothesis is a hypothesis that is presumed true
until statistical evidence in the form of a hypothesis test indicates
otherwise.

If experimental observations contradict the prediction of the null
hypothesis, it means that either the null hypothesis is false, or we
have observed an event with very low probability. This gives us high
confidence in the falsehood of the null hypothesis, which can be
improved by increasing the number of trials. However, accepting the
alternative hypothesis only commits us to a difference in observed
parameters; it does not prove that the theory or principles that
predicted such a difference is true, since it is always possible that
the difference could be due to additional factors not recognized by the
theory."

Perhaps reading the above will help you understand where I am coming
from in analyzing these studies.


Spanking always causes pain, which is a form of harm.


One could substitute something else that causes pain into the above
sentence, such as "Falling off your bike always causes pain, which is a
form of harm." Yet no-one would suggest that kids should not learn to
ride a bike because of the pain involved in the inevitable falls.



I pretty much agree with the above. Do you agree or
disagree (or neither) with the statement "Spanking always
causes pain, which is a form of harm"?


I have to disagree, since I can remember spankings in which my reaction
was surprise rather than pain.


I think that the valid arguments against even mild spanking are that it
sends the wrong message and that it can be a betrayal of trust.



Those also strike me as valid arguments.


The "any pain is harm" argument does not convince me in the least.



I think it would be interesting to find out exactly where
this argument loses you. Do you agree that pain is harm?


Not always. One of my hobbies is horseback riding, and after riding I
am sometimes in pain, and I don't consider that bad.

I assume you're against painfully knocking kids off their
bikes for the fun of it. If so, why are you against it?
Because pain is harm, or for some other reason?


Because "for the fun of it" is not a valid reason. I can think of
reasons for physically stopping a bike in such a way that the rider
would fall: he is heading into traffic in a situation where he can't
hear me, or he is behaving maliciously and heading for a dog or small
child and I feel that is the only way to avoid more serious injury.

Why does
the same reason, whatever it is, not also apply to spanking?


Apples and oranges, to my way of thinking.


Betty Woolf said:


I obviously can't argue with people about what their intent is. It is
however possible to offer alternatives (which you do very well) without
playing the "studies say X causes harm." This is a hot button with me -
not directed at you - and the reason that I stopped reading
misc.kids.breastfeeding.



By the way, I also have other reasons for posting, including
that it's enjoyable and educational for me (and I hope for others),
and that I occasionally end up taking my own advice. :-)

Certainly it is possible to merely mention alternatives and
not discuss the reasons for doing one thing rather than another.
However, I don't choose to do so. I believe it's both interesting
and important to discuss the reasons for and effects of various
alternatives.


I'm not advocating not discussing the reasons for doing so, exactly. I
don't spank because I don't think it's effective, and I'm happy to share
what I think about alternative discipline methods if I think it will
help. I don't believe I know what's best for everybody in every
situation though.



Respondents can be very sensitive to the wording of the question and try
to guess the "correct" answer, even in anonymous surveys. I personally
have a terrible time with telephone surveys because I see shades of grey
everywhere and I could choose one of several answers. For example, if
the question is "Have you ever spanked your child?" the answer is no.
If the question is "Have you ever physically disciplined your child?"
the answer is technically yes - I have physically carried him places he
doesn't want to go, and physically restrained him from doing things he
wants to do.



I would think those sorts of effects would contribute to the
"noise" in the results. Usually this sort of "noise" tends to
cancel out when averages are taken over large numbers of respondents.
If a statistically significant correlation is found, there
has to be some reason for it (unless it's a fluke, which
becomes less likely as studies are replicated and depending
on the level of statistical significance). Until someone
comes up with some alternative explanation of the results,
it seems reasonable to suppose that they show a statistical
correlation between spanking and misbehaviour.


I don't think it's necessary to come up with an alternative explanation,
but only to point out things that weren't considered or flaws in the
methodology, as the wikipedia quote above indicates.


I'll look up the study when I can but I just don't see how you could ask
specific enough questions to reach a reasonable conclusion without
subconsciously leading the survey-taker to answer the way you want them to.



I think the survey questions were asked by professional
survey-takers who presumably didn't care what the answers
were. The wording of the questions was predetermined.


Right - it is the wording that I am wondering about.


Was the question whether the mother had ever spanked the child (as both
your original quote and the study title indicate) or whether the child
had ever been spanked at all, to the mother's knowledge?



"Mothers were asked how often in the past six months they had
'spanked, slapped or hit' the target child when the child 'does
something bad or something you don't like, or is disobedient.'"


And what about the argument that the one spanking, 8 months ago, was
*so* effective that there was no hitting in the last six months?


If it's the
former, I have to say that I have huge doubts about the validity of this
study. How can you draw valid conclusions from a study that disregards
the input/behavior of the father?



It's very simple. I think it's a very valid assumption that
children who are spanked by their mothers are, on average, spanked
more than children who are not spanked by their mothers.
In any case, if you don't believe that assumption, then the
study results can still be interpreted validly as showing
a correlation between spanking by mothers and misbehaviour.


On average, sure. But the methodology leaves a lot of unanswered
questions. What if the best behaved kids, never spanked by their
mothers, were products of the "Just wait until your father gets home"
model of discipline, or worse, that those kids not only were hit by
their fathers but watched as their fathers hit their mothers. Of course
I don't think that's true, but scientifically speaking, it's not ruled out.


I don't expect you to summarize the whole thing, but here are my
thoughts on the above, in case anyone is interested in the kinds of
questions these statements raise for me:

First, IMO "In the last 6 months" is a *huge* amount of time when you're
asking a parent to recall behavior, and second, the questions are so
vague that they can be misinterpreted easily.



Again, it seems to me that those factors would contribute to
the "noise" or experimental error and would tend to cancel out
when large numbers of results are averaged. Increased noise
generally reduces the chance that any correlations of any sort
will be found. If a correlation is found, it usually means
that there is some pattern which is strong enough to be
seen in spite of the noise. You haven't provided any explanation
of how the statistically significant correlations between
variables designed to measure spanking and misbehaviour
could have occurred if there is no actual correlation between
those variables. I'm not trying to imply that you have
any responsibility to provide such an explanation.
However, as long as no-one has come up with any plausible
alternative explanation, it's reasonable to interpret the
results as showing a correlation between spanking (by mothers)
and misbehaviour.


I promise I will try to look at the study, but it's not going to happen
soon. Off the top of my head, other factors I would want to know about
would be the following. I don't know if all or none were controlled for:

Income, marital situation, number of children, child's place in the
family (only, oldest, middle, youngest, step-children, and age
differences), sex of children, daycare situation, amount of sleep,
amount of exercise, alternative forms of discipline, and certain medical
information, such as diagnosis of ADD, autism spectrum disorders,
familial history of allergy, stuff like that.


Also, unless the mother
is with the kid 24 hours a day, she can't possibly answer with 100%
certainty.



She answered about her own spanking behaviour.


Right, but does she really know about the children's behavior when they
are away from her? Maybe the "low ASB" kids are bullying younger kids
with no fear of punishment, but in such a way that it is not called to
the mother's attention.


It is possible to estimate the amount of harm from a single
spanking by measuring the approximate average amount of harm
from a large number of spankings, and then dividing.


I don't believe that is valid.



Could you explain in more detail what you mean here?
Do you agree that it is possible to carry out such
a calculation?


No, I don't think it is possible to calculate. What is the unit of
measurement?

Can you suggest any better way to
estimate the amount of harm from a single spanking?


I don't think it's possible to estimate, so I have no answer here.

Parents need estimates of such harm to make ordinary,
day-to-day decisions, even if they don't think about
it in mathematical terms.


I don't agree with this either. I don't hit because I don't think it is
effective. I reached this conclusion long before I had kids, mostly
from working with animals. I never even thought about measuring the
harm of physical punishment, but rather observed over and over that it
doesn't work in most situations. The way we look at things with
training animals is "Set them up to succeed" and "make the right thing
easy and the wrong thing hard." Hitting has no place in that.

That is, I think that the fact that it is not effective, is, in-and-of
itself, sufficient to rule it out, without worrying about whether it
harms the recipient, because in most cases I don't think it has a
long-term harm.


I don't think so - I
think the argument is whether rare spanking causes measurable harm over
no spanking.



Correlations between spanking and misbehaviour have been
established in scientific studies. No-one has established
that any specific type of spanking (e.g. rare spanking)
is exempt from the same dynamics.


But is that because of study design or because of "truth"?

What do you believe? Do you believe rare spanking causes
harm? Do you believe it doesn't cause harm?


I believe hitting is not an effective way to positively influence
behavior. I don't know how to quantify "harm," and I don't know how to
separate the physical act of spanking from the controlling attitude of
parents who are likely to spank regularly. I lean toward thinking it is
not the actual spanking that does harm, but the adversarial relationship
itself, of which spanking is only one facet.

I see no reason to assume rare spankings would cause
no harm.


I think this is the crux of our disagreement. I see no reason to assume
rare spankings would cause harm, just as I see no reason to assume that
one cigarette or one Big Mac or one alcoholic drink would cause harm, on
average.


(oops, snipped too much)


What do you think? Do you think we just don't
know? Or do you think people can spank their
kids a small number of times with confidence that
each of those spankings will do far less harm than
each spanking would do to a child who was
accustomed to frequent spanking? Or what?


I think that we don't (and can't) know how much harm a spanking does in
the grand scheme of everything we do in raising our kids. I think that
even if we could measure the harm in a single spanking, that there are
things that can be done to negate that harm, in the context of the
larger relationship, just as there are health choices we can make to
minimize the damage from an ill-advised period of heavy smoking. And I
therefore object to even hinting that people who rarely hit their kids
are irreparably harming their kids and their relationship with their kids.


What is the evidence that spanking makes other discipline methods less
effective?

Well, think about it. What do you do when someone tries
to forcefully make you do something you don't want to do?
Most people react by digging in their heels. If that
same person later comes to you and tries to ask you
nicely to do that same thing -- or even something else --
how are you going to react?


Are you speaking purely of physical force?



No, it can be other forms of overt manipulation such
as punishment. The more forceful, severe and threatening
the punishment, the more a person tends to resent it
and to try to oppose further manipulation by the same person.


In some cases. But if I get a speeding ticket for going 5 miles per
hour over the speed limit and am threatened with license revocation if I
get another one, I'm going to probably slow down in addition to feeling
resentful.


I'm not going to comment much until I do read the studies but if you
start with "theoretical reasons to explain X" I guarantee that you can
come up with a study design that will support your conclusions.



Many people have tried to come up with a study design
which establishes a correlation between spanking and any
form of long-term benefit, but they have all failed.
This seems to be a counterexample to the idea that
you can find a study that shows whatever you want
(though I'm not sure whether that's what you meant).


I didn't say you could find one, I said you could design them. If I
wanted to refute the Straus et al studies I could design studies such
that his correlation would be lost in the noise. I could redefine
antisocial behavior. I think it's probably true that most of the
richest people in the US were probably spanked as children, just by
virtue of their age and background - I could most likely design a study
correlating rare spanking with earning potential.


I would also have to think twice before accepting ASB between the ages of
2 and 14 as "long term" misbehavior.



When I've said "long term" in this discussion I've
generally meant about 1 or 2 years or more. You can use
the phrase to mean whatever you want when you use it;
I hope you'll make the meaning clear enough in context.


I know this is going to sound very uncaring, but I'm not sure it matters
if spanking causes 2-to-14-year-olds to misbehave if they grow up to
be productive members of society.

Possible alternative explanations to "spanking causes misbehavior" -

-Children who are neurologically atypical are more likely to engage in
behaviors that are both antisocial *and* on the list of behaviors that
average parents will spank for.



This was a valid criticism of all the studies finding
correlations between spanking and misbehaviour until 1997.
In 1997, two important studies were published side-by-side
in a medical journal (Straus et al 1997 and Gunnoe and
Mariner 1997). Each of these studies looked at spanking
and misbehaviour varying over a 2- or 5-year time period.
The amount of increase or decrease in misbehaviour could
be measured. It was found that, on average, there was
more of an increase in misbehaviour in the kids who
were being spanked more at the beginning of the time
period, controlling for the amount of misbehaviour at
the beginning.

This is a correlation between spanking and misbehaviour
which could not be caused by pre-existing tendencies
of the child to misbehave.


This seems to refer to more frequently spanked subjects. I've already
said I accept a correlation between spanking as a primary discipline
method and misbehavior. I don't think you can use one study with
different methodology to support another study that didn't look at that
factor.


-The surveys are failing to even attempt to look for other explanations
and therefore don't question things that would provide alternative
answers.



That is simply not true. These studies carefully control
for a number of variables such as sex, socio-economic status,
a parental warmth variable and a number of other variables which
could otherwise confound the results.


I think there are always important variables that aren't considered. As
I said, I think it's too complicated.


-The study subjects are inappropriately chosen or classified.



How could that do other than contribute to the noise?
Actually, in Straus and Mouradian, the subjects were
chosen by dialing random telephone numbers. This seems
an appropriate method to find a random sample
of subjects.


Well, it guarantees that respondents had telephones, which lets out
people in some parts of the country and some socioeconomic classes. And
if they did the calls during the day that lets out families in which
both parents work. And if the call came at night there are assumptions
to be made about who has time to talk on the phone. Perhaps this also
classifies as noise.


I think we agree that spanking is not desirable or effective and that
parents should be encouraged to practice other discipline strategies.

I think we disagree on the possible harmful effects of a few spankings.



It would be interesting to find out exactly what the
disagreement is. I believe that spanking is harmful
whether it is done to a child who is used to it or not.
What do you believe?


I believe that the harm of a single spanking is not measurable, and that
even a few spankings, on average, have a negligible effect on the
child's long-term mental health, productivity, or ability to be a
contributing member of society.


I think we disagree about the place studies have in the discussion - I
don't trust them as you do.



Can you identify specific statements I've made that
you disagree with?


It's not a specific statement. I think it's two things: One is possibly
because I'm not as familiar with the literature, and that is that you
seem to be using conclusions from one study with a particular
methodology to support things from another study with a different
methodology. Depending on the details, that can be OK or misleading and
incorrect.

Second, with something like parenting, "studies say" and averages are
important to an extent but there are so many nuances that I hesitate to
use studies in the context of parenting discussions at all. For
example, there are sleep studies showing that "crying it out" is not
harmful, that young kids sleep better after CIO techniques are used,
etc. I absolutely don't care in that context about an average kid -
it's something that I could never ever do to my son.

Have I clarified, or muddied the waters?

That's all for tonight, in any case!


Straus M. A., D.B. Sugarman and J. Giles-Sims,
1997. Spanking by Parents and Subsequent
Antisocial Behavior of Children. Arch. Pediatr.
Adolesc. Med. Vol. 151, Aug 1997. pp. 761-767

Gunnoe, M.L., C.L. Mariner, 1997. Toward a
developmental-contextual model of the effects
of parental spanking on children's aggression.
Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. Vol. 151, Aug. 1997,
pp. 768-775.

Oh -- I just remembered: I think those last two studies are
available on the Internet! Oh, maybe only the abstracts, but
you can also find replies published in the same journal.
You can do a Google search on the name of the journal.
(Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.)
I just did and it works, but the URL is rather long.
I think they only supply the abstracts, though.
The full articles can be obtained via interlibrary loan
from public libraries.
--
Cathy Woodgold
http://www.ncf.ca/~an588/par_home.html
There are two types of people in the world: those
who divide the world into two types of people, and

  #6  
Old June 27th 05, 05:38 AM
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 24 Jun 2005, Catherine Woodgold wrote:
[snip]
Numerous studies have found correlations between spanking
and misbehaviour. These correlations continue to be
found in spite of controlling for many possible confounding
variables such as socio-economic status.

The problem with these studies is that if they do the same statistical
analysis with non-cp alternatives, the same correlation also show up.
You might want to look up on the studies done by Dr. Larzelere.

(CW had said
Straus & Mouradian (1998) reported that children whose mothers never
spanked them in their entire lives were significantly less antisocial than
even
the most infrequently-spanked children.


I am glad that you brought up Straus & Mouradian (1998). In this study,
they also looked at non-cp alternatives like:

1) Talking to the child calmly
2) Sent the child to the room
3) Time-out
4) Removal of privileges

All of these together "was found to have a much stronger relation than any of
the other variables." (to ASB).

Now if you can point me to a study where the non-cp alternatives have been
shown to be better than spanking under the same statistical analysis, I'll
be deeply appreciated.

Doan


  #7  
Old June 27th 05, 05:47 AM
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Betty Woolf wrote:

Catherine Woodgold wrote:
Betty Woolf ) writes:
[excerpts from Betty's post]

Catherine Woodgold wrote:

snips
I don't think Straus et al have any more responsibility than
anyone else to prove something about spanking; they just happen
to be doing studies on that topic. I read recently that Straus
used to be a pro-spanker but changed his mind based on the results
of the various studies he's done over the years.


Well, people usually do studies trying to prove something, at least in
my experience. Spanking either has a positive effect, a negative
effect, or no effect on a child's behavior. My stance is colored by
what studies mean in my line of work, and you may not realize that the
way you state things has a particular meaning in the world of the harder
sciences. It is that that I am reacting to when I may seem to be
responding to things you think you didn't say; by my frame of
reference, I am responding to what I think you said.


Straus is publicly known for his anti-spanking crusade and due to his
bias, he often not see the errors in his studies like the so called
"no-spanking" group in his Straus et al (1997) were actually includes
spankers!

"We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the likelihood that our
no-spanking group includes occasional spankers. To the extent that this is
the case, the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for children in
the "none" group may indicate an improvement in the behavior of children whose
parents spank, but do so only infrequently."

Later, he blamed it on his "secular humanism":

"Straus, for example, has made explicit the fact that his research is
motivated by secular humanism. This includes a deeply held belief that
good ends should not be sought by bad means; that all forms of interpersonal
violence, including spanking, are wrong, even when motivated by love and
concern; and that we therefore need to develop nonviolent methods of
preventing and correcting antisocial behavior. These deeply held values may
account for the failure of Straus to perceive the serious limitation of
measuring CP using a 1-week reference period."
(ARCHIVES, In Reply. March 1998)

Doan






  #8  
Old June 29th 05, 06:54 PM
dragonlady
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"bizby40" wrote:

"Catherine Woodgold" wrote in message
...
Numerous studies have found correlations between spanking
and misbehaviour. These correlations continue to be
found in spite of controlling for many possible confounding
variables such as socio-economic status.


It seems intuitive to me that children who misbehave more
would be spanked more. How do the studies rule out
this possibility?

It also seems intuitive to me that emotionally volatile
parents would have emotionally volatile children
(biological children), and therefore the children who
are most likely to misbehave, also have the parents
most likely to spank. How do the studies address
this issue?

Bizby



Really!

Recently I had a conversation with Mom where she said that one of my
siblings almost never got spanked (the rest of us did) because he was so
easy to discipline in other ways -- she'd just look at him and he'd
burst into tears and apologize! Another got spanked regularly, and he
seemed pretty impervious to any other approach.

The one who almost never got spanked was a pretty "good" kid by most
measures, and almost never in trouble. The other had LOTS of problems.

Which was cause, which effect?

Repeat again: correlation does not prove causation.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

  #9  
Old July 1st 05, 08:23 PM
Catherine Woodgold
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


dragonlady ) writes:
The one who almost never got spanked was a pretty "good" kid by most
measures, and almost never in trouble. The other had LOTS of problems.

Which was cause, which effect?

Repeat again: correlation does not prove causation.


No one has even found a correlation between spanking and
any long-term benefit such as improved behaviour, as far
as I know. Short-term compliance with parental commands is
the only benefit of spanking supported by statistics, as
far as I know, and the amount of compliance was not shown
to be more than could alternatively be achieved with a
one-minute timeout.

As for the long term: Straus et al (1997) and Gunnoe and
Mariner (1997) found that over a 2-year or 5-year period,
spanking correlated with a greater increase in misbehaviour
(or less improvement in behaviour), controlling for
level of misbehaviour at the beginning of the study.

The result of these studies could not be explained merely
by pointing out that kids who misbehave more tend to be
spanked more.

I don't remember anyone suggesting any explanation of how
this result could have occurred if spanking doesn't cause
increased misbehaviour in the long term. Correlation may
not prove causation all by itself, but if anyone wants to
argue that there is not causation, they had better have an
alternative explanation of the correlation.

There are reasons to expect spanking to cause increased
misbehaviour: resentment; imitation (violence);
lying to avoid being spanked; punishing the parents
for spanking; defiance (trying to prove one can't
be controlled that way); increased depression and
anxiety, or believing one is "bad"; and the fact that spanking
gives away information about what behaviours "get to"
the parent.
--
Cathy Woodgold
http://www.ncf.ca/~an588/par_home.html
There are two types of people in the world: those
who divide the world into two types of people, and
  #10  
Old July 2nd 05, 03:05 AM
dragonlady
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
(Catherine Woodgold) wrote:

dragonlady ) writes:
The one who almost never got spanked was a pretty "good" kid by most
measures, and almost never in trouble. The other had LOTS of problems.

Which was cause, which effect?

Repeat again: correlation does not prove causation.


No one has even found a correlation between spanking and
any long-term benefit such as improved behaviour, as far
as I know. Short-term compliance with parental commands is
the only benefit of spanking supported by statistics, as
far as I know, and the amount of compliance was not shown
to be more than could alternatively be achieved with a
one-minute timeout.

As for the long term: Straus et al (1997) and Gunnoe and
Mariner (1997) found that over a 2-year or 5-year period,
spanking correlated with a greater increase in misbehaviour
(or less improvement in behaviour), controlling for
level of misbehaviour at the beginning of the study.

The result of these studies could not be explained merely
by pointing out that kids who misbehave more tend to be
spanked more.


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

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


I don't remember anyone suggesting any explanation of how
this result could have occurred if spanking doesn't cause
increased misbehaviour in the long term. Correlation may
not prove causation all by itself, but if anyone wants to
argue that there is not causation, they had better have an
alternative explanation of the correlation.

There are reasons to expect spanking to cause increased
misbehaviour: resentment; imitation (violence);
lying to avoid being spanked; punishing the parents
for spanking; defiance (trying to prove one can't
be controlled that way); increased depression and
anxiety, or believing one is "bad"; and the fact that spanking
gives away information about what behaviours "get to"
the parent.


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

I'm just not as convinced that the studies "prove" what they are
intended to prove.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

 




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
Help with specific behavior issue [email protected] General 84 June 18th 05 02:53 AM
Corporal Punishment Abandoned Chris General 85 November 6th 04 03:38 AM
Poll Results:Boston Globe--->Recent SC. Decision to Allow Parents to Spank Children nospam Spanking 9 February 8th 04 02:16 AM
| U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking Kane Spanking 142 November 16th 03 08:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:40 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.