The Apologists

An arguement frequently made is that the anti-spankers are
extremists...that they equate beating with "real spanking."

The problem with this apology for spanking is that the great majority
of spankings do not limit themselves to striking in ways that minimize
pain.

In fact a favorite excuse of child abusers that beat their children or
devise other painful punishments is that they were simply "disciplining
my child and how dare you interfer with a parent's right to raise their
child as they see fit."

Or words to that effect.

We see things as bizzare as "saucing," subjecting children to painful
work, use of various instruments of pain such as nylon rods with
instruction manuals, paddles, straps, and each user of those says the
same thing the open-handed slappers say....it's for 'discipline' of the
child.

In other words there is a massive demonstration of the incapacity of
people to understand the limit between relatively harmless CP and
abuse.

The problem being, of course, that circumstances where there are far
too many variables for someone to weigh with authority color the
decision making. What would make a teen laugh could even kill a tiny
child....and have no doubt, people DO strike children of very tender
years, even switching infants with objects for "misbehavior."

The days of CP are coming to an end on this planet. The apologists are
simply in denial as the truth becomes ever more apparent.

Kane

If only anti-spanking zealotS don't resort to LYING!

Doan


On 24 Oct 2005 wrote:

An arguement frequently made is that the anti-spankers are
extremists...that they equate beating with "real spanking."

The problem with this apology for spanking is that the great majority
of spankings do not limit themselves to striking in ways that minimize
pain.

In fact a favorite excuse of child abusers that beat their children or
devise other painful punishments is that they were simply "disciplining
my child and how dare you interfer with a parent's right to raise their
child as they see fit."

Or words to that effect.

We see things as bizzare as "saucing," subjecting children to painful
work, use of various instruments of pain such as nylon rods with
instruction manuals, paddles, straps, and each user of those says the
same thing the open-handed slappers say....it's for 'discipline' of the
child.

In other words there is a massive demonstration of the incapacity of
people to understand the limit between relatively harmless CP and
abuse.

The problem being, of course, that circumstances where there are far
too many variables for someone to weigh with authority color the
decision making. What would make a teen laugh could even kill a tiny
child....and have no doubt, people DO strike children of very tender
years, even switching infants with objects for "misbehavior."

The days of CP are coming to an end on this planet. The apologists are
simply in denial as the truth becomes ever more apparent.

Kane

wrote:
An arguement frequently made is that the anti-spankers are
extremists...that they equate beating with "real spanking."

The problem with this apology for spanking is that the great majority
of spankings do not limit themselves to striking in ways that minimize
pain.

Why would one strike in ways that minimize pain? The sole purpose of
spanking (however mild or infrequent) is to inflict fear and pain on a
child in order to gain immediate compliance. Of course, this often
works in the short term, in the presence of the spanker.

In fact a favorite excuse of child abusers that beat their children or
devise other painful punishments is that they were simply "disciplining
my child and how dare you interfer with a parent's right to raise their
child as they see fit."

Or words to that effect.

"Interfering with a parents' right to raise their child as they see fit"
is often the justification for spanking, and for other forms of painful
and negative disciplinary practices.

We see things as bizzare as "saucing," subjecting children to painful
work, use of various instruments of pain such as nylon rods with
instruction manuals, paddles, straps, and each user of those says the
same thing the open-handed slappers say....it's for 'discipline' of the
child.

"Saucing" is a bizarre and dangerous practice that a certain famous
celebrity and now born-again Christian recommends as discipline. There
are other examples, paddles, strap-s, manuals, etc. All are for the
discipline of the child.

In other words there is a massive demonstration of the incapacity of
people to understand the limit between relatively harmless CP and
abuse.

There is not only a massive demonstration of the incapacity of people to
understand the limit between relatively harmless CP and abuse. There is
a massive demonstration of the incapacity of people to understand how
children best learn, grow, and develop, and to apply those principles in
their parenting.

I'm not sure that the days of CP are coming to an end on this planet,
but as you state, the more spanking apologistsw are in denial, the truth
becomes ever more apparent.

LaVonne

The problem being, of course, that circumstances where there are far
too many variables for someone to weigh with authority color the
decision making. What would make a teen laugh could even kill a tiny
child....and have no doubt, people DO strike children of very tender
years, even switching infants with objects for "misbehavior."

The days of CP are coming to an end on this planet. The apologists are
simply in denial as the truth becomes ever more apparent.

Kane

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

I'm not sure that the days of CP are coming to an end on this planet,
but as you state, the more spanking apologistsw are in denial, the truth
becomes ever more apparent.

LaVonne


LaVonne and "the truth"??? ;-)

Doan

I suppose spankers are willing to risk their children without giving
sufficient thought to possible unwanted outcomes, and most assuredely
apologists are willing to risk other people's children.

It is unconsciounable that they dump the results of their inadequecies
on society and the world (we are such a small world anymore) and expect
us to put up with them.

Saddest of all is the heritage of the children that suffer these
insults and parental shortcomings. They suffer the most.

Some thoughts from a contributor to an end to spanking:

Effects of spanking--A brief summary
By Melanie Killen, May 31, 2000

My analysis of the literature on this topic has led me to conclude
that spanking:

1. distracts children from focusing on the nature of the misdeed
--instead it refocuses them on the pain inflicted thereby reducing the
possibility that children will understand why their act was wrong
2. prevents the situation from becoming a learning/teaching
situation because the child now focuses on the pain inflicted instead
of the nature of the misdeed
3. often increases humiliation in the child
4. often lowers self esteem
5. provides a confusing message to the child because one
transgression (inflicting harm on another person) is dealt with by the
same transgression (inflicting harm on another person)
6. exaggerates the unilateral nature of the adult-child
relationship and diminishes the reciprocal nature--so important for
moral development
7. inhibits the opportunity to teach the child what makes an act
wrong by removing them from the situation
8. turns the child from instigator to victim thereby altering
the roles in the situation and making it more complicated.

A review article by Grusec and Goodnow (1994) in Developmental
Psychology on parenting discipline techniques covers much of these
issues.

Melanie Killen
Dept. of Human Development
University of Maryland, College Park
College Park, MD 20742-1131

Phone: 301.405.3176
FAX: 301.405.2891
For a comprehensive examination of this issue, see RESEARCH AND
INFORMED EXPERT OPINION Experts cited: American Academy of
Pediatrics, E. Barker, D. Bakan, A. Einstein, H. Falk, I. Hyman, T.
Gordon, P. Greven, W. Grier & P. Cobbs, A. Haeuser, A. Maurer, K.
Menninger, A. Montagu, A. Miller, J. Prescott, B. Spock, M. Straus, R.
Welsh, and others. (56 files)

http://www.nospank.net/killen.htm

From time to time apologists and spanking advocates who wish to
challenge research resort to posting the "work" of Robert E. Larzelere.

What they fail to recognize is that Larzelere is guilty of the very
things he mistakenly accuses other researchers of who he disagrees
with.

1996: Review of corporal punishment studies:

Robert E. Larzelere is the director of research at Boys Town, NE, and a
skeptic of the anti-spanking position. He analyzed what he considered
to be the eight strongest studies of corporal punishment (CP). 8 He
found that they showed that spanking and other forms of violence short
of actual abuse had "beneficial outcomes." However, the study seems
almost without value when closely examined:

- Seven of the eight studies measured only the child's short term
compliance to the parent's request. There is probably a consensus among
therapists, child psychologists, researchers and parents that spanking
does make the child behave, at least for a little while.

What these studies did not examine are the long-term effects of
spanking observed by other studies: increasing non-compliance by the
child, increased anti-social behavior with other children, and long
range emotional and addictive problems as an adult. It is worth noting
that in five of the seven cases, the effectiveness of spanking was
compared to alternative methods of discipline. Spanking offered no
advantages.
- The eighth study did show long-term beneficial results from
spanking. However it dealt only with a single child who had a severe
conduct disorder, and who might be suffering from schizophrenia. Thus,
one cannot extrapolate the study's results to the general population of
children. In addition, most of the study dealt with training the mother
to reinforce the child's positive behaviors and to be more confident
and consistent in issuing commands to the child. One might speculate
that an equivalent or even better beneficial result might have been
observed if the spanking were replaced by an alternative form of
discipline.
...................

The lengths that advocates and apologists will go to to support a
failed method and in fact nothing more than a superstition is a
monument to what spanking...doubtless suffered by them as
children...will do to one's reasoning ability if the later adult does
not take special care to heal from the insults of childhood abuse.

It doesn't take much to agree with your abusers. It takes a great deal
of bravery and determination to stand up to the past and deny it's
false meanings.

Spanking does not work.

Kane

From time to time Baumrind is mentioned when apologists and advocates
wish to argue the lack of harm done by spanking, yet Baumrind did NOT
find what they wish to think she found.

In fact the language of Baumrind is a testament to the lack of critical
thinking skills and thinking errors prone to apologists and advocates.

2001: Corporal punishment and social/emotional development:

On AUG-24, Diana Baumrind and Elizabeth Owens, research psychologists
at University of California - Berkley's Institute of Human Development,
reported the results of their longitudinal study on corporal
punishment. They had studied over 100 middle class, white families.
Data was extracted from a data base that had studied the children from
1968, when the children were preschoolers, to 1980, when the children
were early adolescents. They defined five levels of severity of
corporal punishment:
-- Abusive punishment - There were none among the parents examined.
-- "Red zone" - About 4 to 7% of parents studied impulsively used
overly severe, frequent hitting. This included using a paddle or other
device to strike the child, hit the child on the face or torso, or
"lifted to throw or shake the child." However, punishment by these
parents did not reach the level of abuse, in the judgment of the
researchers.
-- "Orange zone" - Parents who spanked frequently but with low
intensity.
-- "Yellow zone" - Parents who spanked moderately.
-- "Green zone" - Parents who spanked rarely or not at all.

No parents who went beyond hitting into actual abuse were included in
the study. They found a major correlation between spanking and
long-term harm to children among "Red zone" parents. Among the
remaining parents, they found small but significant correlations
between the level of physical punishment and later misbehavior among
the children at age 8 to 9. Ms. Baumrind said that "the children of
parents in the green zone who never spanked were not better adjusted
than those, also in the green zone, who were spanked very seldomly."
She emphasized that her study did not study how abusive physical
punishment harms children. She said that she and other researchers have
found ample evidence of that in other studies.
......

Baumrind made the classic error....attempting to measure the
unmeasurable. She and her cohort attempted to determine where the line
between "CP" and "abuse" lay. In doing so, it appears she left a lot of
children from the abuse group examined and included in the CP group.

Guesswork...NOT research.

Kane

1996 is about a decade old. Here is an updated one done in 2002:


A Comparison of Two Recent Reviews of Scientific Studies of Physical
Punishment by Parents

Robert E. Larzelere
June 2002
Summary

Two recent reviews have summarized child outcomes associated with physical
punishment by parents.1 2 They arrive at somewhat different
conclusions, even though their underlying information is consistent with each
other. After documenting this, I will show that child
outcomes associated with ordinary physical punishment are also associated with
alternative disciplinary tactics when similar research
methods are used. Detrimental child outcomes are associated with the frequency of any disciplinary tactic, not just physical
punishment. Therefore, it is the excessive misbehavior that is the actual cause of detrimental outcomes in children. Parents realize
that excessive misbehavior will hinder their children's success in life and want to minimize excessive misbehavior with the best
disciplinary methods. They need better information about how to discipline their children in the most effective manner. Effective
discipline is based on a foundation of a positive, loving parent-child relationship and uses proactive discipline skillfully. In
responding to misbehavior, parents need to use milder disciplinary tactics skillfully. The most effective way to use spanking is to
back up milder disciplinary tactics, such as reasoning and time out, with 2- to 6-year-old children. Research has shown that this is
not only effective in itself, but the child then cooperates with the milder disciplinary tactics, making the spank back-up less
necessary as the child gets older.

Contrasting Reviews

Larzelere (2000)2 and Gershoff (2002)1 arrived at somewhat different conclusions in their summaries of scientific studies of physical
punishment by parents. Larzelere (2000) concluded, "spanking has consistently beneficial outcomes when it is nonabusive (e.g., two
swats to the buttocks with an open hand) and used primarily to back up milder disciplinary tactics with 2- to 6-year-olds by loving
parents. . .most detrimental outcomes in causally relevant studies are due to overly frequent use of physical punishment" (p. 215). In
contrast, Gershoff (2002) concluded, "Ten of the 11 meta-analyses indicate parental corporal punishment is associated with . . .
undesirable behaviors and experiences. . . . Corporal punishment was associated with only one desirable behavior, namely, increased
immediate compliance" (p. 544).

Tables 1 and 2 show that their conclusions are based on similar evidence. These tables summarize the most important subset of studies
that were considered in both reviews. Those studies focused on 6 outcome variables in children under the average age of 13, including
the five child outcomes in Gershoff's aggression composite (child aggression, delinquency, adult aggression, crime, and abusiveness)
plus immediate (or short-term) compliance. Gershoff summarized the studies in terms of effect sizes (Table 1), whereas Larzelere
(2000) summarized studies as finding predominantly beneficial or detrimental outcomes or neither or both (Table 2).

Both reviews found beneficial child outcomes associated with nonabusive physical punishment (bottom row of Tables 1 and 2). Both
reviews found that the research methods that isolate the causal effect of physical punishment found beneficial child outcomes
(Randomized clinical trials are in the right-hand column of the tables. This is the kind of study mandated for confirming the causal
effects of drugs by the Federal Drug Administration before drugs can be put on the market.). The differing conclusions are based on
different explanations for the overall pattern of beneficial vs. detrimental outcomes associated with physical punishment. The
randomized clinical trials of nonabusive physical punishment (in the lower right-hand corner of Tables 1 and 2) differ from the other
studies in all of the following ways: They provide more causally conclusive evidence, they limit the physical punishment to two swats
of an open hand to the buttocks, their outcomes are limited to immediate compliance with everyday commands and with the time out
procedure, spanking is used only when the child does not cooperate with time out, the children are between the ages of 2 and 6 and are
so noncompliant that their parents sought help from a clinical psychologist to manage their child's excessive misbehavior.

Gershoff (2002) considers the type of outcome the most important difference, concluding that physical punishment may increase
immediate compliance but that it is associated with detrimental levels of 10 other outcomes. In contrast, Larzelere (2000) emphasizes
the evidence of causal effects of nonabusive spanking when used to back up milder disciplinary tactics in 2- to 6-year-olds. Precisely
because of the need to sort out these differing explanations, Larzelere (2000) featured a second table that summarized studies in the
"partially controlled" column in Tables 1 and 2. These studies made some attempt to take into account the excessive misbehavior that
is causing most parents to spank their children more (as well as to use more of all other disciplinary tactics). Gershoff (2002) makes
no attempt to find evidence of causal effects from such studies, partly because the guidelines for her statistics cautioned against
using evidence from such studies.3 But this advice led her to ignore the most relevant evidence for deciding among the alternative
explanations of the overall pattern of findings.

Consider the study by Gunnoe and Mariner (1997),4 for example. Gershoff (2002) summarized their associations between spanking
frequency and either aggression or antisocial behavior five years later, resulting in apparently detrimental "effect sizes." Yet
Gunnoe and Mariner themselves concluded, "For most children, claims that spanking teaches aggression seem unfounded" (p. 768). They
based this conclusion on statistics that took into account the excessive misbehavior of the child in the first place. Under those
circumstances, spanking caused reductions in fighting five years later in 3 subgroups: African-Americans, 4- to 7-year-olds, and
girls. In contrast, it caused increases in fighting five years later in 2 subgroups: European-Americans and 8- to 11-year-olds. It
also caused increases in antisocial behavior more consistently, but these analyses had the additional problem of being based on the
same data source (the mother: Baumrind et al., 2002).5

Similar to Gunnoe and Mariner (1997), Larzelere's (2002) review emphasized results from 11 such studies that did something to take
initial excessive misbehavior into account, thus providing some evidence concerning the causal effects of physical punishment.
Overall, those studies found more beneficial than detrimental child outcomes under the following circumstances: when overly severe
physical punishment was removed; when spanking was used as a back-up for milder disciplinary tactics, such as reasoning or time out;
when the children were younger than 6.5 years old; when the children were extremely defiant; and when the subcultural group viewed
spanking as normative discipline (e.g., African-Americans, conservative Protestants). Detrimental outcomes were more likely for
long-term outcomes (8 detrimental; 3 beneficial) than for outcomes during the next disciplinary incident or the next day. There was a
fairly even balance of detrimental and beneficial outcomes across different types of outcomes (behavior problems, mental health) and
by whether positive parenting was accounted for.

Finally, the strongest causal evidence for detrimental outcomes of spanking is based on methods that make alternative disciplinary
tactics appear equally detrimental in most cases. Of the 11 studies that controlled partially for initially excessive misbehavior,
only Straus et al. (1997)6 found uniformly detrimental outcomes. The other 10 studies either found beneficial outcomes (3 studies), a
mixture of beneficial and detrimental outcomes (2 studies), neutral outcomes (1 study), or a mixture of detrimental and neutral
outcomes (4 studies). But Larzelere and Smith (2000)7 replicated and extended Straus et al.'s (1997) study, using the same publicly
available data set. In general, they found similar increases in antisocial behavior two years later for those who used four
alternative disciplinary tactics frequently: grounding, removing privileges, docking allowances, or sending the child to his or her
room. Further, these apparently detrimental outcomes for spanking and the four alternatives all disappeared after we did a better job
of taking the initial level of excessive misbehavior into account.

Only a few studies of physical punishment have investigated recommended alternative tactics using the same methods. In most cases,
such studies have found equally detrimental outcomes associated with the recommended alternatives. That is true in major research by
Straus,8 myself,9 10 and most applicable studies of children under 13 in Gershoff's (2002) review. Straus and Mouradian (1998) asked
parents how frequently they had used disciplinary reasoning, time out, or privilege removal during the previous six months. They found
that the frequency of those tactics was far more strongly associated with antisocial behavior and impulsive child behavior than was
corporal punishment. To my knowledge, this is the only study in which Straus investigated recommended forms of nonphysical punishment
in addition to spanking. Similarly, my most important original study found that the frequency of spanking 2- and 3-year-olds was
associated with disruptive behavior 20 months later,9 about as strongly as the average prospective study of antisocial behavior in
Gershoff (2002).1 But the frequencies of all of the following disciplinary tactics were even more strongly associated with higher
disruptive behavior 20 months later: nonphysical punishment, reasoning (without punishment), and disciplinary responses that included
neither reasoning nor punishment. Of the studies addressing Gershoff's (2002) aggression composite, only three studies investigated
alternative disciplinary tactics for children under the age of 13. None of those three studies found more beneficial associations for
nonphysical punishment than for physical punishment.8 11 12
I do not think that these comparisons mean that physical punishment should be preferred over nonphysical punishment or milder
disciplinary tactics, such as disciplinary reasoning. Rather, these results confirm my suspicion that the detrimental outcomes
associated with nonabusive physical punishment are due to the excessive misbehavior that leads to more physical punishment. Excessive
misbehavior is reflected even more strongly in more common types of disciplinary tactics, such as nonphysical punishment and
disciplinary reasoning.
We cannot continue to lump all forms of physical punishment together to make an overall assessment that applies to all applications.
Rather, we need to discriminate between more vs. less effective ways of using each disciplinary tactic. How parents use any
disciplinary tactic is more important than what tactic they use - whether we are considering disciplinary reasoning, nonphysical
consequences, or physical discipline. Especially with 2- to 3-year-olds, disciplinary reasoning works better if it is backed up when
necessary, first by nonphysical punishment, and then, if warranted, by occasional nonabusive spanking or something equivalent.9 13 This
is consistent with the strongest causal evidence about physical punishment: Nonabusive spanking reduces subsequent noncompliance and
fighting in 2- to 6-year-olds when used by loving parents to back up milder disciplinary tactics, such as reasoning or time out. Nine
studies support this conclusion, and no study contradicts it. To be sure, a brief room isolation has proven to be equally effective as
a spank back-up in enforcing cooperation with time out in clinically defiant 2- to 6-year-olds.14 Further, nonphysical punishment
works as effectively as physical punishment in backing up reasoning in 2- to 3-year-olds.10 Nonetheless, when two disciplinary tactics
are equally effective on the average, they are each more effective for some children some of the time than the other alternative. That
was demonstrated in Roberts and Powers (1990).14 Moreover, the most effective way to reduce subsequent fighting in my best study
occurred when mothers combined reasoning, a nonphysical consequence, and a nonabusive spanking.9

The evidence to date supports a conditional sequence model of optimal disciplinary tactics.13 For 2- to 6-year-olds, parents should
establish a solid foundation of a positive, loving parent-child relationship. They should emphasize proactive teaching - an ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure. When misbehavior occurs, they need effective responses, beginning with verbal correction and
reasoning. Disciplinary reasoning becomes more effective by itself when backed up periodically with nonphysical punishment. When a 2-
to 6-year-old refuses to cooperate with nonphysical punishment, such as time out, it needs to be enforced with something like a
two-swat spank to the buttocks. Yes, there are alternatives that work better for a few children all of the time and for all children
some of the time. But when spanking is used in this way at these ages, the evidence to date indicates it is effective, especially in
getting children to cooperate more with the milder disciplinary tactics. In this way, parents can reduce the need to use spanking at
all as the child gets older. Parents need more disciplinary options, not fewer ones. They also need to know optimal strategies for all
aspects of discipline. Hopefully future research can build on these two reviews to provide parents with that information.

Table 1
Mean Effect Sizes from Studies of Physical Punishment by Research Design and Severity of Physical Punishment (Gershoff, 2002)

__________________________________________________ ______________________
Severity of Research Design
Physical __________________________________________________ ___________
Punishment -------------Correlational----------


Cross-Sectional
Sequenced
(Longitudinal,
Retrospective)
Partially
Controlled
Randomized
Clinical
Trial
Mean
Effect
Size
Severe
Physical
Punishment
-.59 (11
studies) 12
15-24
-.31 (7
studies) 11
25-30


-.47
Ordinary
Physical
Punishment
-.53 (6
studies) 6 8
31-34
-.26 (9
studies) 4
34-41


-.36
Non-abusive
Physical
Punishment



+1.04 (3
studies)
14 42 43
+1.04
Mean effect
size
-.57
-.28

+1.04



Note: This table includes studies of physical punishment of children under age 13 involving one of the following child constructs:
immediate compliance and the aggression composite (child aggression, delinquency, adult aggression, crime, and abusiveness). The
severity of physical punishment is based on Baumrind and Larzelere's coding, and the research design and effect size are based on
Gershoff (2002). The mean effect sizes are unweighted means, to make it easier for others to verify these calculations. Some studies
are included more than once, if they have effect sizes for multiple child constructs in Gershoff (2002).


Table 2
Net Number of Beneficial Minus Detrimental Outcomes of Physical Punishment by Research Design and Severity of Physical Punishment
(Larzelere, 2000)

__________________________________________________ ______________________
Severity of Research Design
Physical __________________________________________________ ___________
Punishment -------------Correlational----------


Cross-Sectional
Sequenced
(Longitudinal,
Retrospective)
Partially
Controlled
Randomized
Clinical Trial
Beneficial
minus
Detrimental
Outcomes
Severe
Physical
Punishment

0 (1 study) 11


0
Ordinary
Physical
Punishment

-2 (0
beneficial
minus 2
detrimental
outcomes from
6 studies) 12
36 44-47
-1 (8
studies)
4 6 7
48-52

-3
Non-abusive
Physical
Punishment

-2 (2 studies)
53 54
+1 (4
studies)
9 10 55 56
+4 (4
studies) 14
42 43 57
+3
Beneficial
minus
Detrimental
Outcomes

-4
0
+4



Note: This table includes studies in which the child outcome was either short-term compliance or one of the five variables in
Gershoff's aggression composite. Studies were categorized as finding predominantly beneficial or detrimental outcomes or neither or
both (see Larzelere, 2000)


References


1. Gershoff ET. Parental corporal punishment and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review.
Psychological Bulletin 2002.
2. Larzelere RE. Child outcomes of nonabusive and customary physical punishment by parents: An updated literature review. Clinical
Child and Family Psychology Review 2000;3(4):199-221.
3. Johnson BT. DSTAT: Software for the meta-analytic review of research literatures. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1989.
4. Gunnoe ML, Mariner CL. Toward a developmental-contextual model of the effects of parental spanking on children's aggression.
Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 1997;151:768-775.
5. Baumrind D, Larzelere RE, Cowan P. Ordinary physical punishment - Is it harmful? Commentary on Gershoff. Psychological Bulletin
2002.
6. Straus MA, Sugarman DB, Giles-Sims J. Spanking by parents and subsequent antisocial behavior of children. Archives of Pediatrics
and Adolescent Medicine 1997;151:761-767.
7. Controlled longitudinal effects of five disciplinary tactics on antisocial behavior. annual convention of the American
Psychological Association; 2000 August; Washington, DC.
8. Straus MA, Mouradian VE. Impulsive corporal punishment by mothers and antisocial behavior and impulsiveness of children. Behavioral
Sciences and the Law 1998;16:353-374.
9. Larzelere RE, Sather PR, Schneider WN, Larson DB, Pike PL. Punishment enhances reasoning's effectiveness as a disciplinary response
to toddlers. Journal of Marriage and the Family 1998;60:388-403.
10. Larzelere RE, Schneider WN, Larson DB, Pike PL. The effects of discipline responses in delaying toddler misbehavior recurrences.
Child & Family Behavior Therapy 1996;18:35-57.
11. Sears RR. Relation of early socialization experiences to aggression in middle childhood. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology
1961;63:466-492.
12. Yarrow MR, Campbell JD, Burton RV. Child rearing: An inquiry into research and methods. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1968.
13. Larzelere RE. Combining love and limits in authoritative parenting. In: Westman JC, editor. Parenthood in America. Madison, WI:
University of Wisconsin Press, 2001:81-89.
14. Roberts MW, Powers SW. Adjusting chair timeout enforcement procedures for oppositional children. Behavior Therapy 1990;21:257-271.
15. Levin H, Sears RR. Identification with parents as a determinant of doll play aggression. Child Development 1956;27:135-153.
16. Bakshi A. Early family experience, chronic peer rejection in school, and overgeneralized social problem solving as predictors of
child adjustment at age seven [Doctoral dissertation, 1993]. University of Tennessee, 1994.
17. Engfer A, Schneewind KA. Causes and consequences of harsh parental punishment: An empirical investigation in a representative
sample of 570 German families. Child Abuse and Neglect 1982;6:129-139.
18. Frick PJ, Ellis M. Callous-unemotional traits and subtypes of conduct disorder. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
1999;2(3):149-168.
19. Gordon JE, Smith E. Children's aggression, parental attitudes, and the effects of an affiliation-arousing story. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 1965;1(6):654-659.
20. Lefkowitz MM, Walder LO, Eron LD. Punishment, identification and aggression. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 1963;9:159-174.
21. Mahoney A, Donnelly WO, Lewis T, Maynard C. Mother and father self-reports of corporal punishment and severe physical aggression
toward clinic-referred youth. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 2000;29(2):266-281.
22. McCabe KM, Clark R, Barnett D. Family protective factors among urban African American youth. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology
1999;28:137-150.
23. Sears RR, Maccoby EE, Levin H. Patterns of child-rearing. New York: Harper & Row, 1957.
24. Kandel DB. Parenting styles, drug use, and children's adjustment in families of young adults. Journal of Marriage and the Family
1990;52:183-196.
25. Dodge KA, Pettit GS, Bates JE. Socialization mediators of the relation between socioeconomic status and child conduct problems.
Child Development 1994;64:649-665.
26. Alibrando SA, Jr. The effects of corporal punishment and contextual parental characteristics on rebelliousness, neuroticism and
introversion [doctoral dissertation]. Biola University, 1988.
27. Eron LD. Parent-child interaction, television violence, and aggression of children. American Psychologist 1982;37:197-211.
28. Eron LD, Walder LO, Huesmann LR, Lefkowitz MM, editors. The convergence of laboratory and field studies of the development of
aggression. The Hague: Mouton, 1974.
29. Eron LD, Huesmann LR, Zelli A. The role of parental variables in the learning of aggression. In: Pepler DJ, Rubin KH, editors. The
development and treatment of childhood aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1991:169-188.
30. McCord J. Questioning the value of punishment. Social Problems 1991;38:169-179.
31. Becker WC, Peterson DR, Luria Z, Shoemaker DJ, Hellmer LA. Relations of factors derived from parent-interview ratings to behavior
problems of five-year-olds. Child Development 1962;33:509-535.
32. Hall EC. A correlational analysis of parental conflict resolution practices and 4- and 5-year-old children's interpersonal problem
solving skills and verbal abilities in a preschool setting [Doctoral dissertation, 1994]. Unviersity of San Francisco, 1995.
33. McLeod J, Shanahan MJ. Poverty, parenting, and children's mental health. American Sociological Review 1993;58:351-366.
34. Straus MA. Ordinary violence, child abuse, and wife beating: What do they have in common? In: Straus MA, Gelles RJ, editors.
Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Publishers, 1990:403-424.
35. Singer JL, Singer DG, Rapaczynski WS. Family patterns and television viewing as predictors of children's beliefs and aggression.
Journal of Communication 1984;34:73-89.
36. Johannesson I. Aggressive behavior among school children related to maternal practices in early childhood. In: deWit J, Hartup WW,
editors. Determinants and origins of aggressive behavior. The Hague: Mouton, 1974:413-426.
37. McCord J. Parental behavior in the cycle of aggression. Psychiatry 1988;51:14-23.
38. McCord J. Parental aggressiveness and physical punishment in long-term perspective. In: Hotaling G, Finkelhor D, Kilpatrick J,
Straus M, editors. Family abuse and its consequences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1988.
39. Stattin H, Janson H, Klackenberg-Larsson I, Magnusson D. Corporal punishment in everyday life: An intergenerational perspective.
In: McCord J, editor. Coercion and punishment in long-term perspectives. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press,
1995:315-347.
40. Straus MA. Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in American families. New York: Lexington Books, 1994.
41. Chapman M, Zahn-Waxler C. Young children's compliance and noncompliance to parental discipline in a natural setting. International
Journal of Behavioural Development 1982;5:81-94.
42. Bean AW, Roberts MW. The effect of time-out release contingencies on changes in child noncompliance. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology 1981;9:95-105.
43. Day DE, Roberts MW. An analysis of the physical punishment component of a parent training program. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology 1983;11:141-152.
44. Deater-Deckard K, Dodge KA, Bates JE, Pettit GS. Physical discipline among African American and European American mothers: Links
to children's externalizing behaviors. Developmental Psychology 1996;32:1065-1072.
45. McCord J, Ensminger ME. Multiple risks and comorbidity in an African-American population. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health
1997;7:339-352.
46. Michels S, Pianta R, Reeve R. Parent self-reports of discipline practices and child acting-out behaviors in kindergarten. Early
Education and Development 1993;4:139-144.
47. MacIntyre DI, Cantrell PJ. Punishment history and adult attitudes towards violence and aggression in men and women. Social
Behaviour and Personality 1995;23:23-28.
48. Bernal ME, Duryee JS, Pruett HL, Burns BJ. Behavior modification and the brat syndrome. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology 1968;32:447-455.
49. Ellison C, Musick M, Holden G. A longitudinal study of the effects of corporal punishment: The moderating effect of conservative
Protestantism [manuscript], 1998.
50. Adams MJ. Youth in crisis: An examination of adverse risk factors affecting children's cognitive and behavioral/emotional
development, children ages 10-16 [doctoral dissertation]. University of Texas at Dallas, 1995.
51. McLeod JD, Kruttschnitt C, Dornfeld M. Does parenting explain the effects of structural conditions on children's antisocial
behavior? A comparison of blacks and whites. Social Forces 1994;73:575-604.
52. Roberts MW. Resistance to timeout: Some normative data. Behavioral Assessment 1982;4:239-248.
53. Deater-Deckard K, Dodge KA. Externalizing behavior problems and discipline revisited: Nonlinear effects and variation by culture,
context, and gender. Psychological Inquiry 1997;8:161-175.
54. Strassberg Z, Dodge KA, Pettit GW, Bates JE. Spanking in the home and children's subsequent aggression toward kindergarten peers.
Development and Psychopathology 1994;6:445-461.
55. Baumrind D, Owens EB. Does normative physical punishment by parents cause detrimental child outcomes: A prospective longitudinal
study. Manuscript in preparation, 2000.
56. Larzelere RE, Merenda JA. The effectiveness of parental discipline for toddler misbehavior at different levels of child distress.
Family Relations 1994;43:480-488.
57. Roberts MW. Enforcing chair timeouts with room timeouts. Behavior Modification 1988;12:353-370.

Doan


On 25 Oct 2005 wrote:

From time to time apologists and spanking advocates who wish to
challenge research resort to posting the "work" of Robert E. Larzelere.

What they fail to recognize is that Larzelere is guilty of the very
things he mistakenly accuses other researchers of who he disagrees
with.

1996: Review of corporal punishment studies:

Robert E. Larzelere is the director of research at Boys Town, NE, and a
skeptic of the anti-spanking position. He analyzed what he considered
to be the eight strongest studies of corporal punishment (CP). 8 He
found that they showed that spanking and other forms of violence short
of actual abuse had "beneficial outcomes." However, the study seems
almost without value when closely examined:

- Seven of the eight studies measured only the child's short term
compliance to the parent's request. There is probably a consensus among
therapists, child psychologists, researchers and parents that spanking
does make the child behave, at least for a little while.

What these studies did not examine are the long-term effects of
spanking observed by other studies: increasing non-compliance by the
child, increased anti-social behavior with other children, and long
range emotional and addictive problems as an adult. It is worth noting
that in five of the seven cases, the effectiveness of spanking was
compared to alternative methods of discipline. Spanking offered no
advantages.
- The eighth study did show long-term beneficial results from
spanking. However it dealt only with a single child who had a severe
conduct disorder, and who might be suffering from schizophrenia. Thus,
one cannot extrapolate the study's results to the general population of
children. In addition, most of the study dealt with training the mother
to reinforce the child's positive behaviors and to be more confident
and consistent in issuing commands to the child. One might speculate
that an equivalent or even better beneficial result might have been
observed if the spanking were replaced by an alternative form of
discipline.
..................

The lengths that advocates and apologists will go to to support a
failed method and in fact nothing more than a superstition is a
monument to what spanking...doubtless suffered by them as
children...will do to one's reasoning ability if the later adult does
not take special care to heal from the insults of childhood abuse.

It doesn't take much to agree with your abusers. It takes a great deal
of bravery and determination to stand up to the past and deny it's
false meanings.

Spanking does not work.

Kane

Where are the "studies" that LaVonne said she posted "numerous times"?
Kane0 said he found them! ;-) Maybe he should let Gershoff in on this
secret. ;-)

"Baumrind et al. (2002) cited several studies that have found
corporal punishment to be less associated with negative outcomes
than are other discipline techniques. Although this may be true,
just because other techniques are worse than corporal punishment
does not make corporal punishment any better. Until positive
effects are linked with corporal punishment, it should not be
routinely recommended as a method of controlling children. However,
it is important to note that their argument does point to the
need for similar research on all methods of parental discipline, not
just corporal punishment."

Doan


On 25 Oct 2005 wrote:

From time to time Baumrind is mentioned when apologists and advocates
wish to argue the lack of harm done by spanking, yet Baumrind did NOT
find what they wish to think she found.

In fact the language of Baumrind is a testament to the lack of critical
thinking skills and thinking errors prone to apologists and advocates.

2001: Corporal punishment and social/emotional development:

On AUG-24, Diana Baumrind and Elizabeth Owens, research psychologists
at University of California - Berkley's Institute of Human Development,
reported the results of their longitudinal study on corporal
punishment. They had studied over 100 middle class, white families.
Data was extracted from a data base that had studied the children from
1968, when the children were preschoolers, to 1980, when the children
were early adolescents. They defined five levels of severity of
corporal punishment:
-- Abusive punishment - There were none among the parents examined.
-- "Red zone" - About 4 to 7% of parents studied impulsively used
overly severe, frequent hitting. This included using a paddle or other
device to strike the child, hit the child on the face or torso, or
"lifted to throw or shake the child." However, punishment by these
parents did not reach the level of abuse, in the judgment of the
researchers.
-- "Orange zone" - Parents who spanked frequently but with low
intensity.
-- "Yellow zone" - Parents who spanked moderately.
-- "Green zone" - Parents who spanked rarely or not at all.

No parents who went beyond hitting into actual abuse were included in
the study. They found a major correlation between spanking and
long-term harm to children among "Red zone" parents. Among the
remaining parents, they found small but significant correlations
between the level of physical punishment and later misbehavior among
the children at age 8 to 9. Ms. Baumrind said that "the children of
parents in the green zone who never spanked were not better adjusted
than those, also in the green zone, who were spanked very seldomly."
She emphasized that her study did not study how abusive physical
punishment harms children. She said that she and other researchers have
found ample evidence of that in other studies.
.....

Baumrind made the classic error....attempting to measure the
unmeasurable. She and her cohort attempted to determine where the line
between "CP" and "abuse" lay. In doing so, it appears she left a lot of
children from the abuse group examined and included in the CP group.

Guesswork...NOT research.

Kane

wrote:
I suppose spankers are willing to risk their children without giving
sufficient thought to possible unwanted outcomes, and most assuredely
apologists are willing to risk other people's children.

Many spankers do not believe they are placing their children at risk for
possible unwanted outcomes. In fact, I have met individuals who truly
believe they are placing their children at risk for "naughty,
disobedient, and out of control behavior" if they don't spank them.

It is unconsciounable that they dump the results of their inadequecies
on society and the world (we are such a small world anymore) and expect
us to put up with them.

And yes, society and the world pays the price of this parenting.

Saddest of all is the heritage of the children that suffer these
insults and parental shortcomings. They suffer the most.

The children definitely suffer the most. Isn't that always the case?
The parents have already suffered through painful, fear-provoking, and
inadequate parenting. Living with that pain and fear, they now inflict
it on the next generation of helpless and innocent individuals, their
children.

No comments on the end of your post, other than it is excellent.

LaVonne

Some thoughts from a contributor to an end to spanking:

Effects of spanking--A brief summary
By Melanie Killen, May 31, 2000

My analysis of the literature on this topic has led me to conclude
that spanking:

1. distracts children from focusing on the nature of the misdeed
--instead it refocuses them on the pain inflicted thereby reducing the
possibility that children will understand why their act was wrong
2. prevents the situation from becoming a learning/teaching
situation because the child now focuses on the pain inflicted instead
of the nature of the misdeed
3. often increases humiliation in the child
4. often lowers self esteem
5. provides a confusing message to the child because one
transgression (inflicting harm on another person) is dealt with by the
same transgression (inflicting harm on another person)
6. exaggerates the unilateral nature of the adult-child
relationship and diminishes the reciprocal nature--so important for
moral development
7. inhibits the opportunity to teach the child what makes an act
wrong by removing them from the situation
8. turns the child from instigator to victim thereby altering
the roles in the situation and making it more complicated.

A review article by Grusec and Goodnow (1994) in Developmental
Psychology on parenting discipline techniques covers much of these
issues.

Melanie Killen
Dept. of Human Development
University of Maryland, College Park
College Park, MD 20742-1131

Phone: 301.405.3176
FAX: 301.405.2891
For a comprehensive examination of this issue, see RESEARCH AND
INFORMED EXPERT OPINION Experts cited: American Academy of
Pediatrics, E. Barker, D. Bakan, A. Einstein, H. Falk, I. Hyman, T.
Gordon, P. Greven, W. Grier & P. Cobbs, A. Haeuser, A. Maurer, K.
Menninger, A. Montagu, A. Miller, J. Prescott, B. Spock, M. Straus, R.
Welsh, and others. (56 files)

http://www.nospank.net/killen.htm