New Study Slams Spanking

So I have to go to the library? Sound like a delaying tactic.
Oh, well. Are you going to answer the questions I asked about
this study. WHAT IS THE SAMPLE SIZE?

Doan

On Tue, 11 May 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

Doan,

And how exactly am I supposed to provide you with a copy of Power and
Chapieski? I gave you the reference:

Power, T. & Chapieski, M. (1986). Childrearing and impulse control in
toddlers: A naturalistic investigation. Developmental Psychology
22(2), 271-275.

I'm sure there is a way for you to acquire the article if you are truly
interested.

LaVonne

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 7 May 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote:


Hey doan,

Read Power and Chapieski yet, or are you still dealing with smoke
screens? Read the study and let's debate.

LaVonne


I have not read Power and Chapieski. Can I get a copy from you?
What's the sample size? Is it much larger than the Baumrind & Owens
study? As you said, let's debate.

Doan

On Tue, 11 May 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

Doan,

And how exactly am I supposed to provide you with a copy of Power and
Chapieski? I gave you the reference:

You can post the relevant information in this newsgroup like the sample
size, what confounding factors they controlled for...

Power, T. & Chapieski, M. (1986). Childrearing and impulse control in
toddlers: A naturalistic investigation. Developmental Psychology
22(2), 271-275.

I'm sure there is a way for you to acquire the article if you are truly
interested.

I can acquire it. It takes time. It sounds like you want me to jump
through hoops. Can you save me some time?

Doan

LaVonne

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 7 May 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote:


Hey doan,

Read Power and Chapieski yet, or are you still dealing with smoke
screens? Read the study and let's debate.

LaVonne


I have not read Power and Chapieski. Can I get a copy from you?
What's the sample size? Is it much larger than the Baumrind & Owens
study? As you said, let's debate.

Doan

a123sdg321

On Tue, 11 May 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote:



Doan wrote:

On Fri, 7 May 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote:



Doan wrote:


On Tue, 4 May 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote:


Why snipped your own words? Too ashame? ;-)

Oh for heaven sakes, Doan. I snipped enough so that other readers of
the post could see the attributes. This included a portion of my
previous response that I was not responding to in this post.

Actually you snipped:
begin snipped text
The alternatives used by parents of children who were not spanked early
in life, doan.

Which are...?
end snipped text

Were you hoping that you can avoid answering my question? :-)



Do you ? The study said:

"no information was available on other punishments used by parents"



What do you think those parents who didn't spank were doing?
They were using alternatives.


Really? That is not what the author of this study said:

"Other forms of punishment may also have been associated with subsequent
child behavior problems, but it was not possible to explore those
associations using these data."

Which means that other forms of punishment may have been used, but these
were alternatives to spanking. The study examined spanking. And the
results were not favorable for spanking.


Nope. Do you know how to read, LaVonne? The author is saying other forms
of punishments may have been confounding factors! Parents often started
with non-cp alternatives first as Straus acknowledged:

The author said "other forms of punishment may also have been associated
with subsequent child behavior problems, but it was not possible to
explore those associations using these data."

Exactly! So much for your "alternatives"!

The author also said, "Children in this study who were not spanked
early in life were less likely to be described by their parents as
having behavior problems and being sad or depressed when they hit
school age."

Yes, these children with behavior problems may have been subjected to
other forms of punishment as well as spanking. In order to debate the
subject logically one has to be familiar with the available body of
research. Each study is done under different conditions, with a
different population, different hypotheses, and different methodology.
Yet nearly four decades of research on spanking has yet to show spanking
more effective than alternatives, especially non-punitive alternatives.

And they ALSO have yet to show the alternatives are any better UNDER THE
SAME CONDITIONS! There are a few studies that attempt to do that, Straus
& Mouradian (1998) and Baumrind & Owens (2001) for example. All, so far,
have shown that the correlations are even WORSE for non-cp alternatives.
Straus & Mouradian (1998) 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."

Baumrind & Owens (2001) looked at verbal reprimand. The correlation with
verbal reprimand was also stronger. Isn't this what Sweden parents use
instead of spanking?

And nearly four decades of research continues to link spanking with
increased risk of both short and long term negative outcomes.

But since spanking is typically used "after one or more other intervention
have been tried...", the link is also found with non-cp alternatives!

Doan

LaVonne

"CP is typically a response to misbehavior, particularly after one or more
other intervention have been tried repeatedly and the misbehavior they are
meant to correct recurs."

Straus, Murray A. & Vera E. Mouradian. 1998 "Impulsive Corporal Punishment by
Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of children." Behavioral
Sciences and the Law. 16: 353-374.

Doan

On Tue, 11 May 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote:



Doan wrote:

On Tue, 4 May 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote:



Ivan Gowch wrote:


The impact of spanking has been the topic of a number of studies --
most with mixed results. The latest research is one of the first to
look at the impact of spanking on youngsters under 2.

I'm referring to the 1986 study by Power and Chapieski, "Childrearing
and Impulse Control in Toddlers: A Naturalistic Investigation." Most
disturbing are two conclusions: "...infants of physically punishing
mothers showed the lowest levels of compliance and were most likely to
manipulate breakable objects during observations...." and "...infants
whose mothers relied on physical punishment showed lower Bayley scores
at 21 months, especially for the nonverbal items." (Power and
Chapieski, 1989, p. 273).

No matter how much research is conducted, results are always the same.
Spanking is a risk factor in children's lives. Spanking correlates with
short and long term negative outcomes. There is no logical or moral
reason to spank a child of any age.


Can you show me one study where correlations are different with regard to
non-cp alternatives under the same conditions?

If you understood research and had read the multitude of studies
spanning nearly four decades, you would ask such a ridiculous question.

LOL! This is a cop out! It is WRONG to ask that the non-cp alternatives
to be measured under the same conditions???


"Perhaps the most difficult methodological problem in research on the
effects of CP is posed by the the fact that child behavior problems lead
parents to spank. Thus the repeated finding that the more CP parents use,
the worse the behavior problems of the child does not necessarily show
that CP has harmful effects, or even that CP is not effective in reducing
misbehavior (as I erroneously argued in the past)."

Straus admitted his error. Can you do the same?

You pulled this quote out of context and you neglected to provide a
reference for a direct quote. Please do so.

I have already done so numerous times. Are you saying that, with your
Ph.D, you have not read that one??? ;-)

(The Behavioral Measurement Letter. Vol 5, No.2, Spring 1998 p.3-8)

Doan

Doan wrote:
So I have to go to the library? Sound like a delaying tactic.
Oh, well. Are you going to answer the questions I asked about
this study. WHAT IS THE SAMPLE SIZE?

No, you do not have to go to the library. However, if you would like to
discuss the Power & Chapieskli study you will need to go to the library
and read the study. And when you read the study, you will know the
SAMPLE SIZE. You will also know the research methodology and you will
be able to discuss this study.

LaVonne

Doan

On Tue, 11 May 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote:


Doan,

And how exactly am I supposed to provide you with a copy of Power and
Chapieski? I gave you the reference:

Power, T. & Chapieski, M. (1986). Childrearing and impulse control in
toddlers: A naturalistic investigation. Developmental Psychology
22(2), 271-275.

I'm sure there is a way for you to acquire the article if you are truly
interested.

LaVonne

Doan wrote:

On Fri, 7 May 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote:



Hey doan,

Read Power and Chapieski yet, or are you still dealing with smoke
screens? Read the study and let's debate.

LaVonne


I have not read Power and Chapieski. Can I get a copy from you?
What's the sample size? Is it much larger than the Baumrind & Owens
study? As you said, let's debate.

Doan

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote:


Doan,

And how exactly am I supposed to provide you with a copy of Power and
Chapieski? I gave you the reference:

You cut your question, which read "I have not read Power and Chapieski.
Can I get a copy from you?"

And I asked you exactly how I am supposed to provide you with a copy.

You can post the relevant information in this newsgroup like the sample
size, what confounding factors they controlled for...

You didn't answer the question, Doan. How exactly am I supposed to
provide you with a copy of the study? This is what you asked for, so
how is this going to happen?

You didn't ask me to post relevant information, you asked me to provide
you with a copy of the study.

How would you like me to do that, Doan?

LaVonne


Power, T. & Chapieski, M. (1986). Childrearing and impulse control in
toddlers: A naturalistic investigation. Developmental Psychology
22(2), 271-275.

I'm sure there is a way for you to acquire the article if you are truly
interested.


I can acquire it. It takes time. It sounds like you want me to jump
through hoops. Can you save me some time?

Doan


LaVonne

Doan wrote:

On Fri, 7 May 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote:



Hey doan,

Read Power and Chapieski yet, or are you still dealing with smoke
screens? Read the study and let's debate.

LaVonne


I have not read Power and Chapieski. Can I get a copy from you?
What's the sample size? Is it much larger than the Baumrind & Owens
study? As you said, let's debate.

Doan

Doan wrote:


LOL! This is a cop out! It is WRONG to ask that the non-cp alternatives
to be measured under the same conditions???

It is not wrong, it is simply uninformed. I have tried repeatedly to
explain research to you, and you continually misrepresent. In the past
I felt like I was teaching Statistics 101 to an incredibly ignorant or
incapable student. I now realize that I was attempting to teach
Statistics 101 to an adult individual who has no interest in learning
but whose only purpose on this ng is to spread propaganda.

LaVonne


"Perhaps the most difficult methodological problem in research on the
effects of CP is posed by the the fact that child behavior problems lead
parents to spank. Thus the repeated finding that the more CP parents use,
the worse the behavior problems of the child does not necessarily show
that CP has harmful effects, or even that CP is not effective in reducing
misbehavior (as I erroneously argued in the past)."

Straus admitted his error. Can you do the same?

You pulled this quote out of context and you neglected to provide a
reference for a direct quote. Please do so.


I have already done so numerous times. Are you saying that, with your
Ph.D, you have not read that one??? ;-)

(The Behavioral Measurement Letter. Vol 5, No.2, Spring 1998 p.3-8)

Doan

On Thu, 13 May 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote:



Doan wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote:


Doan,

And how exactly am I supposed to provide you with a copy of Power and
Chapieski? I gave you the reference:

You cut your question, which read "I have not read Power and Chapieski.
Can I get a copy from you?"

And I asked you exactly how I am supposed to provide you with a copy.

Already answered!


You can post the relevant information in this newsgroup like the sample
size, what confounding factors they controlled for...

You didn't answer the question, Doan. How exactly am I supposed to
provide you with a copy of the study? This is what you asked for, so
how is this going to happen?

1) post the study in this newsgroup.
2) point to the URL that has the study
3) email
4) snailmai.

You didn't ask me to post relevant information, you asked me to provide
you with a copy of the study.

I am asking you now. Would you mind posting the sample size of this
study?

How would you like me to do that, Doan?

See above.

Doan

LaVonne


Power, T. & Chapieski, M. (1986). Childrearing and impulse control in
toddlers: A naturalistic investigation. Developmental Psychology
22(2), 271-275.

I'm sure there is a way for you to acquire the article if you are truly
interested.


I can acquire it. It takes time. It sounds like you want me to jump
through hoops. Can you save me some time?

Doan


LaVonne

Doan wrote:

On Fri, 7 May 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote:



Hey doan,

Read Power and Chapieski yet, or are you still dealing with smoke
screens? Read the study and let's debate.

LaVonne


I have not read Power and Chapieski. Can I get a copy from you?
What's the sample size? Is it much larger than the Baumrind & Owens
study? As you said, let's debate.

Doan

On Thu, 13 May 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

Doan wrote:
So I have to go to the library? Sound like a delaying tactic.
Oh, well. Are you going to answer the questions I asked about
this study. WHAT IS THE SAMPLE SIZE?

No, you do not have to go to the library. However, if you would like to
discuss the Power & Chapieskli study you will need to go to the library
and read the study. And when you read the study, you will know the
SAMPLE SIZE. You will also know the research methodology and you will
be able to discuss this study.

LaVonne

Sound like a delaying tactic. If the study is soooo good, why not share
it with us?

Doan


Doan

On Tue, 11 May 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote:


Doan,

And how exactly am I supposed to provide you with a copy of Power and
Chapieski? I gave you the reference:

Power, T. & Chapieski, M. (1986). Childrearing and impulse control in
toddlers: A naturalistic investigation. Developmental Psychology
22(2), 271-275.

I'm sure there is a way for you to acquire the article if you are truly
interested.

LaVonne

Doan wrote:

On Fri, 7 May 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote:



Hey doan,

Read Power and Chapieski yet, or are you still dealing with smoke
screens? Read the study and let's debate.

LaVonne


I have not read Power and Chapieski. Can I get a copy from you?
What's the sample size? Is it much larger than the Baumrind & Owens
study? As you said, let's debate.

Doan

On Thu, 13 May 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote:



Doan wrote:


LOL! This is a cop out! It is WRONG to ask that the non-cp alternatives
to be measured under the same conditions???

It is not wrong, it is simply uninformed. I have tried repeatedly to
explain research to you, and you continually misrepresent. In the past
I felt like I was teaching Statistics 101 to an incredibly ignorant or
incapable student. I now realize that I was attempting to teach
Statistics 101 to an adult individual who has no interest in learning
but whose only purpose on this ng is to spread propaganda.

It is you who misrepresent the study. The problem with studies on
spanking is well-known. It is you who doing the propaganda.

Doan

LaVonne


"Perhaps the most difficult methodological problem in research on the
effects of CP is posed by the the fact that child behavior problems lead
parents to spank. Thus the repeated finding that the more CP parents use,
the worse the behavior problems of the child does not necessarily show
that CP has harmful effects, or even that CP is not effective in reducing
misbehavior (as I erroneously argued in the past)."

Straus admitted his error. Can you do the same?

You pulled this quote out of context and you neglected to provide a
reference for a direct quote. Please do so.


I have already done so numerous times. Are you saying that, with your
Ph.D, you have not read that one??? ;-)

(The Behavioral Measurement Letter. Vol 5, No.2, Spring 1998 p.3-8)

Doan