Baumrind bogus 2. And went unpublished.

LOL! This is from someone who saw no problem in a study with a sample
size of less than 20!!! ;-)

BTW, even Straus had to admit that Baumrind & Owens study is the BEST
methodology wise!

Doan


On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

Kane,

What is so interesting about this unpublished study is that it is in
totally conflict with all of her earlier research.

Dr. Baumrind is taught in child development classes at most
colleges/universities. She can be credited with the research on
permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative parenting, with
authoritative parenting showing the most positive results.

Suddenly she came out with this "study" that was never published, and
she also suddenly no longer advocates what she previously called
"authoritative parenting."

Public pressure, publicity, politics, who knows? Her most recent
"study" had so many flaws that it would never have been published.

LaVonne

wrote:

Baumrind, if you don't recall, was the "researcher" that presented,
orally, to an annual APA conference her conclusions that spanking
presented no problems and in fact had a positive effect on children's
behaviors. A glaring fallacy as any examination of her study
methodology would show.

Interestingly, as this author in response says, she not only didn't
have it published, it would have likely been turned down by any
reputable organization in social research FOR publication.

Robert Fathman's letter to Diana Baumrind
August 29, 2001

29 August 2001

Diana Baumrind, Ph.D.
Research Psychologist
Institute of Human Development
University of California Berkeley
Fax: 1-510-642-7969

Dear Dr. Baumrind:

I am writing to express my concern about the paper you presented
last week at the annual meeting of the American Psychological
Association. I am a psychologist myself, but was unable to attend APA
this year. I e-mailed your office a week ago requesting a copy of the
study you presented, by e-mail or snail mail, and have received no
reply. But I have spoken to a psychologist in your audience who
received the handout and took notes, and of course no one in America
could escape reading about your study in various newspapers or hearing
about it on news shows. So, I have not had the opportunity to yet read
the full study and examine your statistical methods in detail, but I
believe I have a fairly good read on the research design, and would be
happy to have you correct me if I have any misconceptions. And I still
await receiving a copy of the study.

I write in hopes that you will immediately issue press releases
recanting the conclusions you have been quoted as reaching. You are
quoted as saying that mild to moderate spanking is not harmful. Yet
your research was based on case studies of only 3 children who had
non-spanking parents, and 79 whose parents spanked in the degree you
considered mild or moderate. To have only 3 subjects in one of your
principal variable groups does not constitute research, does it? I was
taught that such an incredibly small number would just constitute an
anecdotal report, an observation, not science. If in even my first year
of graduate school I had written up a research design with such a small
number of subjects, I would surely have received an "F" on the paper,
and the quality of my undergrad education would have been in question.
As you surely understand, when the number in one group is so tiny as
this, huge differences in behavior or cognition would have been
necessary to report any significant differences. [And even the spanked
kids were grouped into statistical cells of only 6 to 8 children,
correct?]

In other words, using only 3 non-spanked kids had the effect of
building into the conclusions an impossibility of finding any
differences with spanked kids -- right? Don't you agree? I think you
would find it impossible yourself to have any professional journal in
our field accept such inadequate research for publication. And to state
conclusions that have such far reaching effects on the health and
safety of children based on a "study" that would not pass peer review
is not responsible. Again, if I am incorrect because I have not
received the requested paper, please let me know.

You can gain back the professional respect you have lost among your
colleagues if you will immediately notify the news media in strong,
clear, unambiguous language that the conclusions drawn were incorrect
for such limited data, that you erred and wish to have the mistake
corrected.

I would be happy to assist you in making this correction and
apology widely known and respectfully received.

Looking forward to your response,

Robert E. Fathman, Ph.D.
.............

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, Carlson LaVonne wrote:



wrote:

They need the pain and
humiliation of a pants down spanking and corner standing.

Respect breeds and teaches respect. If you parent with respect, your
children will respect you. If you parent as you suggest above, how
could you possibly imagine that you deserve any respect from your children?

LaVonne


So I take it that you don't respect your parents???

Doan

Come on, LaVonne, STOP THE LIES!

Here are the quotes from her paper:

(Question 6): We then asked does physical punishment act as a moderator of
there lations between child outcomes and parenting type?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 10
As you can see from Table 7, at all time periods, children from
Authoritative, and to a lesser extent Democratic, homes were competent and
well-adjusted (Baumrind, 1971,1991). In a preliminary analysis we asked,
Do these competent parents use the least physical punishment? The answer
is clearly NO with their preschool children. Ninety percent(9 of 10) of
Authoritative couples at T1 had scores at or above the mean on the physical
punishment scale, and Authoritative or Democratic parents were not
disproportionately classified in the Green zone. Thus, the higher competence
and lesser maladjustment of the preschool children of the most effective
parents was not due to their being spanked infrequently. Parent types did
differ, however, by the likelihood that members would resort to overly
severe physical punishment. Thus families classified in the Red zone were
disproportionately either Authoritarian-Directive or Rejecting/Neglecting
(90% at T1,75% at T2, 83% at T3), and no Authoritative parent at any time
period fell into the Redzone, although one Democratic parent did. Furthermore
, both absolute and relative spanking frequency of Authoritative couples
decreased rapidly after Time 1 with only 40% at or above the mean at T2,
compared to 58% of all other parents, and by T3 with only 17% at or above
the mean, compared to 42% of all other parents.
Thus by early adolescence, when we in common with other specialists believe
physical punishment tobe developmentally inappropriate, Authoritative and
Democratic parents were significantly less likely than other parents to
use physical punishment.

Does that sound like she "no longer advocates" Authoritatvie Parenting???

Doan


On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

Kane,

What is so interesting about this unpublished study is that it is in
totally conflict with all of her earlier research.

Dr. Baumrind is taught in child development classes at most
colleges/universities. She can be credited with the research on
permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative parenting, with
authoritative parenting showing the most positive results.

Suddenly she came out with this "study" that was never published, and
she also suddenly no longer advocates what she previously called
"authoritative parenting."

Public pressure, publicity, politics, who knows? Her most recent
"study" had so many flaws that it would never have been published.

LaVonne