The Baumrind Study

"Recourse to some physical punishment was normative in the FSP sample, despite
the liberal politics of the Berkeley community, and the high educational level
and social status of the parents. Although by Time 3 when the children were 14
and 15, 62% of parents used no physical punishment, only 4% of the parents had
never used physical punishment at Time 1, when the children were preschoolers,
and only 16% had never used physical punishment between Time 1 and Time 2
when the children were ages 8 and 9. There was a considerable range of
frequency and severity of use of physical punishment by the FSP parents, with
a small minority, between 4% and 7%, at each time period resorting to
NON-normative, although not legally abusive, physical punishment. The
analysis that were intended to refer to child outcomes associated with
normative physical punishment excluded those parents."


And

"In fact, at T1 the reverse tended to be true. At T1, the 5 children in the
Green Zone who never experienced physical punishment tended to be somewhat
LESS well-adjusted then those other (six) chidlren in the Green zone who
experienced occasional but infrequent physical punishment, although contrasts
were typically not statistically significant."


To Summarize These Results:
--------------------------
"Prior to removing the few parents whose use of physical punishment was
unusually severe for this population and controlling the methodological
artifacts that could account for the associations, frequency of physical
punishment was associated with detrimental child outcomes, as antispanking
advocates such as Straus claim." However, once the Red zone families were
removed, there were few significant associations left to explain between
child outcomes and dimensional or categorical measures of NORMATIVE physical
punishment. Furthermore, the correlations with detrimental child outcomes
of physical punishment did not exceed those of verbal punishment. When
alternative explanations, including the adolescents' self-reported favorable
perception of their parents, are considered, there are NO effects of NORMATIVE
PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT on child or adolescent outcomes. The apparent effects of
NPP are explained by baseline child misbehavior and third variables that
contribute to a pattern of rejection and overcontrol in which reliance on
physical punishment is embedded. The 3 children (all girls) of parents
who totally abstainted from spanking at all time points, were not more
competent by adolescence than the whose parents spanked occasionally. All
were prosocial but two were very low on self-assertiveness and the one who
was self-assertive and achievement-oriented manifested severe internalizing
and externalizing symptoms. Unexpectedly, even the presence of above-average
frequency of normative physical punishment represented by the Orange zone
did not attenuate at all the positive outcomes associated with Authoritative
or Democratic parenting. Thus we found no evidence for unique detrimental
effects of normative physical punishment.

To my knowledge this is the only study using high quality data in a prospective
longitudinal design to assess the effects of normative physical punishment,
after controlling ofr the following methodological artifacts: shared source
variance, the intervention selection bias introduced by baseline child
misbehavior, and plausible thir parenting variables that were associated with
both frequency of use of normative physical punishment and detrimental child
outcomes. This is one of the few studies to contrast the effects of normative
physical punishment with another aversive disciplinary intervention, and to
contrast the effects of "no spanking" with those "low frequency" spanking.


Doan

"However, once the Red zone families were
removed," R R R R R R

"Furthermore, the correlations with detrimental child outcomes
of physical punishment did not exceed those of verbal punishment."

Shall we ban talking to your kids? ;-)

Doan


On 18 Aug 2005 wrote:

"However, once the Red zone families were
removed," R R R R R R

Doan wrote:
"Furthermore, the correlations with detrimental child outcomes
of physical punishment did not exceed those of verbal punishment."

Shall we ban talking to your kids? ;-)

Talking is to verbal punishment as hugging is to spanking.

Shall we ban hugging?

R R R R R

Logic is to dancing monkeys as fish are to bicycles.

0:-


Doan


On 18 Aug 2005 wrote:

"However, once the Red zone families were
removed," R R R R R R

On 18 Aug 2005 wrote:


Doan wrote:
"Furthermore, the correlations with detrimental child outcomes
of physical punishment did not exceed those of verbal punishment."

Shall we ban talking to your kids? ;-)

Talking is to verbal punishment as hugging is to spanking.

Shall we ban hugging?

R R R R R

Logic is to dancing monkeys as fish are to bicycles.

0:-

You can spank without hugging. Can you do verbal punishment without
talking? I bet you wouldn't have done well on the SAT. ;-)

Doan

Doan wrote:
On 18 Aug 2005 wrote:


Doan wrote:
"Furthermore, the correlations with detrimental child outcomes
of physical punishment did not exceed those of verbal punishment."

Shall we ban talking to your kids? ;-)

Talking is to verbal punishment as hugging is to spanking.

Shall we ban hugging?

R R R R R

Logic is to dancing monkeys as fish are to bicycles.

0:-

You can spank without hugging.

Sure, but can I verbally punish without speaking?

Can you do verbal punishment without
talking?

Ah ah ah, now stop and think. The issue is answered easily by one that
is logical.

I can HUG without spanking.

I cannot verbally punish without speaking.

And I can speak without punishing.

The act of hugging in fact requires touch. Spanking includes touch.

I have choices.

And one is to neither speak to punish, nor touch to punish.

So, rounding out our little lesson.

I may touch to hug, or touch to spank.

I may speak to instruct, or to punish.

speak/teach is to instruct as spank/hit is to punish.

One is simply to me, preferable and superior.

I bet you wouldn't have done well on the SAT. ;-)

Oh? You probably should rethink that one as you work on the
choreography for your reply. My scores were exceptionally high. I
received, because of them, a full scholarship for my undergrad word.
Four years of free tuition. Rather prestigious school too.

Tough enough they had a remarkable record for freshman suicides. I
nearly aced my way through four years in three chronologically. 3.8
GPA. I wonder if I should ask for my money back, on that year I saved
them?

Dance monkeyboy. Dance.

You simply don't understand what I've said on the subject of logic in
this post, or the previous one.

Doan

Study, work hard, get your assignments in on time. Really. You still
might graduate.

0:-

On 18 Aug 2005 wrote:

Talking is to verbal punishment as hugging is to spanking.

Shall we ban hugging?

R R R R R

Logic is to dancing monkeys as fish are to bicycles.

0:-

You can spank without hugging.

Sure, but can I verbally punish without speaking?

Yet your analogy was talking/verbal-punishment vs. hugging/spanking!

Can you do verbal punishment without
talking?

Ah ah ah, now stop and think. The issue is answered easily by one that
is logical.

I can HUG without spanking.

I cannot verbally punish without speaking.

Yet your analogy was talking/verbal-punishment vs. hugging/spanking!

And I can speak without punishing.

Really? Where do your draw the line?

The act of hugging in fact requires touch. Spanking includes touch.

Now, that is a stretch! ;-)

I have choices.

But yet, you don't want other parents to have choices.

And one is to neither speak to punish, nor touch to punish.

Or not to speak at all!

So, rounding out our little lesson.

I may touch to hug, or touch to spank.

Touch to spank??? ;-)

I may speak to instruct, or to punish.

You are grasping straws here! ;-)

speak/teach is to instruct as spank/hit is to punish.

You are grasping straws here! ;-)

One is simply to me, preferable and superior.

Prove it!

I bet you wouldn't have done well on the SAT. ;-)

Oh? You probably should rethink that one as you work on the
choreography for your reply. My scores were exceptionally high. I
received, because of them, a full scholarship for my undergrad word.
Four years of free tuition. Rather prestigious school too.

LOL! Ever heard of the story of a frog puffing himself up to be a
buffalo? ;-)

Tough enough they had a remarkable record for freshman suicides. I
nearly aced my way through four years in three chronologically. 3.8
GPA. I wonder if I should ask for my money back, on that year I saved
them?

Know what happenned to that frog? ;-)

Dance monkeyboy. Dance.

Lie "never-spanked" boy. Lie. ;-)

You simply don't understand what I've said on the subject of logic in
this post, or the previous one.

You are an anti-spanking zealotS. That,is enough to demonstrate your
logic. Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutually exclusive?
;-)

Doan

Study, work hard, get your assignments in on time. Really. You still
might graduate.

Thanks for the advice, "never-spanked" boy!

;-)

0:-

Still refusing to debate I see, so I guess we'll just be treated, as we
are below to more "Dance Monkeyboy, Dance."

0:-


Doan wrote:
On 18 Aug 2005 wrote:

Talking is to verbal punishment as hugging is to spanking.

Shall we ban hugging?

R R R R R

Logic is to dancing monkeys as fish are to bicycles.

0:-

You can spank without hugging.

Sure, but can I verbally punish without speaking?

Yet your analogy was talking/verbal-punishment vs. hugging/spanking!

Can you do verbal punishment without
talking?

Ah ah ah, now stop and think. The issue is answered easily by one that
is logical.

I can HUG without spanking.

I cannot verbally punish without speaking.

Yet your analogy was talking/verbal-punishment vs. hugging/spanking!

And I can speak without punishing.

Really? Where do your draw the line?

The act of hugging in fact requires touch. Spanking includes touch.

Now, that is a stretch! ;-)

I have choices.

But yet, you don't want other parents to have choices.

And one is to neither speak to punish, nor touch to punish.

Or not to speak at all!

So, rounding out our little lesson.

I may touch to hug, or touch to spank.

Touch to spank??? ;-)

I may speak to instruct, or to punish.

You are grasping straws here! ;-)

speak/teach is to instruct as spank/hit is to punish.

You are grasping straws here! ;-)

One is simply to me, preferable and superior.

Prove it!

I bet you wouldn't have done well on the SAT. ;-)

Oh? You probably should rethink that one as you work on the
choreography for your reply. My scores were exceptionally high. I
received, because of them, a full scholarship for my undergrad word.
Four years of free tuition. Rather prestigious school too.

LOL! Ever heard of the story of a frog puffing himself up to be a
buffalo? ;-)

Tough enough they had a remarkable record for freshman suicides. I
nearly aced my way through four years in three chronologically. 3.8
GPA. I wonder if I should ask for my money back, on that year I saved
them?

Know what happenned to that frog? ;-)

Dance monkeyboy. Dance.

Lie "never-spanked" boy. Lie. ;-)

You simply don't understand what I've said on the subject of logic in
this post, or the previous one.

You are an anti-spanking zealotS. That,is enough to demonstrate your
logic. Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutually exclusive?
;-)

Doan

Study, work hard, get your assignments in on time. Really. You still
might graduate.

Thanks for the advice, "never-spanked" boy!

;-)

0:-

The little "never-spanked" boy got his stupidity and lies exposed so he
patheticly turned around and ran. Such an empty Kane! ;-)

Doan

On 18 Aug 2005 wrote:

Still refusing to debate I see, so I guess we'll just be treated, as we
are below to more "Dance Monkeyboy, Dance."

0:-


Doan wrote:
On 18 Aug 2005 wrote:

Talking is to verbal punishment as hugging is to spanking.

Shall we ban hugging?

R R R R R

Logic is to dancing monkeys as fish are to bicycles.

0:-

You can spank without hugging.

Sure, but can I verbally punish without speaking?

Yet your analogy was talking/verbal-punishment vs. hugging/spanking!

Can you do verbal punishment without
talking?

Ah ah ah, now stop and think. The issue is answered easily by one that
is logical.

I can HUG without spanking.

I cannot verbally punish without speaking.

Yet your analogy was talking/verbal-punishment vs. hugging/spanking!

And I can speak without punishing.

Really? Where do your draw the line?

The act of hugging in fact requires touch. Spanking includes touch.

Now, that is a stretch! ;-)

I have choices.

But yet, you don't want other parents to have choices.

And one is to neither speak to punish, nor touch to punish.

Or not to speak at all!

So, rounding out our little lesson.

I may touch to hug, or touch to spank.

Touch to spank??? ;-)

I may speak to instruct, or to punish.

You are grasping straws here! ;-)

speak/teach is to instruct as spank/hit is to punish.

You are grasping straws here! ;-)

One is simply to me, preferable and superior.

Prove it!

I bet you wouldn't have done well on the SAT. ;-)

Oh? You probably should rethink that one as you work on the
choreography for your reply. My scores were exceptionally high. I
received, because of them, a full scholarship for my undergrad word.
Four years of free tuition. Rather prestigious school too.

LOL! Ever heard of the story of a frog puffing himself up to be a
buffalo? ;-)

Tough enough they had a remarkable record for freshman suicides. I
nearly aced my way through four years in three chronologically. 3.8
GPA. I wonder if I should ask for my money back, on that year I saved
them?

Know what happenned to that frog? ;-)

Dance monkeyboy. Dance.

Lie "never-spanked" boy. Lie. ;-)

You simply don't understand what I've said on the subject of logic in
this post, or the previous one.

You are an anti-spanking zealotS. That,is enough to demonstrate your
logic. Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutually exclusive?
;-)

Doan

Study, work hard, get your assignments in on time. Really. You still
might graduate.

Thanks for the advice, "never-spanked" boy!

;-)

0:-