Risks of harm from spanking confirmed by analysis of 5 decades of research

[Quintessence]

Here... I'll help by reiterating this:

... perhaps one issue here is the pro-spanking crowd don't quite get what studies like this are saying. When we talk about risk analysis, it's speaking of the probability of harm given exposure. The studies are not saying "if you spank your kids, they will turn out maladjusted." What they are saying is that it is a risk factor that increases the probability of various negative outcomes. There will be kids who do fine in spite of being spanked, but what the studies are saying is that it's a significant risk factor for these various negative outcomes.

 

[bobhikes]

Is this how discussions are going to go with you? This is the second time we have debated and you have walked away when pressed for support to your own positions.

Yep done this long enough to know it is not going to make a difference and I don't have time to invest in the project. Reading that study was to much wasted time. Thanks for getting it for free though I would have really been annoyed if I had to pay.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

My apologies, but anecdotal tales of people who have raised children is pretty low on the weight of evidence compared to a meta-analysis of 160,927 children done with proper scientific methodology.

I wouldn't dream of asserting something like this. There are too many factors in any form of research producing too many unknowns to give a definitive "this is good" or "this is bad" stamp on ANYTHING.

I work in market research, and just about the smartest client I ever encountered was one who did research on styles and patterns of children's clothing. What he said that stuck with me most was that he has his designers come to him with all sorts of designs and he's careful not to critique them too harshly on any of them. His reasoning was that, in the surveys done to mass quantities of people, sure the yellow onesie with the orange giraffe was only liked by 5% of the people asked - but if he can just know the right number of yellow onesies with orange giraffes to produce he can still make a sale - and in fact, he might be able to ensure that his entire stock gets moved into revenue. Rather than making nothing but the blue striped onesies with the cutesy dog that 95% of the people surveyed liked and not sell a whole 5% or more of his entire inventory.

Point being, it's not about definitive good or bad. It's about knowing how to apply the informortion you have - and when to trust yourself vs. the survey/study telling you that something is "bad".

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

As I've been out of the forums for a while, i rather skimmed the first page of this topic. I wish to thank the OP for this post. I am ardently anti-corporal punishment.

A swift swat on the backside is simply an attention getter; beating a kid into submission while angry is criminal.

You can't gain the attention of a child without hitting them? If this is the case, then you must have a lack of imagination. Say, like, picking them up and plopping their little butts on a table or chair and forcing eye contact? That's not an "attention getter?"

Do you have kids and are you raising kids? I suggest, if so, you look into parenting classes which often provide you with many more options of "getting their attention" rather than administering physical pain or the threat thereof.

 

[Quintessence]

Point being, it's not about definitive good or bad. It's about knowing how to apply the informortion you have - and when to trust yourself vs. the survey/study telling you that something is "bad".

I'm just going to point back to this here again: http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...ecades-of-research.186799/page-6#post-4728050

Because while this point is relevant, it doesn't apply to what the studies are aiming to say, nor what I am aiming to say.

 

[metis]

I wouldn't dream of asserting something like this. There are too many factors in any form of research producing too many unknowns to give a definitive "this is good" or "this is bad" stamp on ANYTHING.

I work in market research, and just about the smartest client I ever encountered was one who did research on styles and patterns of children's clothing. What he said that stuck with me most was that he has his designers come to him with all sorts of designs and he's careful not to critique them too harshly on any of them. His reasoning was that, in the surveys done to mass quantities of people, sure the yellow onesie with the orange giraffe was only liked by 5% of the people asked - but if he can just know the right number of yellow onesies with orange giraffes to produce he can still make a sale - and in fact, he might be able to ensure that his entire stock gets moved into revenue. Rather than making nothing but the blue striped onesies with the cutesy dog that 95% of the people surveyed liked and not sell a whole 5% or more of his entire inventory.

Point being, it's not about definitive good or bad. It's about knowing how to apply the informortion you have - and when to trust yourself vs. the survey/study telling you that something is "bad".

Well said, imo, and ya sorta stole my thunder-- OK, maybe it's only a wimper in my case.

I was going to use this true analogy: My wife, who's 68 (don't tell her I told you, OK?) is on hormone (estrogen) therapy because she gets regular (several times a day) nasty hot-flashes if she doesn't. But the studies show that she increases her risk of getting cancer by about 1-2%. So, she had to make a decision, and she chose to take it because not taking it would make her miserable-- and me too!

So, yes, statistically there is a higher risk taking the estrogen, and there's also one for "spanking" children as the study pointed out. Therefore, I don't refute the research, but I do have a lot of experience and observations that I can go on over my 71 years of life.

Nor is how we may "spank", or how often we may "spank", going to be uniform across the board. Certainly we can agree that beating a child is a terrible approach, and certainly we can agree that discussing the problem with the child is preferable over "spanking". But what if trying to talk rationally to a two-year old actually causes more problems than it solves, and that can easily be the case at times. Plus, there are other factors involved as well, so let me give an example of that.

When our oldest daughter was about two, and we were over my in-law's house, she misbehaved, I gave her one swat on her bottom, she ran around the table crying, jumped up on my lap, and cried while I comforted her. My mother-in-law saw this and was mystified why should would pick her up and console her. My wife explained (my mother-in-law didn't speak English) that just because our daughter did something wrong that this doesn't mean we don't love her, plus by picking her up and consoling her we also send the message that all is forgiven. In a very short time, she was again having fun playing with something else. This whole process took no more than about 5 minutes from beginning to end.

So, to me, it was sometimes better to make the point (a swat), move on, and let the child know you still care, love them, and have forgiven her/him.

 

[Scott C.]

There's something about this issue that really confuses me.

Apparently, it is okay to use physical violence against children to discipline them for bad behavior.
Yet, once they become adults, it is not okay for us to use physical violence to discipline people for bad behavior. We call that assault in most cases.

That is... really very odd.

People who don't agree with spanking often call it physical violence or beating. Do you really not see the difference?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

There's something about this issue that really confuses me.

Apparently, it is okay to use physical violence against children to discipline them for bad behavior.
Yet, once they become adults, it is not okay for us to use physical violence to discipline people for bad behavior. We call that assault in most cases.

That is... really very odd.

It's because our society tends to view children as the property of their parents or other legal guardians until they are 18. We used to view both wives and children as the property of the husband. This view is slowly going away and the law, children's services and mental health professionals are just beginning to adjust to new findings (which are really self-evident but people tend to be stupid), but not quick enough. Women have made much greater strides in gaining their rights than minors have.

 

[freethinker44]

A new meta-study of 50 years of research into the effects of spanking has confirmed that "...spanking was associated with negative outcomes consistently and across all types of studies, including those using the strongest methodologies such as longitudinal or experimental designs."



[Source]



[Source]

[An earlier article on Spanking by one of the same authors of the meta-study]

The evidence is mounting that spanking children, while perhaps a good way for parents to vent their frustrations, is both detrimental to the child's mental health and well-being, and is relatively ineffective in getting the child to comply with the parent's wishes or commands. Nevertheless, since our noble species of idiot-savants is smart enough to rationalize any favored behavior, while dumb enough to ignore any science that argues against it, spanking is most likely here for a very long time -- in spite of the facts.

Please discuss.

Which came first, the spanking or the anti-social behavior?
If we're just talking about spanking being used to correct behavior, then wouldn't it be anti-social behavior that causes spanking and not spanking that causes anti-social behavior?
I mean, obviously people who were spanked are more likely to exhibit anti-social behavior, that's why they were spanked.
So if this is true, then the worst we could say is that it's ineffective in correcting behavior of some, not that it causes mental damage because the damage was there before the spanking.

 

[Sunstone]

Which came first, the spanking or the anti-social behavior?
If we're just talking about spanking being used to correct behavior, then wouldn't it be anti-social behavior that causes spanking and not spanking that causes anti-social behavior?
I mean, obviously people who were spanked are more likely to exhibit anti-social behavior, that's why they were spanked.
So if this is true, then the worst we could say is that it's ineffective in correcting behavior of some, not that it causes mental damage because the damage was there before the spanking.

So, if I read you right, you'd be willing to spank a kid despite 50 years of research showing that spanking fails to achieve compliance, and despite the possibility that you were thereby putting the kid at greater risk of mental illness or anti-social behavior.

Enough said.

 

[freethinker44]

So, if I read you right, you'd be willing to spank a kid despite 50 years of research showing that spanking fails to achieve compliance, and despite the possibility that you were thereby putting the kid at greater risk of mental illness or anti-social behavior.

Enough said.

You didn't read me right at all, in fact it's so far off I have to ask, did you accidentally quote my post when you meant to quote someone else?

 

[Father Heathen]

I'm not dismissing the science, but as someone who was spanked as a child, I'm not feeling particularly traumatized, nor does the imagery of open hands trigger spanking flashbacks. No righteous indignation, either. No desire to partake in hashtag activism from the comfort of my chair. Nuttin'

 

[Wirey]

I was spanked as a child, and if anyone says I have mental health issues or violence control problems I'll break their legs!

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Raised six. I spanked my first years as a parent and then stopped. I didn't feel guilty, but it didn't seem to work.

I raised four kiddos. I share your sentiments and experience.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I raised four kiddos. I share your sentiments and experience.

I'm somewhere along these lines too.
Raising 2 kids who are generally very well behaved, with periods of 'not so much'.
Was also a school teacher who was apparently good at discipline, but didn't yell much at all, and (obviously) never went the smack.

But I was smacked as a kid...occasionally with a belt, actually...and I have smacked my kids maybe two or three times in total.

It's a crappy approach. Getting low, on the kids level, and making eye contact is always more effective. It relies on your points in the bank, though, I would say. Babysitting or teaching little brats who have no discipline or have been treated as babies is quite hard, because you first need to establish ground rules. But with my own kids or students, it works great.
With little ones, too young to speak, separation from the source of anxiety was more effective, I found.
But I did go a slap on the hand when my one year old got a 'play with powerpoints' fetish at one point, and in that instance at least, it seemed to work, at least when I was looking.

 

[Thief]

some relatives came over and gathered around the dining room table to talk to my wife
that left me alone with the little monster in the tv room

he reached for a candle on the table top
and looked at me

I shook my head.....no

he nodded his head..... yes...

he got swatted

it worked

 

[Thief]

when I was sooooo much younger....I was babysitting for a neighbor

she warned me to never take my eyes off the boy
old enough to get around....too young for reasoning

yep.....

when his mom got home I was standing in the doorway to the kitchen as she came in
as we were speaking.....

the little guy grabbed the portable tv on a small stand.....
and pulled it over on it's face

mommy took in after him....

 

[Thief]

when I was too young to remember....
I was running about the yard ...loose....

I took my freedom to a nearby street

dad had to run out in front of a speeding semi to save my stupid ***.

the adrenaline rush got me whomped......hard!

after more than five decades......I still don't run out in front of on coming traffic

get 'em when they're little....

 

[Sunstone]

You didn't read me right at all, in fact it's so far off I have to ask, did you accidentally quote my post when you meant to quote someone else?

My genuine apologies, then. Could you expand on what you really meant?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

One question: How many of you responding to this thread have raised children?

Between my brother and sister, I've helped raise and have been extensively involved with nine. Sure, I started with spanking, because it's what I was taught, but later realized there were better ways, and that not spanking made the kids behave better than spanking. With a spank, they just get hit, throw a tantrum, cry, and nothing really changes.

I can wrap my head around the idea that I may be wrong however you can't get off the opinion I am wrong. You are unrealistically against corporal punishment without proof, even the people who did the study aren't as critical.

It kind of is, as they did say spanking has no evidence of changing behaviors, and spanking is linked to an elevated risk of 13 detrimental outcomes, and people who think it's ok should reconsider their position because there is no evidence spanking helps and evidence that it can have detrimental outcomes.

If it is used as an attention getting device and not a punishment method, that is.

We can't hit other adults to get their attention. You can tug at their shirt, but even just slapping them is battery. You can't even spit on someone's face to "get their attention" because that too is considered battery. Even touching someone offensively against their will is considered battery. How is it so that we can do none of these things legally to an adult, but yet you can smack a child?

Yes, our different police forces would never use force on a person behaving badly. Never! In our society, we have offloaded the burden to others whom we pay to do our dirty work.

They can't use force against just anyone or in any situation, and they are authorized to do so if necessary.

Because of the rules of engagement we have concocted we no longer take matters into our own hands.

And we have those rules because things quickly escalate and people do things they regret that do not end well for anyone. When we "took things into our own hands," things like evidence and precedence may just not matter.

Apparently, it is okay to use physical violence against children to discipline them for bad behavior.
Yet, once they become adults, it is not okay for us to use physical violence to discipline people for bad behavior. We call that assault in most cases.

That's what I tell people, but they do not like hearing that, or they just can't fathom it.

after more than five decades......I still don't run out in front of on coming traffic

I hope you really didn't actually need that to learn to not run in front of traffic.