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

[YmirGF]

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?

Oh, good grief, ShadowPuppy. I am not sure how you equate smacking an unruly child, to get their attention, with spitting in someone's face, regardless of the age. Sorry, does not compute.
I am certainly not supporting beating children, PERIOD. That said, on occasion, a well timed smack on the face or butt will not damage a child for the rest of their lives. It is ludicrous to assume that it would and I'm not even sure how you would go about testing for this. The patience of a parent is not limitless and in the real world sometimes aggressive action is essential. Our society offloads dealing with other adults to our various police forces. Our society, for the most part, lets parents deal with their children - more or less - how they see fit WITHIN agreed upon guidelines.

You do ask a good question though. Why are we allowed to do this with a child. That is a tough one, and I can only use my own experience here. I was an incredibly inquisitive and curious child, probably well above the norm. My entire young life (under 9) was spent pushing the envelope almost like a mad little scientist poking and prodding at anything and everything in his path. My "research" (LOL) often put me at odds with my parents, who are loving and the sweetest people you are likely to meet. The weird part is that I was a fairly well behaved child and wasn't known for getting into fights and what not, but I sorely tested their patience. In fact, it was almost a game and as said earlier, they were almost my research projects.

(I do a little skit to illustrate this in real life and it is often met with wild laughter and chuckles...) The point is, my wild curiosity needed boundaries and sometimes those boundaries were discovered with a smack of some sort. I was NEVER beaten... but I did get hit more than occasionally. And yes, I learned from those smacks and I've never held a grudge against my parents because of it or a grudge against the world ... etc...

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

As are parents authorized to smack their child if they feel it is warranted. This is only a problem when a parent is not in control or is mentally unstable. That, however is a different thing. We call that child abuse and for good reason.

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.

We have rules because clearly over 1/2 the population is not particularly intelligent and needs curbs on their enthusiasm.

 

[SomeRandom]

So........ Does this mean (by statistical average) the most well adjusted generation of adults would technically be the millennials?
Oh God, we really are doomed as a species.

 

[Papoon]

Who would have thought that women commit the most acts of domestic violence ?

 

[Papoon]

The study defines spanking as an open-handed slap to the buttocks or other extremities -- and your "swats" sound a whole lot like the study's "spanking" to me.

Please understand: The study found that spanking is statistically linked to negative mental health issues and anti-social behaviors in people who've been spanked. The findings would remain the same even if you had every reason in the world to spank your children.

Tibetans and Australian aborigines consider hitting children almost subhuman.

I agree.

It is not necessary, it is not effective, and it is an undisciplined act of violence carried out only for the emotional satisfaction of the parent.

 

[Thief]

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

there is a time somewhere between learning your name.....and the word ......no.
during this crucial moment children run to what ever catches their eye
and your spoken call might be ignored.

I don't remember the event.
but the call of name must have failed

even with no recollection in mind....I am sure....
the NEXT time someone yelled at me.....I stopped in my tracks!

 

[Demonslayer]

That said, on occasion, a well timed smack on the face or butt will not damage a child for the rest of their lives.

Except the study says it can and frequently does.

I'm not even sure how you would go about testing for this.

Read the study, it explains the methodology and data.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Oh, good grief, ShadowPuppy. I am not sure how you equate smacking an unruly child, to get their attention, with spitting in someone's face, regardless of the age. Sorry, does not compute.

The point was that it is illegal to do less to an adult.

As are parents authorized to smack their child if they feel it is warranted.

And it begs to be asked why should they be authorized to hit a child when they couldn't do that to an adult, and spanking doesn't work anyways, unless you count setting them up for a higher risk of problems as working.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Tibetans and Australian aborigines consider hitting children almost subhuman.

I agree.

It is not necessary, it is not effective, and it is an undisciplined act of violence carried out only for the emotional satisfaction of the parent.

Speaking with relation to Australian aborigines, I would raise the point that they, much like other peoples around the world, do not have a universal position. Further, Australian aborigines are not even a single coherent peoples in terms of language and culture.
Sorry, I don't mean that to sound like an attack against your point. Traditionally, physical punishment of children was not common at all in most Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander communities (to my knowledge).
I just have some personal issues with stereotyping of indigenous cultures, even when that stereotype is a positive one.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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.

And my ultimate point is perhaps it isn't even about the spanking AT ALL. It could simply be that the mass majority of parents who are willing to spank as the default/first-response measure, or are willing to physically harm their kids without reserve have a range of mentalities toward their kids that ultimately do not foster lover, compassion, support and confidence. Perhaps those are the actual things that end up being lacking in the % of cases that detriment was found to be a result, and "spanking" is just one of the major vices that those types of "detached" parents tend to employ. We can't know for certain.

So, in the end, you could very well say "QUICK! STOP SPANKING YOUR KIDS!" to a bunch of parents who, regardless whether they continue spanking or not, are not loving their kids in the best way possible in the first place, the problem doesn't get "fixed", and you stand there scratching your head because you could have sworn your research was "spot on" in the numbers.

 

[YmirGF]

Except the study says it can and frequently does.

I'm simply not convinced this is a definitive study due to the way that raw data can be massaged to say whatever you want it to say.

Read the study, it explains the methodology and data.

Again, I'm not entirely swayed. What I simply don't understand is how you could possibly trace behavior and damage in adults back to them being paddled on the butt, NOT BEATEN, when they were a small child. I'm do not know HOW you could actually arrive at such a conclusion as a sole factor due to the huge range of factors that arise in the life of an ordinary person. As a contributing factor, perhaps...

 

[Demonslayer]

I'm simply not convinced this is a definitive study due to the way that raw data can be massaged to say whatever you want it to say.

It's a meta-study, which means it's a conglomeration of hundreds of studies over a period of 50 years. It's pretty impressive if you care to actually read what they did.

It's peer reviewed and published by the Journal of Family Psychology, a very reputable publication. There is absolutely no reason to think anyone was "massaging" data here, and when a study like this is peer reviewed and published the controls are such that data sources can easily be shown.

Again, I'm not entirely swayed. What I simply don't understand is how you could possibly trace behavior and damage in adults back to them being paddled on the butt,

At the risk of beating dead horse, if you read the study it clearly tells how you can link behavior to spanking. It's very easy. In short, since I guess you're not going to read it, they defined 17 behaviors (aggression, anti-social personality, resisting authority, etc.) Then they studied the frequency of these behaviors in groups of people who were 1) never spanked 2) spanked occasionally and 3) spanked frequently. Over and over again, study after study over 50 years shows the people who were spanked engage in 13 of the 17 noted behaviors more frequently than those who were not spanked.

Science!

 

[Revoltingest]

It's peer reviewed and published by the Journal of Family Psychology, a very reputable publication. There is absolutely no reason to think anyone was "massaging" data here, and when a study like this is peer reviewed and published the controls are such that data sources can easily be shown.

There is good reason to be skeptical of bias.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...as-in-social-psychology-personal-experience-i
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fixing-the-problem-of-liberal-bias-in-social-psychology/

I can't say that this meta-study is biased, but I have seen liberal bias corrupt research at UofM's ISR & The Institute For The Study Of Human Systems. When analysis & the data are complex, much room exists for technique to guide results.

 

[Demonslayer]

When analysis & the data are complex, much room exists for technique to guide results.

But to what end? Someone is pouring millions of dollars into a study that shows spanking has no ill effects, and then tinkering with the results...because they are super worried about other people spanking their children?

I just don't see it. I think kid-spankers simply don't like the results of the study. Anecdotally, they got spanked and nothing bad happened to them (maybe) so they think it's harmless to spank their child.

I mean anything of course CAN be manipulated, but then what, no studies are valid and we can't trust any of them?

I guess I'm less suspicious when I see something like this come out.

 

[Revoltingest]

But to what end? Someone is pouring millions of dollars into a study that shows spanking has no ill effects, and then tinkering with the results...because they are super worried about other people spanking their children?

I just don't see it. I think kid-spankers simply don't like the results of the study. Anecdotally, they got spanked and nothing bad happened to them (maybe) so they think it's harmless to spank their child.

I mean anything of course CAN be manipulated, but then what, no studies are valid and we can't trust any of them?

I guess I'm less suspicious when I see something like this come out.

If researchers begin with an anti-spanking bias, this could creep into their results.

Note:
While I'm anti-spanking I'm still skeptical of studies, particularly the more complex ones.
I note that one of the researchesrs is from UofM (my alma mater), which has been rife
with bias in many social science works.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It's a meta-study, which means it's a conglomeration of hundreds of studies over a period of 50 years. It's pretty impressive if you care to actually read what they did.

It's peer reviewed and published by the Journal of Family Psychology, a very reputable publication. There is absolutely no reason to think anyone was "massaging" data here, and when a study like this is peer reviewed and published the controls are such that data sources can easily be shown.



At the risk of beating dead horse, if you read the study it clearly tells how you can link behavior to spanking. It's very easy. In short, since I guess you're not going to read it, they defined 17 behaviors (aggression, anti-social personality, resisting authority, etc.) Then they studied the frequency of these behaviors in groups of people who were 1) never spanked 2) spanked occasionally and 3) spanked frequently. Over and over again, study after study over 50 years shows the people who were spanked engage in 13 of the 17 noted behaviors more frequently than those who were not spanked.

Science!

But again - is it THE SPANKING that is the cause of these behaviors later in life, or is it the underlying methods of parenting behind the vast majority of parents who are willing to or readily spank? I would wager my money on the latter over the former - and if I were right it would mean that parents ceasing to spank would do almost nothing to actually remedy the real problem.

 

[Demonslayer]

If researchers begin with an anti-spanking bias, this could creep into their results.

I suppose it could, but I mostly assume these studies have controls around things like that. This seems pretty straightforward...100 people who got spanked, 100 who didn't. How many of each do X, Y and Z bad thing?

Note:
While I'm anti-spanking I'm still skeptical of studies, particularly the more complex ones.
I note that one of the researchesrs is from UofM (my alma mater), which has been rife
with bias in many social science works.

That's the difference I guess, I'm not a skeptic at heart.

 

[Demonslayer]

But again - is it THE SPANKING that is the cause of these behaviors later in life, or is it the underlying methods of parenting behind the vast majority of parents who are willing to or readily spank?

I'd have to read more on the controls of the study. Normally good studies like that try to control other factors that could cloud the causality.

I would wager my money on the latter over the former

Why?

 

[Revoltingest]

I suppose it could, but I mostly assume these studies have controls around things like that. This seems pretty straightforward...100 people who got spanked, 100 who didn't. How many of each do X, Y and Z bad thing?

I would hope rather than assume so.
But even when assuming controls, I'd still allow for bias.

That's the difference I guess, I'm not a skeptic at heart.

I've gotten worse with time.....seen too many studies contradicted by later ones, & seen actual overt bias at times.

 

[Demonslayer]

I would hope rather than assume so.
But even when assuming controls, I'd still allow for bias.

Of course you can never guarantee bias is completely eliminated. They should reveal the research team and who among them are spankers vs. non-spanker hippie peacenik types.

I've gotten worse with time.....seen too many studies contradicted by later ones, & seen actual overt bias at times.

I haven't really evaluated studies since my days as a psych major in college so it's largely off my radar.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I suppose it could, but I mostly assume these studies have controls around things like that. This seems pretty straightforward...100 people who got spanked, 100 who didn't. How many of each do X, Y and Z bad thing?

To control for it you would, quite literally, have to comprise your samples of 100 and 100 of people tho had the same "sorts" of parents. "N" number of people in each sample whose parents who provided mediocre or sub-standard "love" for instance. But how exactly does one go about gauging something like that? Well... I don't think you can. Hence the conundrum I have with taking the results all that seriously. In selecting "non-spanking" parents, how do you know that by that criteria you didn't already bias the research in the ways I have described? With your "non-spanking" population being comprised of those who had "better" or more-loving parents BY DEFINITION, because the parents don't/didn't spank, it may point to their principles and character being held to a higher standard right off the bat. At that point you're not even comparing apples to oranges... you're comparing apples to rotten apples and saying "Oh my gosh! 95% of these rotten apples are rotten! We're geniuses!"