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

[Demonslayer]

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.

But what you're saying here is that no behavioral studies are possible because of variables. Of course this isn't true, valid studies can be done controlling as many variables as possible and using statistical significance to answer for the rest.

Statistical significance is a threshold of difference between the results of two groups. If there is a difference between two groups in a study that is under the significant threshold, the idea is that the difference could have been caused by other variables. If you're over the statistically significant threshold, the difference is considered too great to be caused just by other variables, and the tested variable is very likely at least in part the cause of the difference.

I mean we know smoking causes cancer. There are, of course, may other factors in whether or not a person develops cancer. Where you live, what your job is, how much you drink, your diet, family history, etc. There are lots of variables as you describe in the spanking study. But this doesn't mean we can't scientifically link smoking to cancer, we certainly can. The reason is when we compare smokers to non-smokers, the results are statistically significant which means the other factors could not have been the only reason for the results and that the tested factor (smoking) is most definitely in play.

That doesn't mean we won't see a smoker who never gets cancer or a non-smoker who does.

Still interested in the "why" questions I asked you. There has been a meta-study done over 50 years showing a link between spanking a statistically significant increase in 13 negative behaviors. You'd bet money against the study.

Why?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

But what you're saying here is that no behavioral studies are possible because of variables. Of course this isn't true, valid studies can be done controlling as many variables as possible and using statistical significance to answer for the rest.

Statistical significance is a threshold of difference between the results of two groups. If there is a difference between two groups in a study that is under the significant threshold, the idea is that the difference could have been caused by other variables. If you're over the statistically significant threshold, the difference is considered too great to be caused just by other variables, and the tested variable is very likely at least in part the cause of the difference.

I mean we know smoking causes cancer. There are, of course, may other factors in whether or not a person develops cancer. Where you live, what your job is, how much you drink, your diet, family history, etc. There are lots of variables as you describe in the spanking study. But this doesn't mean we can't scientifically link smoking to cancer, we certainly can. The reason is when we compare smokers to non-smokers, the results are statistically significant which means the other factors could not have been the only reason for the results and that the tested factor (smoking) is most definitely in play.

That doesn't mean we won't see a smoker who never gets cancer or a non-smoker who does.

Still interested in the "why" questions I asked you. There has been a meta-study done over 50 years showing a link between spanking a statistically significant increase in 13 negative behaviors. You'd bet money against the study.

Why?

The study will give the wrong advice, and the root of the problem will remain, guaranteed, that's why.
"Stop spanking." is, I believe, a completely incorrect, mis-aimed sentiment. A better one is this:

"N% of parents who decide to spank their children have been found to have some flaw in their parenting that causes their children to be a bane to society. Therefore, if you are considering/willing to spank your child, then we suggest re-thinking your entire parenting strategy, because it has been found with N% probability that you are about to do something wrong."

 

[Kilgore Trout]

"N% of parents who decide to spank their children have been found to have some flaw in their parenting that causes their children to be a bane to society. Therefore, if you are considering/willing to spank your child, then we suggest re-thinking your entire parenting strategy, because it has been found with N% probability that you are about to do something wrong."

Indeed, people who think to spank in the first place probably have a whole host of other things they are doing incorrectly.

 

[Demonslayer]

"N% of parents who decide to spank their children have been found to have some flaw in their parenting that causes their children to be a bane to society. Therefore, if you are considering/willing to spank your child, then we suggest re-thinking your entire parenting strategy, because it has been found with N% probability that you are about to do something wrong."

So you just jumped to the conclusion of the study with none of the pesky research and statistics?

I supposed I don't have to tell you your conclusion is infinitely less valid without the research to back it up.

What brings you to this conclusion?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So you just jumped to the conclusion of the study with none of the pesky research and statistics?

I supposed I don't have to tell you your conclusion is infinitely less valid without the research to back it up.

What brings you to this conclusion?

Let me ask you this... do you seriously think that spanking itself CAUSES bad behavior?

 

[Demonslayer]

Indeed, people who think to spank in the first place probably have a whole host of other things they are doing incorrectly.

That may or may not be true, but this points to the other post that Mote made about other variables. It is likely the study put some controls around things like making sure all the spankers weren't also drug users, etc. I haven't reviewed the controls but most studies have them and try to ensure there are as few extraneous variables as possible.

To go back to the smoker example, people who smoke may also have other poor health habits like lack of exercise, poor diet, etc. This doesn't mean we can't show a causal relationship between smoking and cancer, however.

What it also means is that a decent study searching for a link between smoking and cancer would very likely make sure that the people in the smoking group and the people in the non-smoking group had similar heath habits outside of smoking. So they wouldn't use a group of 100 obese, sedentary smokers and 100 fit, active non-smokers. They would try to line up the other variables to be as similar as possible between the two groups so that smoking was the major health difference.

I haven't reviewed the controls of the study(s) but my guess is you're not going to find that they used (example) 100 drug using, bi-polar, convicted felon spankers and compare them to 100 sober, well-adjusted, non-criminal non-spankers.

If they did, of course the study would be flawed, but it doesn't normally work this way.

 

[Demonslayer]

Let me ask you this... do you seriously think that spanking itself CAUSES bad behavior?

I'd prefer that you answer my "why" and "what brings you to this conclusion" questions before I answer yours, just out of common courtesy, but I'm an easy going fella so I won't insist on it.

The answer is yes, I believe physical violence from a parent to a child can cause behavioral issues down the road for that child, absolutely. I don't believe it's all the time, certainly. Plenty of people who smoke don't get lung cancer and plenty of people who do smoke don't. Just like plenty of kids who were spanked don't exhibit behavioral problems and plenty of kids who were not spanked do.

But on average, yes, I believe parents who show violent tendencies of any sort...spanking, excess yelling, fighting etc...tend to produce children who have a greater tendency to exhibit similar behaviors. I believe the greater the level and frequency, the greater the change of a negative effect. It's not revolutionary thinking.

I mean we accept this about dogs right? We're not supposed to hit puppies in certain ways, never with your open hand, etc, as we train them, or they grow up with behavioral problems. You don't suppose the same is true about raising a small child?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I find it funny all this talk about spanking detrimental to the children as if it is the worse thing a parent can do.

My father spanked my mother used psychological torture. When I went to therapy all we talked about was my mother. Parents do far worse but spanking is what we need to stop. We need to teach parents proper methods of raising children not just tell them you are bad and may go to jail because you spank. Don't tell me time outs and the other physiological babble works because either you need a phd to do it properly or it fails miserably for most parents, which end up with unruly children. Lastly mother nature has no problem using physical punishment to teach you a lesson, nor the government in basic training and prison. So you are not preparing you children for the realities of the world by not spanking.

I always find this to be a strange argument. What real world scenario are kids being prepped for when you spank them? Your boss or your co-workers don't spank you if you mess up at work. The IRS doesn't come spank you if you don't pay your taxes. And in fact, if you spank or hit someone as an adult, it's considered a crime. So I don't get what spanking is supposed to be preparing kids for.

 

[Demonslayer]

So I don't get what spanking is supposed to be preparing kids for.

S&M parties?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm not sure why people tend to assume that spankings are generally just on the butt or the hand, with a hand. In many communities, using a belt, a switch (you ever hear of having to go outside and cut your own switch?), cords, shoes, etc., putting hot sauce on the tongue for cussing and such are encouraged and used widely. I was beaten with belts, cords and shoes as a kid. I was slapped in the face and got a nosebleed from it, too. I used to have to listen to the crying and screaming of the kids next door, coming from the room next to my bedroom. I deeply regret not reporting it.

That's a big thing in poorer communities, but not only. There was a family court judge in Texas who beat the hell out of his daughter with a belt and that was caught on tape. He didn't even get in trouble, besides a short suspension that was lifted and he returned to the bench. I've seen parents wailing on their kids in public and no one says anything. I've seen them cussing at their kids and yelling. No one says anything. No cops are called. It used to be a tradition to whack kids with a paddle at schools. This is a very common thing. I listen to older folks talking about how if we just beat kids, it will solve all of our problems. These things are very acceptable in society. From what I know, spankings are usually not some controlled, cool thing. They're done in anger and frustration. The extreme end of it is when the kids are badly injured or die from their parent's corporal punishment and torture. The psychology of it is ultimately the same or similar, but people only take notice when is hospitalized or dead from it.

Yes, this goes on every day in countless homes across America from, young children to teens (I was getting my beatings from when I was about 5 and even younger than that), and no one does anything about it:

Spoiler: Warning: Graphic footage

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

It is awefully strange, as has been pointed out, that studies, research, and those who have devoted their lives to studying human behavior (and cause and effect) have consistently condemned spanking; yet there are so many stubborn people who cling to that ghastly tradition.

So, you have never ran out in front of a car? You claim that is because Daddy spanked you for it? What; the sheer terror in his face wasn't enough to get through your head that you don't do that? The sense of urgency, his fear, his displeasure wasn't enough? Are you seriously going to tell me that the only way to break you of the behavior of running out in front of cars was to get a whipping? And if that wasn't the case, you'd still be doing that today; or dead? Really?

We condemn the striking of animals as-doing more harm than good or label it as outright cruelty; then in the same breath, defend striking children. There is something very odd about that.

 

[bobhikes]

I always find this to be a strange argument. What real world scenario are kids being prepped for when you spank them? Your boss or your co-workers don't spank you if you mess up at work. The IRS doesn't come spank you if you don't pay your taxes. And in fact, if you spank or hit someone as an adult, it's considered a crime. So I don't get what spanking is supposed to be preparing kids for.

Its also a crime if you steal and get caught you go to jail
Its also a crime if you get caught doing drugs you go to jail
In fact we lock up so many young adults for not doing any thing serious that our jails are over populated.

If a slap on the hand is required to keep my son out of jail, I'm all for it. In fact if a person steals I could see giving them a physical punishment as more humane then locking them up in jail for years.

Or if a person knocks you out rather than lock them up for years give them a physical punishment as well or at least the option to take a physical punishment over jail time.


Here's the deal, I read the paper and several books and articles on raising kids. I have my method which I do with understanding, compassion and love. You have no right to dictate to me what is right or wrong. I am open to suggestions always but I will not be bullied. Which is what everyone in this thread against corporal punishment is doing.

There are no conclusive facts in the paper's work. There is no comparison to any other method of child rearing and there are no suggestions for proper child rearing. It is not even a new study, it is a method of looking at old studies that weren't conclusive.

 

[Demonslayer]

I'm not sure why people tend to assume that spankings are generally just on the butt or the hand, with a hand

I agree in general, but in this case the study seems to say they ruled about "abuse" and "beating." You can argue about what those terms entail, but I think for the most part this study focused on light spanking and intentionally did not include heavier beating with switches or shoes or anything like that.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Here's the deal, I read the paper and several books and articles on raising kids. I have my method which I do with understanding, compassion and love. You have no right to dictate to me what is right or wrong. I am open to suggestions always but I will not be bullied. Which is what everyone in this thread against corporal punishment is doing.

I am troubled by this.

1. Attempting to convince you to consider other options is not "bullying". May as well lose the persecution complex.
2. There is no compassion or love involved in inflicting physical pain; or causing a fellow human being to feel threatened and afraid. Even as atheist, I find this to be the best definition of "love" there is: "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres." Now; how can one inflict physical pain on another and call it "love"!?
3. "You have no right to dictate to me what is right or wrong". To what degree do you really hold this to be true? If I chose withholding food for 3 days from my child as punishment over spanking, would you hold to that same ideal? Or if my "spanking" crossed the boundaries you have set to beating, would you look the other way and allow that child to suffer? How about a pedophile who would say, "I'm born this way, I'm not hurting that child; I'm making that child feel good and giving them love, and you have no right to tell me what is right or wrong."
4. Many before you have said "I have my method with I do with understanding, compassion and love" then later learned that what they were doing didn't work or caused more harm than good. More than one, in this forum, have stated they were former spankers than learned that it didn't work; and stopped. You say that you are "open to suggestions". Part of being "open to discussions" is accepting, with humility, that you are possibly wrong. That's tough; I get that; but until you are open to the possibility that you may be wrong, then you are not truly "open to suggestions".
5. There are alternatives to spanking.

 

[bobhikes]

I am troubled by this.

1. Attempting to convince you to consider other options is not "bullying". May as well lose the persecution complex.
2. There is no compassion or love involved in inflicting physical pain; or causing a fellow human being to feel threatened and afraid. Even as atheist, I find this to be the best definition of "love" there is: "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres." Now; how can one inflict physical pain on another and call it "love"!?
3. "You have no right to dictate to me what is right or wrong". To what degree do you really hold this to be true? If I chose withholding food for 3 days from my child as punishment over spanking, would you hold to that same ideal? Or if my "spanking" crossed the boundaries you have set to beating, would you look the other way and allow that child to suffer? How about a pedophile who would say, "I'm born this way, I'm not hurting that child; I'm making that child feel good and giving them love, and you have no right to tell me what is right or wrong."
4. Many before you have said "I have my method with I do with understanding, compassion and love" then later learned that what they were doing didn't work or caused more harm than good. More than one, in this forum, have stated they were former spankers than learned that it didn't work; and stopped. You say that you are "open to suggestions". Part of being "open to discussions" is accepting, with humility, that you are possibly wrong. That's tough; I get that; but until you are open to the possibility that you may be wrong, then you are not truly "open to suggestions".
5. There are alternatives to spanking.

What do you call someone who butts in an offers an unsolicited opinion condemning the person not asking them.

Here's the number 1 alternative practiced currently from a Time article

So what about time-outs? In most cases, the primary experience a time-out offers a child is isolation. Even when presented in a patient and loving manner, time-outs teach them that when they make a mistake, or when they are having a hard time, they will be forced to be by themselves—a lesson that is often experienced, particularly by young children, as rejection. Further, it communicates to kids, “I’m only interested in being with you and being there for you when you’ve got it all together.”

The problem is, children have a profound need for connection. Decades of research in attachment demonstrate that particularly in times of distress, we need to be near and be soothed by the people who care for us. But when children lose emotional control, parents often put them in their room or by themselves in the “naughty chair,” meaning that in this moment of emotional distress they have to suffer alone.

http://time.com/3404701/discipline-time-out-is-not-good/

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What do you call someone who butts in an offers an unsolicited opinion condemning the person not asking them.

Here's the number 1 alternative practiced currently from a Time article

So what about time-outs? In most cases, the primary experience a time-out offers a child is isolation. Even when presented in a patient and loving manner, time-outs teach them that when they make a mistake, or when they are having a hard time, they will be forced to be by themselves—a lesson that is often experienced, particularly by young children, as rejection. Further, it communicates to kids, “I’m only interested in being with you and being there for you when you’ve got it all together.”

The problem is, children have a profound need for connection. Decades of research in attachment demonstrate that particularly in times of distress, we need to be near and be soothed by the people who care for us. But when children lose emotional control, parents often put them in their room or by themselves in the “naughty chair,” meaning that in this moment of emotional distress they have to suffer alone.

http://time.com/3404701/discipline-time-out-is-not-good/

Indeed, time-outs are no better than threats, violence, or intimidation when it comes to compassionate guidance and shaping.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Its also a crime if you steal and get caught you go to jail
Its also a crime if you get caught doing drugs you go to jail
In fact we lock up so many young adults for not doing any thing serious that our jails are over populated.

If a slap on the hand is required to keep my son out of jail, I'm all for it. In fact if a person steals I could see giving them a physical punishment as more humane then locking them up in jail for years.

Or if a person knocks you out rather than lock them up for years give them a physical punishment as well or at least the option to take a physical punishment over jail time.


Here's the deal, I read the paper and several books and articles on raising kids. I have my method which I do with understanding, compassion and love. You have no right to dictate to me what is right or wrong. I am open to suggestions always but I will not be bullied. Which is what everyone in this thread against corporal punishment is doing.

There are no conclusive facts in the paper's work. There is no comparison to any other method of child rearing and there are no suggestions for proper child rearing. It is not even a new study, it is a method of looking at old studies that weren't conclusive.

I'm not sure how your response addresses my point at all.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

What do you call someone who butts in an offers an unsolicited opinion condemning the person not asking them.

Participating in internet forums which are open to the public is soliciting opinions. That is the nature of what we are doing; for what we express in an open forum is open to criticism. You have solicited my opinion by your action of participation.

So what about time-outs? In most cases, the primary experience a time-out offers a child is isolation. Even when presented in a patient and loving manner, time-outs teach them that when they make a mistake, or when they are having a hard time, they will be forced to be by themselves—a lesson that is often experienced, particularly by young children, as rejection. Further, it communicates to kids, “I’m only interested in being with you and being there for you when you’ve got it all together.”

The problem is, children have a profound need for connection. Decades of research in attachment demonstrate that particularly in times of distress, we need to be near and be soothed by the people who care for us. But when children lose emotional control, parents often put them in their room or by themselves in the “naughty chair,” meaning that in this moment of emotional distress they have to suffer alone.

This is a very valid point. Why not seek a method by which to make amends? Show them why it's wrong? Were they misbehaving at a grocery store? Chastise them kindly with words and give them something constructive to do. "This is a grocery store. This is a place for adults to shop; so if you are going to come here, you must act like an adult.." Then engage them in the activity; by including them in what's going on, we don't reject them and we correct the behavior. Did they hurt a child's feelings? Explain to them why that hurt the other child's feelings; help them empathize; then have them create a card or letter or gift to offer amends ... and help them do it. Out of options? No need to jump to spanking or timeouts just because you are out of ideas; seek out others who have experienced similar issues and ask. Especially in dealing with children, methods of correcting undesired behavior is limited only by your resourcefulness and imagination. I encourage you to not make this a "us vs you" or "either/or" discussion.

 

[bobhikes]

I'm not sure how your response addresses my point at all.

Perhaps we should spank adults or give some form of corporal punishment instead of locking them up in Jail. You really didn't get that?

 

[bobhikes]

Participating in internet forums which are open to the public is soliciting opinions. That is the nature of what we are doing; for what we express in an open forum is open to criticism. You have solicited my opinion by your action of participation.



This is a very valid point. Why not seek a method by which to make amends? Show them why it's wrong? Were they misbehaving at a grocery store? Chastise them kindly with words and give them something constructive to do. "This is a grocery store. This is a place for adults to shop; so if you are going to come here, you must act like an adult.." Then engage them in the activity; by including them in what's going on, we don't reject them and we correct the behavior. Did they hurt a child's feelings? Explain to them why that hurt the other child's feelings; help them empathize; then have them create a card or letter or gift to offer amends ... and help them do it. Out of options? No need to jump to spanking or timeouts just because you are out of ideas; seek out others who have experienced similar issues and ask. Especially in dealing with children, methods of correcting undesired behavior is limited only by your resourcefulness and imagination. I encourage you to not make this a "us vs you" or "either/or" discussion.

It is you/me because I am open to suggestions, I read articles, and I know my children. You every one that engages me in this thread is not open to any form of corporal punishment period. You have not done your investigation properly. You only look at articles that support your claim. You reject any article that says there is any benefit. Even in the study if you read it there was one study that showed positive results but it didn't meet there criteria so it was not included.

Don't ask me to produce articles just google it because any article I produce your just going to say "not a valid source", "that author is slanted" or "that study is flawed", "that study is not large enough" and I'm not going to win because you and the others are not open to corporal punishment being used validly.