"Spanking babies is surprisingly common, U.S. study finds"

[DeepShadow]

Shouldn't research be done into the reasons why people smack their kids, and address that?

Yes, these are great things to research. Fortunately, there is actually a lot of research on that.

This is something that little effort seems to be put into.

I think what you meant to say is that little media/public attention seems to focus on it. Cuz there's a TON of research.

People don't rationalize when angry, and people don't frequently know any other way than with aggression.

Agreed. Moreover, they tend to rationalize after the fact to justify their actions. All this is done subconsciously, so that the reasoning becomes the slave of the emotions.

Parenting classes should be compulsory.

Amen! Whoa, for a minute there, I thought I was in church. :angel2:

What else are some people going to do if they don't know any different?

The research agrees with you. Lack of education, cultural approval for spanking and poor parental models are all major factors in spanking and child abuse.

Simply shaming it and calling it disgusting just means that people will be ashamed to admit it: it will still happen, and nothing will be done about it because it will be an ignored subject that people can't bring up, which means cases of abuse can, and probably will, increase.

I turn parts of my Human Growth and Development classes into parenting classes, and this is exactly what I talk to them about: we've got to stop demonizing the abusers. Too often, they are good people who are stressed out and have few good role models, little to no social support. They are scared, stressed and trapped. And when the snap, all society does is label them a monster and try to put them away as long as possible.

This is something people in this thread are overlooking.

I'm not sure who you are talking about here, but when I said there was "no excuse," I was speaking about society's responsibility--hence the word "we." When I said they needed better skills, I was talking about education.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Thanks, dawny.

You raise another good point; what is defined as spanking can vary between people's interpretations, and it seems to be a very fine line between discipline and outright abuse, but it's not something they are aware of at the time.

As I donate some free time to assisting in a local school's management in an economically deprived area, I've known of some cases where forms of alternative (i.e., non-corporal) forms of discipline that have been downright cruel. One of them was '(under)pants-down in the corner time'. Another one I've known is what the mother called 'feisty go hungry': if her son was naughty, she'd not give him anything to eat for 24 hours. I **** you not.

Surprisingly, it was considered by both mothers to not be abusive, because smacking was abuse, and this wasn't.

Good points. I feel the crux of it all is where exactly that line lies that defines real abuse from beneficial discipline. Personally imo, it's not the method as much as the extremes some people use on thier childern. Physical or not.

 

[DeepShadow]

It's not conclusive. The debate is not over on the issue.

Actually, it IS conclusive that punishment (of any kind) is the least effective way to shape behavior. That's been confirmed by every study in behaviorism, in humans or animals.

The only debate is to whether spanking (as swatting, not beating) is actually harmful to the child. Grossly ineffective, yes. Harmful, we're not sure.

Most recommend alternatives, but not every Psychologist agrees like Psychologist Robert E. Larzelere of Oklahoma State University, as to whither spanking should be discouraged or encouraged until more research is conducted and conclusions are better determined.

Should Parents Spank Their Kids? - Scientific American

He's not saying what you think he's saying. He's arguing against a total ban, citing studies that show--as I said above--that all forms of punishment have negative consequences.

In the meantime I see nothing admiss with corporal punishment used in a controlled manner that disciplines without real harm.

Do you deny that there are more effective ways to shape behavior than punishment?

We are an obsessed and overprotective generation, and the society we produce will be telling through reluctance of using moderate physical disciplinary measures. Loving parents can spank and not hurt childern as many have done in the past.

You are speaking as if the only forms of harm were physical. Why?

I don't know how old you are, but corporal punishment was commonplace and even accepted in child rearing and offers a healthy physical venue in learning about physical consequences for your actions.

Lots of things were accepted in the past, that we then discovered did not work effectively. Arguing "my grandparents turned out just fine" is just as good an argument for racial segregation, y'know.

Better a spanking early on, and learn that real tangible consequences actually exist now rather than a tazing and beating by police later on.

Either/or fallacy. Of course the former is better than the latter, but an authoritative parenting style is better than either.

It's not ignorance to see that we still are a society based upon usage of physical force where initial lessons are implemented early on to instill that.

Ummmmm...that argument does not work in your favor. Really.

But you can and feel free to expose my continued ignorance on the matter if you wish.

...Okay, I will.

 

[DeepShadow]

As I donate some free time to assisting in a local school's management in an economically deprived area, I've known of some cases where forms of alternative (i.e., non-corporal) forms of discipline that have been downright cruel.

And this is why I prefer to speak of the perils of "punishment" rather than "spanking." The problem is not spanking. It's the over-used of punishment, especially what behaviorists call "positive punishment": spanking, lecture, yelling, shaming, etc. The withholding of food would be negative punishment, which obviously can be just as bad. Punishments are not the only tools we have. We have positive and negative reinforcement, social learning, natural consequences and (when the child is able to reason) cognitive learning. The more we use these tools, the less any kind of punishment is necessary.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

The same hands that parents use to lovingly feed, clothe and bathe their babies are also commonly used to spank their bundles of joy. A new study found that 30 percent of 1-year-old children were spanked at least once in the past month by their mother, father or both parents. A long-time topic of debate, spanking children is a common practice among U.S. parents.

A long-time topic of debate, spanking children is a common practice among U.S. parents. Previous research has focused on disciplining children as young as age 3, in part, because spanking is common among children of this age. Studies have shown that spanking is related to children's greater aggression, depression and other negative behavior.

But the latest findings show that spanking is used on children who are so young that, in some cases, they haven't even taken their first step.
source

​

Thoughts?

Sounds similar to the Gary Ezzo "Babywise" style of parenting. Parents are advised to keep babies on the most strict schedule of feeding, are taught to respond to pain from the earliest of ages (they start with pinching the infant's skin) to learn right from wrong, and little to no physical affection outside of "blanket time" - where the baby is set on a blanket apart from the parents.

The goal is to teach the infant who is in charge. This is likely to be the goal behind spanking a baby who hasn't even walked yet.

I once as a kid visited a friend of a friend who had an infant son. She carried him outside and set him down on the ground, then proceeded to grab a stick non-chalantly. He was just a toddler. While we were all outside, he went to find some rocks and began throwing them at us. She then hit him on his arm, hand, and back every time he'd throw rocks at us. He'd scream and cry every time, and she'd say calmly to him "Well, don't throw rocks."

Then she'd look at everyone else exasperated and say, "He does this all the time. He'll catch on sooner or later. My mama did the same for all of us."

It was surreal.

 

[LuisDantas]

I just can't conceive of any situation where corporal punishment from parents is to be tolerated.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Actually, it IS conclusive that punishment (of any kind) is the least effective way to shape behavior. That's been confirmed by every study in behaviorism, in humans or animals.

No, it isn't conclusive.

The only debate is to whether spanking (as swatting, not beating) is actually harmful to the child. Grossly ineffective, yes. Harmful, we're not sure.

I don't see it as harmful. No one died from a firm but light swat to the bottom. At least not to my knowledge.

He's not saying what you think he's saying. He's arguing against a total ban, citing studies that show--as I said above--that all forms of punishment have negative consequences.

You cannot live in a stable society without some form of correction. Like it or not, we live in a society where you literally get hit or even worse for non compliance of it's rules and laws. Omitting some form of physical discipline early on to demonstrate the reality of life might circumvent some harsh lessons later on.

Do you deny that there are more effective ways to shape behavior than punishment?

It depends upon circumstances. There are various means to an end depending upon what needs to be accomplished. Sometimes reasoning yet sometimes something more tangible proves effective.

You are speaking as if the only forms of harm were physical. Why?

That was never implied on my part. Of course harm can arise through means other than physical venues. The focus here centered on the issue of spanking which imo needs to be implemented while keeping in mind the mental well being of the child. Im not talking blind unfettered rage on part of the parent here. That would be a different matter.

Lots of things were accepted in the past, that we then discovered did not work effectively. Arguing "my grandparents turned out just fine" is just as good an argument for racial segregation, y'know.

That would remain the opinion of others as to whither society is improved as a result over time. Racial segregation is something I see no correlation here in your analogy. That's a strawman argument.

Ummmmm...that argument does not work in your favor. Really.



...Okay, I will.

I beg to differ, but I had my say on the subject. While I am aware of other venues, I do see a place for corporal punishment for more reasons than the immediate situation. To void out it's use as a means of discipline is a mistake imo. How are childern who never experienced some form of physical correction, will be able to handle a society that is hell bent on physical force in controlling it's adults? I just don't think that's healthy in the real world for someone who's used to time outs and alternative means of discipline to face the harsh reality in later life that it's not the case.

 

[Skwim]

That's terrible. With all the other tools we have available, there is just no excuse. These parents need to learn better parenting skills.

So, then the Bible is wrong when it says

Proverbs 13:24 (NIV)
Whoever spares the rod hates their children,
but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.
​

?

Actually, it IS conclusive that punishment (of any kind) is the least effective way to shape behavior. That's been confirmed by every study in behaviorism, in humans or animals.

Don't know what hat you pulled this one out of, but it's no such thing.

The only debate is to whether spanking (as swatting, not beating) is actually harmful to the child. Grossly ineffective, yes. Harmful, we're not sure.

"Grossly ineffective!"

all forms of punishment have negative consequences.

Now I know you're making these things up on the fly.

Ta ta.

 

[DeepShadow]

No, it isn't conclusive.

Based on what? The conclusions of decades of behavioral science have gone into textbooks. Inconclusive things don't make it into textbooks. What do these textbooks say about punishment? Here, have a look:

The Science of Psychology, Chapter 5 slides

The second slide has a question, 5.11: How does punishment affect behavior? Click on that question, and the next five slides will summarize what scientists know about punishment.

I don't see it as harmful. No one died from a firm but light swat to the bottom. At least not to my knowledge.

There you go again: no one "died." You continue to focus on physical consequences, rather than psychological ones. The third slide lists negative consequences such as fear, anger and hostility. In addition, it points out that it DOES NOT WORK for what most parents use it for.

You cannot live in a stable society without some form of correction. Like it or not, we live in a society where you literally get hit or even worse for non compliance of it's rules and laws.

No one is arguing otherwise. First, I'm talking about punishment, not correction. There are many ways to correct without punishment. Second, I have not argued that punishment is totally ineffective. I've said that it is the LEAST EFFECTIVE way to shape behavior. Slide 5 lists ways to make punishment more effective. When those are used, along with alternatives to punishment, you can have your "stable society."

Omitting some form of physical discipline early on to demonstrate the reality of life might circumvent some harsh lessons later on.

"Might"? Are you speculating? You have any data to back that up? By "data," I mean facts that are objective, verifiable and measurable. Your life experience is not data. :no:

It depends upon circumstances. There are various means to an end depending upon what needs to be accomplished. Sometimes reasoning yet sometimes something more tangible proves effective.

Where has anyone argued otherwise?!

That was never implied on my part. Of course harm can arise through means other than physical venues.

Read what I said again. I wasn't talking about other SOURCES of harm beyond the physical. I was talking about TYPES of harm other than the physical. That a spanking does not cause lasting physical damage is irrelevant if it causes lasting psychological damage.

I beg to differ, but I had my say on the subject. While I am aware of other venues, I do see a place for corporal punishment for more reasons than the immediate situation. To void out it's use as a means of discipline is a mistake imo.

I don't see anything to support you other than your opinion. See above re: data.

How are childern who never experienced some form of physical correction, will be able to handle a society that is hell bent on physical force in controlling it's adults?

Now THAT sounds like a good subject for research! (Hint: it's been done, and they do just fine.:yes

I just don't think that's healthy in the real world for someone who's used to time outs and alternative means of discipline to face the harsh reality in later life that it's not the case.

Well, part of the issue here is that children don't reason the way adults do. There's a reason these childhood discipline methods are very similar to how we train animals. Once the brain is fully developed, reason can take over, and the adult doesn't need the same practices that were employed on the child.

 

[DeepShadow]

So, then the Bible is wrong when it says

Proverbs 13:24 (NIV)
Whoever spares the rod hates their children,
but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.
​

?

Ummm...no, it's not. "Punishment" is not the same as "discipline." Discipline is very important in good parenting. Punishment is a last resort in good parenting.

Don't know what hat you pulled this one out of, but it's no such thing.

The "hat" is a gen psych textbook. See the link above.

"Grossly ineffective!"

From the slideshow: "Generally, punishment DOES NOT help people develop more appropriate behaviors..." If "grossly ineffective" is not a good way to summarize that something "DOES NOT [work]," then what is?

Now I know you're making these things up on the fly.

Again, check out the links. I try to stick to the science when science is available. Also, the point you were replying to (that all forms of punishment have negative consequences) was not mine, but was a paraphrase from the SciAm article: "In the few studies that have compared spanking with other forms of punishment, such as restriction of privileges, grounding and time-outs, all the punitive measures examined resulted in similarly negative outcomes..."

Did I paraphrase it wrong?

 

[Skwim]

Ummm...no, it's not. "Punishment" is not the same as "discipline." Discipline is very important in good parenting. Punishment is a last resort in good parenting.

To put a better focus on the issue, I repeat with emphasis.

So, then the Bible is wrong when it says

Proverbs 13:24 (NIV)
Whoever spares the rod hates their children,
​

?
You do understand, don't you, that "the rod" refers to corporeal punishment. And your quibbling over the distinction between punishment and discipline here is one without a difference. Punishment in this case is a form of discipline.

And from a Christian website re. the passage.

"Some people believe in discipline, but not in physical discipline such as spanking. However, the Bible is the final word on what is truth; it is not mere opinion or theory. The word “rod” indicates a thin stick or switch that can be used to give a small amount of physical pain with no lasting physical injury."
source

​

The "hat" is a gen psych textbook. See the link above.

Looked it over and didn't see a thing that supported your claim that

"it IS conclusive that punishment (of any kind) is the least effective way to shape behavior. That's been confirmed by every study in behaviorism, in humans or animals."
​

From the slideshow: "Generally, punishment DOES NOT help people develop more appropriate behaviors..." If "grossly ineffective" is not a good way to summarize that something "DOES NOT [work]," then what is?

The issue is spanking children, which you said was grossly ineffective, No where does your source indicate anything of the sort. Your hyperbole is getting in the way of responsible communication.

Again, check out the links. I try to stick to the science when science is available.

Which is good; however, one daisy does not a spring make. When you make irresponsible claims such as

"That's been confirmed by every study in behaviorism, in humans or animals."
​

it blows your credibility to pieces because none of is so simpleminded as to believe you've seen every study or have even read such a thing, or have even come close to doing so.

 

[DeepShadow]

To put a better focus on the issue, I repeat with emphasis.

So, then the Bible is wrong when it says

Proverbs 13:24 (NIV)
Whoever spares the rod hates their children,
​

?
You do understand, don't you, that "the rod" refers to corporeal punishment. And your quibbling over the distinction between punishment and discipline here is one without a difference. Punishment in this case is a form of discipline.

How do you know that the "rod" refers to corporal punishment? My sources say it refers to a shepherd's crook. How does a shepherd use a crook? Using it to strike the sheep would lead to them running away from the shepherd. Using it to block the sheep from straying will lead to them staying close to the shepherd. The rod, in this case, refers to boundaries. Not establishing boundaries will spoil a child. Hey, guess what modern science has confirmed? Too few boundaries is a hallmark of "permissive parenting style," and it leads to spoiled kids.:yes:

And from a Christian website re. the passage.

"Some people believe in discipline, but not in physical discipline such as spanking. However, the Bible is the final word on what is truth; it is not mere opinion or theory. The word “rod” indicates a thin stick or switch that can be used to give a small amount of physical pain with no lasting physical injury."
source​

The fact that many Christians misunderstand this passage is irrelevant. My Strong's Concordance says that the Hebrew word used here (shebet) can also mean a staff for walking, or a scepter, which is mostly symbolic. Therefore, I see no reason why their interpretation of the passage is superior to mine.

Looked it over and didn't see a thing that supported your claim that "it IS conclusive that punishment (of any kind) is the least effective way to shape behavior. That's been confirmed by every study in behaviorism, in humans or animals."

It says punishment does not promote good behavior. It says that punishment has negative consequences. Such caveats do not exist for any other method of shaping behavior. What's missing?

The issue is spanking children, which you said was grossly ineffective, No where does your source indicate anything of the sort. Your hyperbole is getting in the way of responsible communication.

Spanking is a form of punishment. Punishment (in general) is grossly ineffective, ergo spanking is grossly ineffective. How is that hyperbole?

When you make irresponsible claims such as

"That's been confirmed by every study in behaviorism, in humans or animals."
​

it blows your credibility to pieces because none of is so simpleminded as to believe you've seen every study or have even read such a thing, or have even come close to doing so.

Ah, so THIS is the problem! This is the part you are calling hyperbole, yes?

First, the books I refer to don't include things that are still being hammered out. These are entry-level psych books. Some things may be incorrect--there's a reason they update the books every few years--but nothing makes it into these books without a couple decades of peer review.

Second, the point in question is more solidly grounded than many others in the textbook. B.F. Skinner established the basic weaknesses of punishment in the 1940's, and he ruffled a lot of feathers doing so. Many scientists tried to poke holes in this part of his theory for the next few decades, and they all generally failed. In the process, those other scientists gave us the list of "punishment is more effective if...," but in the process, they ended up confirming the larger rule, that punishment is just not as effective as other methods. Skinner himself considered it so ineffective with animals that he stopped using it completely. To this day, behaviorists prefer any other method over punishment.

So, I don't need to see every study. The claim was established by one of the big players, and no one has overturned it since, despite the fact that many have tried. Those who tried and failed have contributed to the strength of the original claim. I stay current enough on the science that I think I'd hear if this claim was overturned. It would be BIG news in behaviorist circles.​

 

[Parsimony]

What would you spank an infant for? Crying? Peeing their diaper? That's what babies do. I doubt they are even old enough to understand the association between their actions and punishment.

 

[LuisDantas]

What would you spank an infant for? Crying? Peeing their diaper? That's what babies do. I doubt they are even old enough to understand the association between their actions and punishment.

Worse yet, they will try anyway. Children are far more vulnerable than the popularity of spanking would lead one to believe.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What would you spank an infant for? Crying? Peeing their diaper? That's what babies do. I doubt they are even old enough to understand the association between their actions and punishment.

I agree with that. That would be way too early. There is no real reason to spank an infant at all.

 

[DeepShadow]

it blows your credibility to pieces because none of is so simpleminded as to believe you've seen every study or have even read such a thing, or have even come close to doing so.

If I had said that the theory of evolution was confirmed by every study in biology, would that destroy my credibility? Because it's actually a very similar scenario. This claim--that punishment is less effective than any other method--is a critical feature of Skinner's theory of operant conditioning. Both theories were controversial in their times, which led to lots of critical review, lots of predictions, lots of attempts to prove them wrong. All these attempts eventually failed, in both cases.

The biggest difference between the two appears to be time--evolution came out about a century before operant conditioning, and therefore has had more time to gather evidentiary support. However, operant conditioning was reproducible in a lab, and therefore more support could be gathered in the shorter amount of time.

Science is cumulative--current scientific claims stand on the shoulders of generations of review. I know that every discovery in biology since Darwin has supported his theory, since if any didn't, it would be big news. Likewise, I know that every study since Skinner has supported his theory, since that would also be big news if it were discredited. That's why I stand by my claim that every study in behaviorism since Skinner has supported this claim, that punishment (including spanking) is less effective than any other method.

 

[Skwim]

How do you know that the "rod" refers to corporal punishment? My sources say it refers to a shepherd's crook. How does a shepherd use a crook? Using it to strike the sheep would lead to them running away from the shepherd. Using it to block the sheep from straying will lead to them staying close to the shepherd. The rod, in this case, refers to boundaries. Not establishing boundaries will spoil a child. Hey, guess what modern science has confirmed? Too few boundaries is a hallmark of "permissive parenting style," and it leads to spoiled kids.:yes:

Strong's, your source, doesn't say a thing about boundaries in reference to "shebet."

Strongs says H7626 - shebet שֵׁבֶט

rod, staff, branch, offshoot, club, sceptre, tribe

rod, staff

shaft (of spear, dart)

club (of shepherd's implement)

truncheon, sce
​

Poor try :cover:

The fact that many Christians misunderstand this passage is irrelevant. My Strong's Concordance says that the Hebrew word used here (shebet) can also mean a staff for walking, or a scepter, which is mostly symbolic. Therefore, I see no reason why their interpretation of the passage is superior to mine.

Because as an exegeical scholar well versed Biblical hermeneutics why would you.

It says punishment does not promote good behavior. It says that punishment has negative consequences. Such caveats do not exist for any other method of shaping behavior. What's missing?

:sleep: This isn't worth my time or my effort.

 

[DeepShadow]

Strong's, your source, doesn't say a thing about boundaries in reference to "shebet."

Strongs says H7626 - shebet שֵׁבֶט

rod, staff, branch, offshoot, club, sceptre, tribe

rod, staff

shaft (of spear, dart)

club (of shepherd's implement)

truncheon, sce​

It says "shepherd's implement." Again, how does a shepherd use his implement? Does he beat the sheep with it? The word "boundaries" was my own word for how a shepherd keeps sheep close.

Because as an exegeical scholar well versed Biblical hermeneutics why would you.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. They have their interpretation. I have mine. I know that my interpretation is shared by many other Christians; I don't know how many. Christians taught me my interpretation of this verse, so I know this isn't just me making crap up, if that's what you mean.

:sleep: This isn't worth my time or my effort.

That's too bad. I find it disappointing that someone would accept science in one debate (creation vs. evolution) but reject it in another. How do you choose when to reject a scientific claim? This isn't one scientist, after all--your "one daisy" comment suggests you think this is a lone scientist. This claim is a pillar of operant conditioning theory, and has been supported by many, many experiments over the course of decades.​

 

[Skwim]

It says "shepherd's implement." Again, how does a shepherd use his implement? Does he beat the sheep with it? The word "boundaries" was my own word for how a shepherd keeps sheep close.



I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. They have their interpretation. I have mine. I know that my interpretation is shared by many other Christians; I don't know how many. Christians taught me my interpretation of this verse, so I know this isn't just me making crap up, if that's what you mean.



That's too bad. I find it disappointing that someone would accept science in one debate (creation vs. evolution) but reject it in another. How do you choose when to reject a scientific claim? This isn't one scientist, after all--your "one daisy" comment suggests you think this is a lone scientist. This claim is a pillar of operant conditioning theory, and has been supported by many, many experiments over the course of decades.

Just to be clear; you haven't given us any reason to think your a scientist, so I have no reason to give your interpretations of science based statements any more consideration than if you were going on about early Renaissance art. So it isn't rejecting science, but rejecting your interpretation and use of it. And as an FYI, throwing around irrelevant psychological terms like "operant conditioning" doesn't impress.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Any adult who isnt more intelligent than a child, or who isnt capable of using their superior knowledge and experience to be able to guide the behaiors of a child without physically harming them, probably shoudn't be a parent. To be fair, I apply the same standard to people who follow the overly simplistic and misguided approach of contemporary "attachment parenting." Children need guidance, boundaries, and instruction in an intentional way with minimal emotional reactivity and baggage from their parents. It's a fundamental balance that few people seem to grasp.