I was just wondering what you all thought of this new research on spanking.



Researchers have uncovered another damaging consequence of spanking: risky sexual behaviors, or even sexual deviancy, when the child grows up.

"This adds one more harmful side effect to spanking," said Murray Straus, a spanking expert who was expected to present the findings of four studies at the American Psychological Association's Summit on Violence and Abuse in Relationships in Bethesda, Md., on Thursday.

"I think that it's pretty powerful," said Elizabeth Gershoff, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan's School of Social Work. "It's across several studies and across different forms of either risky or deviant sexual behavior."

Straus, who was the author of all four studies, hopes the findings will raise awareness among child development experts.

"My hope is to convince my colleagues that they ought to put this in their textbooks," said Straus, co-director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, in Durham. "It's amazing. Something experienced by all American kids gets an average of half a page in child development textbooks, and not a single one comes to the conclusion that parents should never spank."

Even the revered Dr. Spock, who was anti-spanking, never came right out and advised parents outright not to do it, he added. Instead, Spock advised "avoiding it if you can."

A meta-analysis of spanking studies conducted by Gershoff found 93 percent agreement among studies that spanking can lead to such problems as delinquent and anti-social behavior in childhood along with aggression, criminal and anti-social behavior and spousal or child abuse as an adult.

"There's probably nothing else in child development that has 93 percent agreement in results," Straus said.

Five percent of people who have never been spanked hit their partners, versus 25 percent of those who were spanked frequently.

However, some 90 percent of U.S. parents spank toddlers, according to Straus.

The review being presented at the meeting are the first to look at the relationship of spanking to sexual behavior.

They found that spanking and other corporal punishment is associated with an increased probability of verbally and physically coercing a dating partner to have sex; risky sex such as premarital sex without using a condom; and masochistic sex such as spanking during sex.

There is a "dose response" at work here. "The more parents spank, the higher the probability of harmful side effects," Straus noted.

Of course, there's a similar dose response for smokers. But if someone reaches the age of 65 without developing lung cancer, it doesn't mean that smoking isn't harmful. It means the person was one of the lucky ones.

It's the same with spanking, Straus said. "If a person says, 'I was spanked, and I don't have any interest in bondage and discipline sex, that's correct, but it's not because spanking is OK, it's because they're one of the lucky ones."

And spanking a child once may be like picking up that first cigarette. "The trouble is, if you have a 2-year-old, you pretty soon decide you can't avoid it. The recidivism rate for whatever 'crime' you correct a 2-year-old for is about 50 percent in two hours."

"I've been researching corporal punishment for 30 years and, in the course of that time, the evidence has accumulated that it doesn't work any better than non-corporal punishment but has harmful side effects. I have come to the conclusion that parents should never, ever spank because, although it does work, it's no better than non-hitting methods that don't have harmful side effects. If there was an FDA for spanking, they'd say use an alternative that doesn't have harmful side effects."

Neither corporal nor capital punishment make any sense when you analyze them scientifically. Which is why most people do not want to hear about the analysis.

These days, what isn't harmful or "wrong"? Not to deviate off the subject, but you could eat something that is good for you (like your vegetables) and then turn around and some scientific theory says oh, it's bad for you in the long run. Please. Seems to me that it doesn't matter anymore--according to research everything is bad for a person and dang near everything is going to kill us.

[This message has been edited by TK (edited 3/6/2008).]

I think that a lot of people spank kids because they lose their temper. I have a toddler and I have to admit that sometimes I have to put both of us in "Time Out" while I calm down so I won't spank. So far I have not done so-- That's not to say that I am always some calm perfect parent(I yell, I take away prized toys, I actually have THREATENED to spank without following up) -I am really working at it though!

I have run into people that try to justify the fact that they spank their own children with something like "If you don't spank your children they will grow up to be little sociopaths that will break all the laws and bring guns to school." Actually, just the opposite is true-nearly every kid that has gone on a shooting rampage on a large scale basis was punished in a violent and/or demeaning way.

http://www.cei.net/~rcox/areview.html

http://www.nospank.net/

Nothing good forces us to act aggressively toward our minor children. Yet, there seems to be some mistaken, unfounded 'sense of duty' to do it. I believe that this 'sense' may be the result of a self-conscious feeling that other parents in our family or social group know better than we what we should do. As children, we saw our parents and other adults do things that we remember as right and good. Spanking children is one of those things that we memorized. We copy that behavior with our own children. We think, therefore, that we are surely being a good and proper parent. We are following tradition. However, tradition and morality are separate standards.

http://www.stophitting.co...iction.php

****************************************************************
I have taken some parenting classes and like what this expert in the field (she has a PhD) recommends as some alternatives to punishment:

http://www.awareparenting.com/twenty.htm

1. LOOK FOR UNDERLYING NEEDS.
Example: Give your child something to play with while waiting in line.

2. GIVE INFORMATION AND REASONS.
Example: If your child colors on the wall, explain why we color on paper only.

3. LOOK FOR UNDERLYING FEELINGS.
Acknowledge, accept & listen to feelings. Example: If your child hits his baby sister, encourage him to express his anger and jealousy in harmless ways. He may need to cry or rage.

4. CHANGE THE ENVIRONMENT.
This is sometimes easier than trying to change the child. Example: If your child repeatedly takes things out of the kitchen cupboards, put a childproof lock on them.

5. FIND ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVES.
Redirect your child's behavior. Example: If you do not want your child to build a fort in the dining room, don't just say no. Tell her where she can build one.

6. DEMONSTRATE HOW YOU WANT YOUR CHILD TO BEHAVE.
Example: If your child pulls a cat's tail, show her how to pet a cat. Do not rely on words alone.

7. GIVE CHOICES RATHER THAN COMMANDS.
Decision-making empowers children; commands invite a power struggle. Example: "Would you like to brush your teeth before or after putting your pajamas on?"

8. MAKE SMALL CONCESSIONS.
Example: "I'll let you skip brushing your teeth tonight because you are so tired."

9. PROVIDE FOR A PERIOD OF PREPARATION.
Example: If you are counting on company for dinner, tell your child how you expect him to behave. Be specific. Role-playing can help prepare children for potentially difficult situations.

10. LET NATURAL CONSEQUENCES OCCUR (when appropriate).
Don't rescue too much. Example: A child who does not hang up her bathing suit and towel may find them still wet the next day. (But don't create artificial consequences.)

11. COMMUNICATE YOUR OWN FEELINGS.
Let children know how their behavior affects you. Example: "I get so tired of cleaning up crumbs in the living room."

12. USE ACTIONS WHEN NECESSARY.
Example: If your child insists on running across streets on your walks together, hold his hand tightly (while explaining the dangers).

13. HOLD YOUR CHILD.
Children who are acting aggressively or obnoxiously can benefit from holding, in a loving and supportive way, that allows them to channel their pent-up feelings into healing tears.

14. REMOVE YOUR CHILD FROM THE SITUATION AND STAY WITH HER.
Use the time for listening, sharing feelings, holding, and conflict-resolution.

15. DO IT TOGETHER, BE PLAYFUL.
Many conflict situations can be turned into games. Examples: "Let's pretend we're the seven dwarfs while we clean up," "Let's take turns brushing each other's teeth."

16. DEFUSE THE SITUATION WITH LAUGHTER.
Example: If your child is mad at you, invite him to express his anger in a playful pillow fight with you. Play your part by surrendering dramatically. Laughter helps resolve anger and feelings of powerlessness.

17. MAKE A DEAL, NEGOTIATE.
Example: If you're ready to leave the playground and your child is having fun, reach an agreement on the number of times she may go down the slide before leaving.

18. DO MUTUAL CONFLICT-RESOLUTION.
Discuss ongoing conflicts with your children, state your own needs, and ask for their help in finding solutions. Determine rules together. Hold family meetings.

19. REVISE YOUR EXPECTATIONS.
Young children have intense feelings and needs and are naturally loud, curious, messy, willful, impatient, demanding, creative, forgetful, fearful, self-centered, and full of energy. Try to accept them as they are.

20. TAKE A PARENTAL TIME-OUT.
Leave the room and do whatever is needed to regain your sense of composure and good judgment. Examples: call a friend, cry, meditate, or take a shower.

Pay no attention to the daily parade of new parenting "studies."

Over the last generation, "studies" said that the greatest thing a parent could do was focus on praise and give the child a wealth of self-confidence.

Now, in hindsight, it looks like we were probably raising a group of little narcissists.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA...896&page=1

Study findings will often fail you, but some balance, common sense, and your own (good) parental instincts never will. Any reaction done in anger should be avoided, but that's not just a child-rearing lesson. It's a life lesson.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 3/6/2008).]

Hmm... I wonder if there is any correlation between spanking and political ideology.... like if you were spanked a lot you are more likely to be conservative and if you were just give "time-out" you are more likely liberal. Sounds like we need more research.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (edited 3/6/2008).]

I got bad news, Richard. My mother had a "magic wand," which was the device used to smack us on our backsides when we deserved it. We all turned out mighty liberal.

[This message has been edited by Amorette Allison (edited 3/6/2008).]

You don't need to spank them! Just send them out onto the river ice when they're naughty.

Well this explains why I turned out the way I did, but I'm kind of glad I got spanked or I never would have experienced all those women.

OK I'm joking. kind of

Seems to me that spanking was certainly a deterrent for bad behavior in the past. I knew if I was bad or screwed up that I was going to get it good. That fact kept me right in line.

I think that the study is missing some things.

Richard might have something there!

In my Sociology class at MCC back in the day I remember a section discussing class structure; specifically why Blue Collar parents tended to have kids who followed in their footsteps - Blue Collar workers with high school or less education and very little ambition to advance beyond their parent's low paid, low staus level . The studies found that all day long the Blue Collar worker was ordered around and was told what to do by his bosses, so when he got home he became "The King of the Castle" and bossed his kids around and was very authoritarian and used physical force if necessary to make them obey him without question. Basically what that treament did to these kids is teach them to go through life following orders and not to think for themselves or to get too "uppity". In order to get by they did what they were told without question and followed the "Status Quo" and remained in the lower paying Blue Collar, lower level jobs. They tend to live in areas with lower levels of education and lower per capita income, much like the "Red States" in the last election (AKA "the so called conservatives").

So the kids who were allowed to think for themselves and not beaten into submission went to college, got higher paying jobs in white collar industries and now live in Cities or States with corporate headquarters. These areas have higher per capita incomes and higher levels of education, which correspond with the areas in the U.S. known as the "Blue States" in the last election. (AKA the so called "Liberals")

I think rather than do some huge "Red vs. Blue" STATE comparison, it is more telling to use this map that breaks down election results by county. Every state has counties with areas of higher levels of education and per capita income.

http://www-personal.umich...elarge.png

[This message has been edited by Cheryl Pieters (edited 3/6/2008).]

Back when my kids were little I was discussing disciplining children with a friend. They suggested using a stick no bigger around than a thumb. Just for the record....they had the brattiest kids I've ever known.
I wouldn't suggest peoplef get into the habit of wacking their kids at the drop of a hat but I think on rare occasions, "time out" doesn't cut it.

See I have a hard time believing in these studies. I was spanked as a child, and just about everyone I know was spanked. I have a hard time believing that it causes all of these problems in adulthood, or else I'd have a lot of perverted, convict, and sociopaths for friends. I think a lot of these psychologists are trying to find the answers as to why they have the problems they have and spanking became their scapegoat. I could be wrong thought that's just my opinion.

I grew up at the time when even the school principals could use one of those really big, thick paddles with holes in them! Some abused that "right," while others used COMMON SENSE when applying that to the backside.

I also raised my kids during the time when the schools were telling their students, "If your mom or dad spanks you, you tell us, and we'll report them for child abuse." Now, how much damage did that one statement do to our chances of raising well behaved youngsters??!! I ended up telling my kids that they can go right ahead and tell their teachers, and when the time comes, I will help them pack their bags, because they would be sent to live with somebody else. They didn't realize THAT could easily be the result of what they were told by their "trusted" teachers.

I fully believe that a swat, or sometimes two, on the cushy behind that God gave them is appropriate when necessary. I also believe that here again COMMON SENSE must be the guiding force behind the decision to swat or not to swat.

I also agree that with spanking having become such an issue in today's society, IF it is to be designated as no longer a fit means of discipline, then SOCIETY needs to make a collective effort to help parents come up with alternatives THAT WORK. With most youth today, once they reach a certain age (which is very situational and individual), the old forms of discipline, whatever they may be, just cease to have the desired effect. I think that the lack of such alternatives is a primary cause for the huge number of delinquent youth today (and this is the voice of experience talking, here).

Let's also take a look at the change in peer pressure today. Peer pressure when I was a youth (too many years ago to admit to) consisted mainly of like age youth daring you to do things that you normally wouldn't do. If you didn't, you were picked on, maybe called "chicken," and that was that. Today, peer pressure is about 200% harder for our youth to handle gracefully. Today, peer pressure consists of anything from simple name calling to physical assault! How are our youth supposed to handle that if they were never taught good choice making while small?

I know, you think I'm getting off track with this, but I'm not. If a spank on the butt at an early age helps our children to learn young how to make good, wise, SAFE choices later in their youth, how can that be considered wrong?

There is a difference between a single swat on the butt for misbehaving and sexually or physically abusing your child. How many people were spanked at some point in their childhood and have grown up to be perferctly healthy, happy, functioning adults with appropriate respect for authority? I am not saying you should beat your child into submission to gain their respect, as that is abusive. If you have never spanked your child have you never slapped their hand? Is there a difference? I work in a field that specializes in teaching parenting. We see a large number of parents in their mid to late 30's, early 40's that have never spanked their child because they themselves were spanked and am here to tell you their children are the most disrespectful and biggest terrors I have ever met. These parents have absolutely no control over their children. I am not saying that we ever teach parents to spank as I feel that is a personal choice, what I am saying is that possibly if some of these kids had ever been spanked as a child to get their attention and know that mom or dad means business that maybe today they wouldn't be so out of control. I would be interested in seeing a study conducted in about 10 years of criminals, deviants, what ever you want to call them and see how many were spanked? My guess is probably not many (due to the above thought that I'm not going to spank because I was spanked). And if that is the case, then spanking or not spanking still ends up with criminals on the streets.

I think some of you need to take a class in statistics - or reading comprehension.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (edited 3/7/2008).]

I'm with Linda L. on this one - just like everything else in life - all things in moderation!!!

I won't say there's only one flaw with your Red/Blue logic, Cheryl, but I think this is the biggest one.

http://people-press.org/c...ysisID=114

Seems you have things turned on their head, from a demographic standpoint. Republicans proportionally dominate the upper, upper middle (white collar), and middle classes. Democrats own the lower middle and lower income classes.

Suffice it to say, the ribbed-white T... "This beer is warm! Now go get me another one before I kick you into next Tuesday" demographic is solidly in the Democrat camp.

When my daughter was about a year old we were in a restaurant having lunch and she started throwing a fit while in her high chair. screaming and throwing herself around etc. I reached over and hit her on the mouth and told her to stop. I didnt draw blood. i didnt go to extreme i merely got her attention, told her to stop which she did and we went back to enjoying our meal. WHen we were almost done an older lady came by on her way out and gave me a very dirty look and told me i couldn't do that referring to my discipline. I merely looked at her and told her that it was really none of her business but what happens when my daughter goes on a shooting rampage in a McDonalds in Illinois when she is older. SOciety would ultimately blame me for not raising my child right and point fingers etc. There is a line between discipline and child abuse. I firmly believe in discipline when needed.

Dang I love this place.

Startling new demographics show that Fox News, Limppaw, Coulter, etc are actually the voice of the Left :-) :-)

Thanks for pointing that out Rick, that's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time.

I know I've suggested this before - but once again, I think you should give some serious thought to doing standup. You've got some great material. Who knows . . . you could be the Right's answer to Lewis Black.

Yeah Rick, that's pretty great. I'm afraid you won't be able to pawn off those ribbed White-T's on the liberals. I think those are your "middle class."

OK Lisa. You slapped your one-year-old in the mouth without drawing blood, which obviously makes it alright. I'm guessing your kid is now MORE likely to shoot up a mall. Maybe you have some more child-rearing hints for us - like where to punch someone without leaving a visible bruise.

You treat your stepmother with some respect, Pantera.

Unfortunately Hal, I can't take the credit for the comedy. It's mostly borrowed. But I guess that's probably the nature of comedy.

Nothing new under the sun.

Mostly I'm just poking fun at people's knack for making whacked-out correlations. Whether it be between man and global warming, political beliefs and child abuse, or even Buck and World Series Rings.

Saying "this" causes "that" especially in complex areas like human behavior (or global climate or MLB), is a dangereous business. It's usually just an outlet for someone to reaffirm to themselves their own prejudices.

I think rather than do some huge "Red vs. Blue" STATE comparison, it is more telling to use this map that breaks down election results by county. Every state has counties with areas of higher levels of education and per capita income.

Let's take a look at this map.



At first glance, one of the more recognizable Montana counties we see is the distinctively shaped, and noted Mecca of "higher levels of education and per capita income"... Big Horn County. I'm sure there's no spanking going on down there, of course.

4 of the 5 Democrat counties' households earn well below the state median, and the only exception, as you'd expect, is Missoula County. And, realistically, that should be recategorized as an Oregon island county, or perhaps a completely independent Banana Republic.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 3/7/2008).]

With a few exceptions for places like Denver and Lost Wages , the blue patches west of the Missouri River are mostly indian reservations.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (edited 3/7/2008).]

We give Rick too much attention. The lady slapped her one year old - it didn't draw blood though. I guess that doesn't deserve much attention.

Are you a college graduate? I graduated from CCHS and will receive my doctorate this year in curriculum and instruction, mathematics. Your comments on the graphical analysis of blue versus red US map do not hold water.
You state:

_____
So the kids who were allowed to think for themselves and not beaten into submission went to college, got higher paying jobs in white collar industries and now live in Cities or States with corporate headquarters. These areas have higher per capita incomes and higher levels of education, which correspond with the areas in the U.S. known as the "Blue States" in the last election. (AKA the so called "Liberals")

I think rather than do some huge "Red vs. Blue" STATE comparison, it is more telling to use this map that breaks down election results by county. Every state has counties with areas of higher levels of education and per capita income.

http://www-personal.umich...elarge.png

______

I now live in Texas. The blue areas along the Texas-Mexico borders highlighted on your map hold the least educated and also residents (and illegal immigrants) with the least per capita income. They may be voting for democrats (probably illegally) but they are not educated and are for the most part living in poverty.

Unfortunately information contained in Graphs can be misused and your comments are misleading.

"went back to enjoying our meal"

I know my kids enjoy their meals better if I slap them around a bit first.

But I'm a little confused by all the political wrangling above - if I beat my children, does that mean I'm going to have to vote for Ron Paul?

According to Rick you'll vote for Hillary.

I looked that up when I saw this, and you're right. It seems like a lot of people assume that people who voted Democrat in the "Blue Counties" were wealthier because those areas are more expensive to live in, but from what I've read in a number of articles in addition to Rick's so far is that they are just areas with higher populations overall, so large numbers of the Democratic voters were not the wealthy inhabitants (who really appreciate the GOP Tax breaks). The Democratic voters tend to be middle class and working poor and generally people hoping for social justice in order to improve the lives of people as a whole. My bad!
***********************************************************
Anyway, don't want to derail the thread, which was really about the effects of spanking your kids. I think the bratty little kids that people are lamenting about in this thread aren't necessarily brats because "they aren't spanked", but brats because they get absolutely NO Discipline at all (and often very little attention). Their parents don't do ANYTHING to guide them, just let them do whatever they want and the kids are probably acting out because they want their parents to pay attention to them. I agree that kids need boundries and rules, but there are plenty of ways to discipline them without physically hitting them.

http://www.parentingweb.c...w_disc.htm

*************************************************************

http://www.gentlechristia...ky/bj3.php

Quote:

"I want to share with other parents a more proactive approach to discipline. Also called positive discipline or grace-based discipline, it's just a way of focusing on evoking good behavior instead of reacting to bad behavior. Many people equate discipline only with punishment, but if a child is only punished, I can't imagine how they would ever learn good behavior. "

I have 8 years of college on my resume, but instead of a PhD I have two Bachelor's Degrees. I decided to go an entirely different direction after working a few years in the field I chose directly out of High School. I still attend college on a regular basis and should have my Master's Degree by the end of the Fall 2008 semester.

Like I explained above, my bad on the statistics, although for the area I live in (the East Coast) the counties that are represented on that map ARE the places where the corporate headquarters of many companies are located and where the more highly educated and upper middle class people live.

I have very little training, but I work in a setting with 3,4, and 5 year-olds. And I have one thing to repeat.

'There are three types of lies. Lies, damn lies and statistics.' -Samuel Clemens

P.S. My parents 'disciplined' me in public as well. It did very little good in the child rearing department, at least for me.
I do everything I can every day to be completely contrary to the things they have taught me.

[This message has been edited by LG (edited 3/7/2008).]

>> Mostly I'm just poking fun at people's knack for making whacked-out correlations.

I don't know about correlations - I guess it would depend on the data backing up them up. But I am distrustful of statistics and that's no doubt due in large part to my lack of mathematical skills. All I know about statistics is 9 times out of 10 they confuse me, the other half the time I don't understand them.


As far as corporal punishment goes . . . I only hope that no one strikes / spanks / hits (whatever) their child while under the influence of anger (or anything else for that matter that can cloud their judgment). From what I've personally witnessed - from what I read in the news - too often punishment is administered by those who aren't quite in control of themselves at the time. And whatever a person's views on spanking might be that isn't right.

It is pretty hilarious how one can throw a random cosmic thought out there as sahara dessert dry humor and you all will go on for 50 posts. I guess I will keep my thoughts about what the Bible says about spanking to myself. We could go until tax day.

See Buck, the smily faces matter...

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (edited 3/8/2008).]

Spanking is not humane or Christian behavior. I know there are many Christian families that believe in spanking. They often quote to me from the Bible, "Spare the rod and spoil the child". Now, I am not an expert on the Bible, but I am a Christian, and from that position only do I give you this opinion. I believe that the "rod" as referred to here mean a tool of discipline. In the days of the Bible, a shepherd used a "rod" to guide his sheep - he did not hit them with it. His rod was seen as a symbol of his authority over the animals, not a tool to cause them pain. I also ask you these questions: If God walked into your home today and saw your child misbehave, would he hit your child? I would say definitely not! Would he discipline your child? Would he teach your child? Would he guide your child? I would say yes, absolutely!

a shepherd used a "rod" to guide his sheep - he did not hit them with it

Proverbs 23:13
NASB: Do not hold back discipline from the child, Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die

KJV: Withhold not correction from the child, for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.

NKJV: Do not withhold correction from a correction, for if you beat him with a rod, he will not die.

NIV: Do not withhold discipline from a child, if you punish him with the rod, he will not die.

Now, there is an important Biblical rule in discipline, and it's part of a common Christian theme. It's about where your heart is in your actions...

Proverbs 19:18 Chasten your son while there is hope, And do not set your heart on his destruction.

As the bible plainly says, discipline is needed, even physical discipline if necessary. But it MUST be done out of love, or it could lead to many of the problems you've discussed. Although I'm not sure recreational spanking is one of them

Your Honor...the defense rests.

Crazy woman smacking a one year old... anyone?

Ok...let me get this right, being hit in the face while dinning out with your family will prevent a shooting rampage later on? WOW!

Why is it that the boldest character judgements always seem to come from behind the anonymous shroud?

Dude, that's not even a character judgement. She put herself out there, she'll be lucky of CPS doesn't show up at her door. I guess we can judge her character as dumb and we can get a measure of you if you think that's all right and good. The kid was 1 freaking years old, of course she didn't draw blood...

Did anyone else see the news story last night on the mom in FL who was hosing down her kid at the car wash as some kind of "punishment"?

So will it also be abuse when the Denver fire department turns its hoses loose on some crowd of protesters at the Dem donkey convention this summer?

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (edited 3/9/2008).]

Don't pretend you care.

The hosing took place in a red state so it must be OK.

You guys are right. Thank you for helping me to see the error of my ways.

Don't make me smack your mouth....

Hmmmmm.....Seems to me that this thread got off on a very different tangent than what the author intended.

I sure did appreciate the additional info regarding the Bible's stand on discipline. The question posed about "What would God do, if...." bothered me a bit, though. Are each of us to propose that we would act "as God would?" I'm sorry; I'm good, sometimes even great, but I would never presume to be THAT good!

TUESDAY, Sept. 15 (HealthDay News) -- Children who are spanked as 1-year-olds are more likely to behave aggressively and perform worse on cognitive tests as toddlers than children who are spared the punishment, new research shows.


Though the negative effects of spanking were "modest," the study adds to a growing body of literature that's finding spanking isn't good for children.


"Age 1 is a key time for establishing the quality of the parenting and the relationship between parent and the child," said study author Lisa J. Berlin, a research scientist at the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University. "Spanking at age 1 reflects a negative dynamic, and increases children's aggression at age 2."


The study is published in the September/October issue of Child Development.


Berlin and her colleagues looked at data on 2,500 white, Mexican American and black children from low-income families. The data included parents' reports about their children's behavior, their use of spanking, as well as home visits by trained observers to document parent-child interactions at ages 1, 2 and 3.


About one-third of mothers of 1-year-olds reported they or someone in their household had spanked their child in the last week, while about half of the mothers of 2- and 3-year-olds reported that their child had been spanked.


The average number of spankings for 1-year-olds was 2.6 per week, while the average for 2-year-olds was nearly three.


The study found that children who were spanked at age 1 had more aggressive behaviors at age 2 and performed worse on measures of thinking abilities at age 3.


Being spanked at age 2, however, did not predict more aggressive behaviors at age 3, possibly because the spanking had begun at age 1 and by age 2 the kids were already more aggressive, Berlin said.


Researchers also looked at the effects of verbal punishment, defined as yelling, scolding or making derogatory comments. Verbal punishment was not associated with negative effects if the mother was otherwise attentive, loving and supportive.


Researchers controlled for family characteristics such as race, ethnicity, mother's age, education, family income and the child's gender.


Previous research has shown spanking is more common among low-income households than high-income households.


Researchers chose a sample of low-income families because some child behavior experts have argued that when spanking is "cultural normative" -- that is, it's expected for parents to use physical discipline -- the detrimental effects of spanking may be lessened.


"We did not find that," Berlin said. "Even in a sample of low-income people where presumably it's more normative to spank your kids, we found negative effects."


The study also found that mothers who said their children were "fussy" babies were more likely to spank them at ages 1, 2 and 3. But children who were more aggressive at 2 were not more likely to get spanked.


"The implication or the suggestion in past arguments is that some kids who are more aggressive or difficult to control might illicit more spanking, but that's not what we found," Berlin said.


Researchers found that black children were spanked and verbally punished the most, possibly because of cultural beliefs about the importance of respecting elders and in the value of physical discipline, or because parents feel they have to prepare their children for a racist and potentially dangerous world.


Of all the debates over child-rearing, spanking "definitely touches a nerve," Berlin said.

"It's a parenting practice that has been around for a long time, and that's also in transition," Berlin said. "In general, the use of spanking is going down. But there is also a contingent of people who really believe in it, who say that's how they were raised and it's a tradition they want to continue."

Elizabeth T. Gershoff, an associate professor in the department of human development and family sciences at University of Texas at Austin, said the study adds to a growing body of research showing negative effects of spanking.

"Almost all the studies point to negative effects of spanking," Gershoff said. "It makes kids more aggressive, more likely to be delinquent and to have mental health problems. The more kids are spanked, the more they are likely to be physically abused by their parents. This does not mean everyone who spanks physically abuses, but that risk is there."

Because children tend to mimic parental behaviors, it's possible spanking "creates a model for using aggression," Gershoff said. "Spanking is just hitting."

Less is known why spanking could inhibit cognitive development. One possibility is that parents who spank are less likely to use reasoning with their children, something that's good for development, Gershoff said.

Anything in this study that says spankings turn your children into Republicans? (Or Democrats, depending on your own particular persuasion, of course.)

Allright, I admit it. I had to read back through the thread to gain this valuable insight.

"Berlin and her colleagues looked at data on 2,500 white, Mexican American and black children from low-income families. The data included parents' reports about their children's behavior, their use of spanking, as well as home visits by trained observers to document parent-child interactions at ages 1, 2 and 3."

"Almost all the studies point to negative effects of spanking," Gershoff said. "It makes kids more aggressive, more likely to be delinquent and to have mental health problems."


- How do we know that the conclusion doesn't have more to do with being from a low income family than the kind of discipline that is used?

- If the study found that spanking was had a positive impact would it have been published?

- Why doesn't the article mention a control group where no disciplinary action is taken for comparison?

I also see that it impacted their scores as toddlers - so? How about as adults. Lame study - one might be a little early to be spanking a kid, though. Does a one year old understand why they were spanked?

About one-third of mothers of 1-year-olds reported they or someone in their household had spanked their child in the last week, while about half of the mothers of 2- and 3-year-olds reported that their child had been spanked.

The control group was within the group they studied. Not everyone in the group reported spanking their child.

Also, I think a one year old would not have a clue why he was being spanked. People who spank a one year old are just taking our their frustrations on the most convenient person.

>>Hmm... I wonder if there is any correlation between spanking and political ideology....

Could be there is.
http://www.mercurynews.co...ost_viewed

Spanking is lazy parenting. It takes no brain, no ability to reason, no creativity, and can be done within seconds of losing your temper.

Teaching on the other hand requires all of the above and generally takes some time to figure out the best way to make teachable moments out of frustrating situation.

You can be a skillful and effective parent who actively raises your children or you can hit them and teach them to just not get caught to avoid pain at the hands of the people who are supposed to love them.

Spanking does for a parent/child relationship the same thing wife abuse does for the marriage relationship.

Also for those who say hitting children is Biblically condoned, then you had better do it all. The Bible also says that if your son speaks back to you you should stone him to death and your 13 year old daughter needs to be isolated for her entire period. In fact there are dozens and dozens of these things that were part of the historical context of the time, but by NO means were they edicts from God for us to act this way. They were ignorant tradition and superstition.

[This message has been edited by polar bear (9/15/2009)]

Spanking is lazy parenting. It takes no brain, no ability to reason, no creativity, and can be done within seconds of losing your temper.

Well said, PB.

"what happens when my daughter goes on a shooting rampage in a McDonalds in Illinois when she is older"

Um.. Im a little uncomfortable by this statement because I live in Illinois... and I work at McDonalds.... haha


...Awkward...


Also I'd like to ask what yall think of this:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/02/georgia.tot.slapped/index.html

[This message has been edited by Bridgit Morrison (9/16/2009)]

"Spanking is lazy parenting. It takes no brain, no ability to reason, no creativity, and can be done within seconds of losing your temper.

Teaching on the other hand requires all of the above and generally takes some time to figure out the best way to make teachable moments out of frustrating situation."

That assumes that the two are mutually exclusive, which is not necessarily the case.

"The control group was within the group they studied. Not everyone in the group reported spanking their child."

I guess it depends on how you define "control group".

Well, Richard, how would you define it?

I am sorry but for those of you that live in perfect world where you explain something to your kids once and they automatically do what they are asked. I am not afraid to admit that I spank my daughter...I was spanked, my sister was spanked and that is not justifying it, but we did not grow up to be sociopaths, to me it sounds like a cop out to me. I don't fly off the handle and spank her instantly but if I have asked her and asked and explained to her and she sits there and sasses me i am going to give her a tap on the rear. I am a good parent, my daughter has everything that she needs, has a good home with myself her grandparents and her aunt. There is nothing wrong with my daughter and I am going to do everything in my power to help mold her into and upstanding individual.

Just as there are children who are spanked who grow up to be menaces to society, there are children who are not spanked who grow up to be responsible, caring, productive members of society, and vice versa. There's a whole lot more that goes into leading a wonderful child into adulthood than whether or not they were spanked at age two. These frivolous studies seem to completely disregard the circumstances between the ages of spanking and adulthood.

Do you tell your child you love them daily? Do you in turn show this love? Do you take an interest in their friends, school and outside activities? Do you stress the importance of education and a value/morals system? Do you instill a sense of responsibility and accountability? Do you impart the importance of community and "others" before "self"? Do you offer praise when deserved and admonishment when necessary? Do you allow them to seek out answers to their questions and learn in the process? Do you allow for their individual development? If you do these things, almost without exception, you will turn out one outstanding human being, regardless of whether you spanked them as a toddler.

Why would anyone spank a ONE year old?

[This message has been edited by Stefanie (9/16/2009)]

Spanking is completely unnecessary for ANY child if they have a parent who cares enough to teach rather than instill fear of physical pain. Of course it takes time and maturity and self control on the parent's part. I am one of those people who believes that until you reach that level of maturity, self control, and patience, you should not be bringing babies/children into the world to hit so that you can keep them from being too much trouble.

Spanking is such a hot button issue with today's parents. Even parents with the best intentions can make a mistake. When I first became a parent I was positive that I'd never spank my child. That was true for 4 years. Then one time I'd had a bad day, she'd had a bad day and I spanked her, once on the behind. She turned around and said, "You're fired!" Of course, I felt awful and I actually apologized to her. I don't think she's had any lasting harm from that incident but we got a funny story out of it.

Still, I don't think that the use of spanking as a regular punishment can do anything to improve a child's life. And if you are telling your kid you love them as you spank, well, get the bail money ready. That's going to be one screwed up kid.