Recently a study came out that suggests that spanking your child may do more harm than good.
"The more children are spanked, the more likely they are to defy their parents and to experience increased anti-social behavior, aggression, mental health problems and cognitive difficulties, according to a new meta-analysis of 50 years of research on spanking by experts at The University of Texas at Austin and the University of Michigan."
http://news.utexas.edu/2016/04/25/risks-of-harm-from-spanking-confirmed-by-researchers
I have questions about this.
It's claimed that 80% of parents world-wide have spanked their children and this causes an increase in mental illness and anti-social behavior. Yet the associated increase in mental illness and criminal / anti-social behaviors isn't seen on a worldwide basis. You'd think it'd be an epidemic if 8 out of 10 sets of parents are using corporal punishment.
Yet while crime rates rise and lower, there doesn't seem to be any direct link other than economic. Spanking doesn't seem to factor into it in any significant way. Poor people are more likely to be incarcerated longer for lesser crimes. Regardless of whether or not they were spanked as a child.
You'd think that with the increase in population, there'd be an increase in violent crime since more people are spanking more kids. Yet, curious, over 50 years of data... not really. In fact, crime is significantly lower today than it was in the early 80's.
So statistically, we don't seem to be seeing the claimed effect. To be fair, *I* think (IMHO only) that a significant part of this reduction is the elimination or reduction in paroles for serious and repeat offenders. But that's just me.
Further, the authors state:
This seems so counter-intuitive I have a real problem buying their statement. I have both seen and experienced corporal punishment / physical correction create immediate (and longer term) compliance. If it is fairly and *consistently* applied. Because it's not about the spanking, or at least wasn't for me, it, like learning to not touch a hot burner on a stove, was about understanding that there are consequences to certain behaviors. Sometimes unpleasant ones that hurt. Every time you back talk Mom too much, Dad the enforcer steps in after he gets home from work.
I certainly grant it's possible my experience was more unique, in the sense that I had a traditional stay at home Mom in a loving, stable marriage. The person who was inflicting the corporal punishment was not the person who I had originally transgressed against. So there was never confusion about whether that person was getting "revenge" on me or the other kids for too much sassiness, it was clearly about obeying instructions from adult authority and that they were a parenting team. (Also my dad, though a disciplined military man, truly disliked having to apply corporal punishment. He did it to the minimum he felt necessary, and no more.) I think the dread of the coming punishment was worse than the actual spanking.
In any case, I've also read from other sources that spanking can cause kids to "regress" and "lose self-esteem and self-worth". And I'm not sure that's always a bad thing. A developing child is not a zero sum game of either 100% full self-esteem or 0% empty self-esteem. I had to learn not to be so full of "self-worth" that I touched a hot stove despite warnings. I had to learn not to have so much "self-esteem" that I thought I could act towards authority however I wished without considering the consequences. I had to lose some of both of those, I had to actually regress a little, in order to learn a better path. A path more likely to ensure my survival and physical health.
I use the hot stove example because there can be no real argument that a child touching one accidentally or out of curiosity is "abuse". Further, the pain from the minor burn is clearly a corporal punishment as it affects the physical body. That pain taught me that I cannot simply grab or touch things until I get a sense of what the consequence might be. It diminished my "self-worth" in the sense that I no longer "felt" free to act as I wished like the most special snowflake, but it also taught me that I cannot simply act as I wish without consideration of consequences. And that's the point. It CAN teach. Pain, can teach. Directly and in both in the immediate and in the longer term.
Because the pain was both immediate and 100% reliable as a consequence, it taught me not to touch hot stoves, and I do not think I've been burned by a hot stove in say, 40 plus years because of that corporal punishment. So, both immediate and longer term compliance occurred, because learning occurred.
I do think there's a place for corporal punishment in the toolbox of parenting. I also think though, that there have to be definitive rules, it must be consistent and fair, and it must stop at an age where the child begins gaining privileges and responsibilities. At that age those should be used instead to teach and enforce consequences (good and bad). Spanking an 11 year old is a waste of time for both the child and the parent. Taking away their XBOX is a FAR more serious punishment. :)
Regards,
-Bouncer-
"The more children are spanked, the more likely they are to defy their parents and to experience increased anti-social behavior, aggression, mental health problems and cognitive difficulties, according to a new meta-analysis of 50 years of research on spanking by experts at The University of Texas at Austin and the University of Michigan."
http://news.utexas.edu/2016/04/25/risks-of-harm-from-spanking-confirmed-by-researchers
I have questions about this.
It's claimed that 80% of parents world-wide have spanked their children and this causes an increase in mental illness and anti-social behavior. Yet the associated increase in mental illness and criminal / anti-social behaviors isn't seen on a worldwide basis. You'd think it'd be an epidemic if 8 out of 10 sets of parents are using corporal punishment.
Yet while crime rates rise and lower, there doesn't seem to be any direct link other than economic. Spanking doesn't seem to factor into it in any significant way. Poor people are more likely to be incarcerated longer for lesser crimes. Regardless of whether or not they were spanked as a child.
You'd think that with the increase in population, there'd be an increase in violent crime since more people are spanking more kids. Yet, curious, over 50 years of data... not really. In fact, crime is significantly lower today than it was in the early 80's.
So statistically, we don't seem to be seeing the claimed effect. To be fair, *I* think (IMHO only) that a significant part of this reduction is the elimination or reduction in paroles for serious and repeat offenders. But that's just me.
Further, the authors state:
Quote:
| “We found that spanking was associated with unintended detrimental outcomes and was not associated with more immediate or long-term compliance, which are parents’ intended outcomes when they discipline their children.” |
I certainly grant it's possible my experience was more unique, in the sense that I had a traditional stay at home Mom in a loving, stable marriage. The person who was inflicting the corporal punishment was not the person who I had originally transgressed against. So there was never confusion about whether that person was getting "revenge" on me or the other kids for too much sassiness, it was clearly about obeying instructions from adult authority and that they were a parenting team. (Also my dad, though a disciplined military man, truly disliked having to apply corporal punishment. He did it to the minimum he felt necessary, and no more.) I think the dread of the coming punishment was worse than the actual spanking.
In any case, I've also read from other sources that spanking can cause kids to "regress" and "lose self-esteem and self-worth". And I'm not sure that's always a bad thing. A developing child is not a zero sum game of either 100% full self-esteem or 0% empty self-esteem. I had to learn not to be so full of "self-worth" that I touched a hot stove despite warnings. I had to learn not to have so much "self-esteem" that I thought I could act towards authority however I wished without considering the consequences. I had to lose some of both of those, I had to actually regress a little, in order to learn a better path. A path more likely to ensure my survival and physical health.
I use the hot stove example because there can be no real argument that a child touching one accidentally or out of curiosity is "abuse". Further, the pain from the minor burn is clearly a corporal punishment as it affects the physical body. That pain taught me that I cannot simply grab or touch things until I get a sense of what the consequence might be. It diminished my "self-worth" in the sense that I no longer "felt" free to act as I wished like the most special snowflake, but it also taught me that I cannot simply act as I wish without consideration of consequences. And that's the point. It CAN teach. Pain, can teach. Directly and in both in the immediate and in the longer term.
Because the pain was both immediate and 100% reliable as a consequence, it taught me not to touch hot stoves, and I do not think I've been burned by a hot stove in say, 40 plus years because of that corporal punishment. So, both immediate and longer term compliance occurred, because learning occurred.
I do think there's a place for corporal punishment in the toolbox of parenting. I also think though, that there have to be definitive rules, it must be consistent and fair, and it must stop at an age where the child begins gaining privileges and responsibilities. At that age those should be used instead to teach and enforce consequences (good and bad). Spanking an 11 year old is a waste of time for both the child and the parent. Taking away their XBOX is a FAR more serious punishment. :)
Regards,
-Bouncer-
No comments:
Post a Comment