Spanking children doesn't work.

[catsmate]

pain works

Achieving what exactly?

Again, it really depends on the child, the punishment, the situation. I don't think one can say that physical punishment works or doesn't work, full stop. It works sometimes, with some children.

Aversion to pain and punishment is one thing, but with moderation.

You are free to hold whatever opinion you wish, despite it being directly contradicted by facts and research.

I've never seen any study demonstrate that parents who spank and refrain from physical abuse have worse child discipline outcomes than parents who do not spank.

Perhaps you should read this study?

So, the studies are still crap.

It's interesting how you dismiss as "crap" studies and research you haven't read because you don't want to accept their findings.

Child discipline is not easy. My experience is that spanking is not a good substitute.

Exactly. Some people just seem to be unable to parent without violence.

 

[Belz...]

You are free to hold whatever opinion you wish, despite it being directly contradicted by facts and research.

Once again: the research so far has not been conclusive, nor has it studied anything but the extremes. That's like saying water is bad because people drown. You call it a fact because it agrees with you.

 

[psionl0]

Some of the nastiest kids I have ever seen have been raised by "no hitting" parents.

Of course, the parents of these kids usually have no alternative means of disciplining/guiding these children and are invariably afraid to say "no" to them.

 

[Belz...]

Well, "no" is abuse, right?

 

[AdamSK]

And I'm not able to see what impact they were measuring. Compliance? If all I want is compliance why would I have child, dogs are much easier to train.

That's what "child discipline outcomes" are - compliance and subsequent behavior.

 

[AdamSK]

Perhaps you should read this study?

Are you going to give me the $12?

 

[angrysoba]

It works sometimes, with some children.
.

Can you support this? With whom and when?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Some of the nastiest kids I have ever seen have been raised by "pro spanking" parents.

Of course, the parents of these kids usually have no alternative means of disciplining/guiding these children and are invariably afraid to interact with them.

 

[Dr. Keith]

That's what "child discipline outcomes" are - compliance and subsequent behavior.

Immediate compliance is a very base level of outcomes. If all you want is a kid who jumps when you say jump then fear and violence will work wonders. I suggest that most parents want more from their children. Or more precisely more for their children.

It is going to take very compelling evidence to convince me that spanking my kids is the best possible child discipline means. Just as it would take very compelling evidence to convince me that slapping my wife was the best possible spousal discipline means. Or punching my employee is the best possible employee discipline means.

Physical violence should not be easily justified. Why would you be satisfied with mediocre or comparable results? To hit your child should be a high bar to cross, not an easy out from the hard work of actually being a parent.

Why do we allow physical violence against children that we would never allow against adults?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Are you going to give me the $12?

Geez, like I need another kid asking me for money. OK, I'll give you the money if you let me hit you a few times. Fair?

 

[JoeMorgue]

- If I strike another adult there isn't some magical level of how hard I strike them before it becomes assault. I question how useful forcing such a distinction is in this context.

- Regardless of whether or not striking a child "works" (even ignoring trying to define "works" within this context) it can't be reasonably argued that it's the only method that works, and I'm sorry but even assuming equal levels of effectiveness would choosing the method that doesn't involve physical force against a child be the preferable one?

- Okay I'm sorry but parents need to get over their "uniqueness fetish" when it comes to their children and how to raise them. Child discipline is not some magical form of human interaction that has to be unique to some unreasonable degree. The idea that the entire other 7 billion people on this planet, many of whom are parents and all of whom were once children, can't possibly have any inclination as to what it is like to raise your child is probably not accurate. You can't counter everything with "You don't know what it's like to raise my specific child."

 

[fuelair]

- If I strike another adult there isn't some magical level of how hard I strike them before it becomes assault. I question how useful forcing such a distinction is in this context.

- Regardless of whether or not striking a child "works" (even ignoring trying to define "works" within this context) it can't be reasonably argued that it's the only method that works, and I'm sorry but even assuming equal levels of effectiveness would choosing the method that doesn't involve physical force against a child be the preferable one?

- Okay I'm sorry but parents need to get over their "uniqueness fetish" when it comes to their children and how to raise them. Child discipline is not some magical form of human interaction that has to be unique to some unreasonable degree. The idea that the entire other 7 billion people on this planet, many of whom are parents and all of whom were once children, can't possibly have any inclination as to what it is like to raise your child is probably not accurate. You can't counter everything with "You don't know what it's like to raise my specific child."

Sure you can. It just doesn't make you right.

 

[AdamSK]

- If I strike another adult there isn't some magical level of how hard I strike them before it becomes assault.

Assuming you mean "battery," you're correct. Even touching you without your consent is battery. Putting you in time-out would be battery and unlawful constraint. Taking away your television privileges would be conversion.
So, now that we have established that ANY effective discipline would be an intentional tort, and therefore a criminal act, if perpetrated against an adult, can you explain why you uniquely restrict parents from violating this particular one?

Regardless of whether or not striking a child "works" (even ignoring trying to define "works" within this context) it can't be reasonably argued that it's the only method that works, and I'm sorry but even assuming equal levels of effectiveness would choosing the method that doesn't involve physical force against a child be the preferable one?

Assuming equal levels of effectiveness, the one that has the least undesirable side effects should be the preferable one. ANY discipline is likely to have at least some negative side effects - feelings of loss of control, emotional distance from parents, etc - and it's not self-evident that a spanking necessarily has more severe long-term consequences then, say, shunning, or other emotionally severe techniques.

Okay I'm sorry but parents need to get over their "uniqueness fetish" when it comes to their children and how to raise them. Child discipline is not some magical form of human interaction that has to be unique to some unreasonable degree. The idea that the entire other 7 billion people on this planet, many of whom are parents and all of whom were once children, can't possibly have any inclination as to what it is like to raise your child is probably not accurate. You can't counter everything with "You don't know what it's like to raise my specific child."

Parenting is not one-size-fits-all. If you think that any psycho-social method or program works universally when applied to humans, you have not been paying attention. Humans are far from unique, but we are also far from identical. What works for you will likely work for millions of others, but by no means all or even most. Keep that in mind.

 

[Belz...]

Can you support this? With whom and when?

Me, 30 years ago.

If you're asking me for more than anecdotes, you know as well as I do that studies on this don't exist; in fact that's the very thing I'm asking for. Otherwise I'm left to speculate, because the studies I've seen so far don't support the conclusion that spanking doesn't work full stop.

 

[Belz...]

- Regardless of whether or not striking a child "works" (even ignoring trying to define "works" within this context) it can't be reasonably argued that it's the only method that works, and I'm sorry but even assuming equal levels of effectiveness would choosing the method that doesn't involve physical force against a child be the preferable one?

What if it's demonstratably more effective in moderation, for instance?

- Okay I'm sorry but parents need to get over their "uniqueness fetish" when it comes to their children and how to raise them. Child discipline is not some magical form of human interaction that has to be unique to some unreasonable degree. The idea that the entire other 7 billion people on this planet, many of whom are parents and all of whom were once children, can't possibly have any inclination as to what it is like to raise your child is probably not accurate. You can't counter everything with "You don't know what it's like to raise my specific child."

The reverse is also true, however.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Assuming you mean "battery," you're correct. Even touching you without your consent is battery. Putting you in time-out would be battery and unlawful constraint. Taking away your television privileges would be conversion.
So, now that we have established that ANY effective discipline would be an intentional tort, and therefore a criminal act, if perpetrated against an adult, can you explain why you uniquely restrict parents from violating this particular one?

Well because one involves physically striking a minor so call me crazy but I'd argue that's a little different then putting one in time out.

My point was not to equate adult:adult and adult:child interactions to some perfect one to one ratio. My point was the fact that we have to make the "I strike my child but I didn't assault him (semantics of assault and battery aside)" distinction means something.

Assuming equal levels of effectiveness, the one that has the least undesirable side effects should be the preferable one. ANY discipline is likely to have at least some negative side effects - feelings of loss of control, emotional distance from parents, etc - and it's not self-evident that a spanking necessarily has more severe long-term consequences then, say, shunning, or other emotionally severe techniques.

1. Except for all the evidence that it does, but whatever.
2. Again if the only argument can be made is "It isn't any worse in consequences and side effect" and everything is just equal I still think that, again, not physical striking minors should be the default. Again call me crazy.

Parenting is not one-size-fits-all. If you think that any psycho-social method or program works universally when applied to humans, you have not been paying attention. Humans are far from unique, but we are also far from identical. What works for you will likely work for millions of others, but by no means all or even most. Keep that in mind.

So if all human interaction is equally unique why is "I strike my child because it's the only way I can discipline them" any different than "I strike my wife because it's the only way I can communicate with her?" or "I punched by boss because it was the only way to negotiate a better salary?"

 

[Belz...]

1. Except for all the evidence that it does, but whatever.

I really think that this point needs to be acknowledged by someone here: when you compare children who are never physically punished with those who are punished twice a week, yeah, you might see a problem with the latter group. My issue is that the second group is such an extreme that we can't really draw conclusions about physical punishment in general unless we test more moderate methods.

 

[Craig4]

I only read the abstract. Does anyone one know if the study looks at the amount/severity of spanking and the age when spanking stopped? The abstract sort eludes to it when it mentions that spanking and physical abuse effects didn't differ. I just wonder if there were differences related to how severe spankings were or how frequently given.

 

[Jules Galen]

Well because one involves physically striking a minor so call me crazy but I'd argue that's a little different then putting one in time out.

My point was not to equate adult:adult and adult:child interactions to some perfect one to one ratio. My point was the fact that we have to make the "I strike my child but I didn't assault him (semantics of assault and battery aside)" distinction means something.




1. Except for all the evidence that it does, but whatever.
2. Again if the only argument can be made is "It isn't any worse in consequences and side effect" and everything is just equal I still think that, again, not physical striking minors should be the default. Again call me crazy.



So if all human interaction is equally unique why is "I strike my child because it's the only way I can discipline them" any different than "I strike my wife because it's the only way I can communicate with her?" or "I punched by boss because it was the only way to negotiate a better salary?"

That's silly. You don't discipline a child by striking them - and that's not what "Spanking" is all about. And, "Spanking" is not about "Punishment", either....unless you are some kind of pervert.

Anyways...Spanking works very well although there is no magical formula as to how much to apply (and people seem to love those "Magical Formulas" - so easy). What spanking does it's immediatly gets a child's attention so that they stop doing something that is utterly destructive or dangerous - and can then be disciplined. In that way, spanking is like spraying a fire to get it under control. Unfortunately, a lot of people confuse spanking with discipline...and they wonder why they can't even house-train a dog, much less discipline a child.

 

[caveman1917]

do other primates discipline their offspring in this way?

There are plenty of tribes of people (do they count as other primates?) who don't discipline their offspring in this way. It's got nothing to do with biological species, it's just a cultural thing.