SPANKING revisited...

[tadamsmar]

Questions for those who propose spanking within the scientifically established limit of <3 per month to prevent harm.

Is the parent to keep careful records to insure that they don't exceed the limit?

If the kid commits the 3rd offense that would normally be punished with spanking in the same month, what method do you use? If this is an effective method why not use it all the time and give up spanking? If this is not an effective method, why don't you learn the effective methods and use them? Would it not be more consistent to use the alternative method all the time rather than switching back and forth?

If the kid always so good that he never commits three spanking offenses per month, that seems like a pretty good kid. Couldn't you use the other alternative effective techniques on a kid that already has pretty good behavior?

 

[mom2many]

Suppose we stipulate that 2 spankings a month (that is, spankings below some threshold of injury) are never harmful.

Is there any convincing evidence that they are useful?

I have pretty much stayed out of this thread, but I am going to jump in here.

The evidence is in the child. Has the problem been stopped? Let me say that I believe discipline should be a tiered approach. Talking/reasoning. Time-out/removal of toy, then if all other measures have not worked a spanking 'may' be in order, but it all has to happen within the same time frame

If there is no convincing evidence that it's useful, then why bother? Why waste the effort?

The evidence as you are calling it will vary, and for some children spanking never works. For others it is all it takes, and the issue is solved.

Questions for those who propose spanking within the scientifically established limit of <3 per month to prevent harm.

Is the parent to keep careful records to insure that they don't exceed the limit?

The majority of parents who have used spanking probably don't even do it that much. There are of course exceptions to any rule.

If the kid commits the 3rd offense that would normally be punished with spanking in the same month, what method do you use?

Again most parents probably don't spank that many times in a month, but if they need a 4th spanking I am sure they wouldn't hesitate.

If this is an effective method why not use it all the time and give up spanking? If this is not an effective method, why don't you learn the effective methods and use them?

I find it odd that it is assumed parents who spank...only spank. That just isn't the case.

Would it not be more consistent to use the alternative method all the time rather than switching back and forth?

Again what works one time may not work a second time. What works on one child may not work on another.

If the kid always so good that he never commits three spanking offenses per month, that seems like a pretty good kid. Couldn't you use the other alternative effective techniques on a kid that already has pretty good behavior?

Even really good kids have their moments.

 

[parentastic]

The evidence as you are calling it will vary, and for some children spanking never works. For others it is all it takes, and the issue is solved.

Your problem is solved; perhaps.
But is the child's problem truly solved, then?

 

[mom2many]

Your problem is solved; perhaps.
But is the child's problem truly solved, then?

So if time-outs work, does that mean the childs problem is solved or is it the parents? My problem is their problem, and since part of my job is to raise good productive citizens of this world then yes, the childs problem is solved. Children are not always going to agree with a parent, just like as adults we don't always agree with certain laws. There are some things in life that are just expected of us.

 

[tadamsmar]

I have pretty much stayed out of this thread, but I am going to jump in here.
.
.
.
The majority of parents who have used spanking probably don't even do it that much. There are of course exceptions to any rule.

Research shows that parents who do not keep records (a diary) spank six time more frequently than they can recall even when the recall is for the last month:

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP16.pdf

Again most parents probably don't spank that many times in a month, but if they need a 4th spanking I am sure they wouldn't hesitate.

Research shows that more than 60% of parents of 3-5 yo kids spanked in the past week and the mean was 3 times in the past week. And, since they are recalling only 1/6 of the spankings when they don't keep records, the parents are in no position to respect a 2 spankings per month limit.

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP16.pdf

If no parent can respect the harm limit, then it follows that spanking is harmful in general as a practical matter and should be completely avoided.

 

[tadamsmar]

The fact that parents spank 6 times more often than they recall would explain why a parent could think that a method that they use so infrequently (2 times a month) would be important. In fact is they use it more than 2 time per week when they think they are using it only 2 times per month,

 

[parentastic]

So if time-outs work, does that mean the childs problem is solved or is it the parents?

For the record, Time-outs also have the same problems: the answer to your question is no, time-outs do not solve the child's problem either.
They may be less traumatic than spanking, but they are just as bad on other dimensions.

This being said, it doesn't change my question, which apply just as much to time-outs than it does to spanking:
So the child's behavior is "cured", at least temporarily, and you got your "compliance". But does it mean the actual issue is truly "solved" ?

My problem is their problem, and since part of my job is to raise good productive citizens of this world then yes, the childs problem is solved. Children are not always going to agree with a parent, just like as adults we don't always agree with certain laws. There are some things in life that are just expected of us.

Well, not really.
Your problem is the child's behavior, attitude, etc.
Your problem is also, of course, to prepare the child to become autonomous and well equipped for his future life.

But the child's problem is diffierent.
His problem is to grow, to meet his fundamental needs, to get the required attention, care, safety, love, trust, etc. he needs to grow.
So when spanking (or time-out, for that matter) is used - the behavior is "solved", but what of the original underlying problem that caused the child to behave that way in the first place?

 

[tadamsmar]

The difference between time-outs vs spanking is that there is not such a large body of research showing widespread harm.

On the other hand, I my opinion, timeouts are actually should be viewed as a corporal punishment. Corporal means bodily and the typical time-out procedure involves moving the kid to a special time-out location.

Time-outs have the same problems as other corporal punishment procedures. If the parent is angry they might yank on the kid's arm while moving the kid. There are cases of day care worker's getting charge with abuse when trying to carry out a time-out.

Holding procedures that are part of some flavors of attachment parenting practice are also corporal procedures that have a history of causing harm in some cases.

I think the notion of relocation being part of time-out is largely an artifact of its application in classroom/daycare/non-home settings. Time out means "time out from reinforcement" and in the home, the reinforcement is often provided by an individual parent. So, time out often works about as well if the parent in instead of the kid goes and stares at a beige wall for 5 minutes Seriously, time out in place, with no relocation of the kid often works just as well and has no corporal component.

 

[mom2many]

For the record, Time-outs also have the same problems: the answer to your question is no, time-outs do not solve the child's problem either.
They may be less traumatic than spanking, but they are just as bad on other dimensions.

This being said, it doesn't change my question, which apply just as much to time-outs than it does to spanking:
So the child's behavior is "cured", at least temporarily, and you got your "compliance". But does it mean the actual issue is truly "solved" ?

What actual issue? Most of what young kids do, and that is who I am talking about, is impulse control. You can only talk so much, you can only reason so much. There is a limit to redirection and verbal 'consequences' (can't think of a better word). There comes a point where you will stop, because I have asked you to, that's assuming I have already explained to them why they need to quit whatever the behavior is. I don't subscribe to the idea that everything a child does is because of some issue. They're kids, their logic doesn't always make sense.....

Well, not really.
Your problem is the child's behavior, attitude, etc.
Your problem is also, of course, to prepare the child to become autonomous and well equipped for his future life.

No, their problem...whatever that might be is my problem. "The what of it" exactly; is nit picking.

But the child's problem is diffierent.
His problem is to grow, to meet his fundamental needs, to get the required attention, care, safety, love, trust, etc. he needs to grow.
So when spanking (or time-out, for that matter) is used - the behavior is "solved", but what of the original underlying problem that caused the child to behave that way in the first place?

Look to say a child can't feel loved, secure and cared for because of time-outs and the occasional spanking is just crazy. I am coming at this as a mom of 8 kids, four of those are grown adults.

To say that the whole of parenting is negated by a small percentage of punishments is, i don't know, crazy? I don't disagree that extreme parenting, with extreme consequences doesn't do harm. I think that is true no matter which style of parenting a person does. However, there is a middle ground. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. In reality I lean more towards attachment parenting, but that doesn't mean that in life their isn't consequences for ones actions. There is, and I prefer to be the one handing those out at young ones and not having the law do it as adults.

 

[cybele]

Crazy question. Those who are really hounding in the never ever ever no exceptions train of thought on the issue. Do you honestly believe that everyone, or majority of loving, mentally stable parents who spank just do it at the drop of the hat and use it as the first response?

 

[tadamsmar]

Parentastic has argued that methods like time-out causes toxic stress. But the toxic stress expert she pointed me to (Shonkoff) takes the position that proven parenting methods that make targeted use of time-out to reduce aggressive behavior actually prevent toxic stress. Her own cited expert takes the directly opposite position!

 

[singledad]

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP16.pdf

I've scanned through it... I found this:

it is essential to clarify the terminology that legitimizes spanking. In the discussion, we recommend that researchers, family life educators and police makers use more clearly defined terminology to describe the use of physical force on children

But I can't find the definition of spanking that was used during the research? Did I miss it? I don't feel comfortable to comment of the article without it.

If no parent can respect the harm limit, then it follows that spanking is harmful in general as a practical matter and should be completely avoided.

Deliberately skipping over the gross generalization...
That is why the answer isn't legislation, but education. If you ban it, or instate a "spanking limit", you will cause confusion, resentment and defiance. If you educate parents (without the exaggerated hysterics that usually make parents discount these studies) you will accomplish a lot more.

Teach parents other ways to discipline and explain to them why it is more effective. The majority of parents will be willing to listen and learn. Tell parents that if they spank their children even once, they will ruin their lives and parents will cry "bullsh!t" and walk away. Because anyone with eyes can see it isn't true.

 

[tadamsmar]

But I can't find the definition of spanking that was used during the research? Did I miss it? I don't feel comfortable to comment of the article without it.

The paper said they used the The Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) Inventory, but I cannot find the inventory. Often these assessment forms are typically copyrighted and not available free on the web.

Deliberately skipping over the gross generalization...

I was trying to spell out the implications to the poster's generalization that parents would not precisely respect the 2 per month limit. Of course that might be two strikes against me: gross generalization and unproductive rhetoric!

One problem with a debate about spanking: A parent will say "I don't exceed the proven threshold of harm" and that may be true. But it can still be a good policy to advocate no spanking in general just because the known general characteristics of the population of parents imply that advocating spanking will lead to lots of harm.

That is why the answer isn't legislation, but education. If you ban it, or instate a "spanking limit", you will cause confusion, resentment and defiance. If you educate parents (without the exaggerated hysterics that usually make parents discount these studies) you will accomplish a lot more.

Teach parents other ways to discipline and explain to them why it is more effective. The majority of parents will be willing to listen and learn. Tell parents that if they spank their children even once, they will ruin their lives and parents will cry "bullsh!t" and walk away. Because anyone with eyes can see it isn't true.

I tend to agree with this. There are studies that indicate that existing anti-spanking laws in Europe have had no effect on parental practice. And the decline in spanking in recent decades has been attributed to the fact that many parents view alternative methods as effective:

"...they chose not to spank for an entirely practical reason: They had, they said, learned more effective ways of disciplining children."

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2011/12/spanking_is_on_the_decline_why_.2.html[/url]

I thought the most interesting thing the that article was the Lareau observation study that showed two parenting styles. The styles were equally strict in the sense that that had the same definition of bad behavior, but they used entirely different methods of discipline and involved entirely different views of the parent's role in child development. I think this is the proper way to define parenting styles, most of the other stuff is not connected to observation.

 

[bssage]

There is no need to respond. I know what it says. If you get something new: Share. Otherwise I really dont feel like repeating myself a million times.

Suppose we stipulate that 2 spankings a month (that is, spankings below some threshold of injury) are never harmful.

Suppose we dont

Is there any convincing evidence that they are useful?

If there is no convincing evidence that it's useful, then why bother? Why waste the effort?

And dont give me that non answer that goes: even if we cant (provide a study) why would you take the chance. Thats lame. The same reason I get in my car, eat foods with sugar and swim. If you did nothing that involved any level of risk. You would not do much. And my opinion is there is very little risk if any of long term harm.

Questions for those who propose spanking within the scientifically established limit of <3 per month to prevent harm.

Someone proposes this?

If the kid always so good that he never commits three spanking offenses per month, that seems like a pretty good kid. Couldn't you use the other alternative effective techniques on a kid that already has pretty good behavior?

Or that the first spank worked?

Research shows that more than 60% of parents of 3-5 yo kids spanked in the past week and the mean was 3 times in the past week. And, since they are recalling only 1/6 of the spankings when they don't keep records, the parents are in no position to respect a 2 spankings per month limit.

Over half the people in the world are spanking their kids 9 times a week

And dont give me that non answer that goes: even if we cant (provide a study) why would you take the chance. Thats lame. The same reason I get in my car, eat foods with sugar and swim. If you did nothing that involved any level of risk. You would not do much. And my opinion is there is very little risk if any of long term harm.

The fact that parents spank 6 times more often than they recall would explain why a parent could think that a method that they use so infrequently (2 times a month) would be important. In fact is they use it more than 2 time per week when they think they are using it only 2 times per month,

:huh:

Holding procedures that are part of some flavors of attachment parenting practice are also corporal procedures that have a history of causing harm in some cases.

Pretty sure not pstc's cup-O-Tea. Dont really know why you included that except to get him riled up.

I think the notion of relocation being part of time-out is largely an artifact of its application in classroom/daycare/non-home settings. Time out means "time out from reinforcement" and in the home, the reinforcement is often provided by an individual parent. So, time out often works about as well if the parent in instead of the kid goes and stares at a beige wall for 5 minutes Seriously, time out in place, with no relocation of the kid often works just as well and has no corporal component.

These facts are from where?

Almost made an entire post without typing. Maybe next time.

 

[tadamsmar]

Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar
Is there any convincing evidence that they are useful?

If there is no convincing evidence that it's useful, then why bother? Why waste the effort?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bssage
And dont give me that non answer that goes: even if we cant (provide a study) why would you take the chance. Thats lame. The same reason I get in my car, eat foods with sugar and swim. If you did nothing that involved any level of risk. You would not do much. And my opinion is there is very little risk if any of long term harm.

You seem to think you responded to my argument. I am saying there is no point in doing something unless you have convincing evidence it works. Even if it's harmless, there is no point in doing it.

Your response is "I do it because it's harmless"?

I have tried a number of times to discuss the issue of whether spanking is useful, whether other methods can be substituted because they are equally or more effective.

 

[tadamsmar]

Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar
Holding procedures that are part of some flavors of attachment parenting practice are also corporal procedures that have a history of causing harm in some cases.
Pretty sure not pstc's cup-O-Tea. Dont really know why you included that except to get him riled up.

I just included it for completeness on the theme that every method that has a corporal component seems to go wrong in the hands of some parent or other. There are always some outlyer parents.

I think it's probable that pstc supports some kind of holding procedure. Calm holding of a tantruming child seems to be a pretty common attachment parenting procedure, and, in my opinion, it's probably better than trying to reason with the child during a tantrum (which is what some parents do).

There is some kind of extreme holding associated with a nut-case "attachment therapy" wing of attachment parenting that has caused harm.

 

[tadamsmar]

Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar
I think the notion of relocation being part of time-out is largely an artifact of its application in classroom/daycare/non-home settings. Time out means "time out from reinforcement" and in the home, the reinforcement is often provided by an individual parent. So, time out often works about as well if the parent in instead of the kid goes and stares at a beige wall for 5 minutes Seriously, time out in place, with no relocation of the kid often works just as well and has no corporal component.
These facts are from where?

The idea that time-out means time-out from reinforcment is found in perhaps thousands of references. Here is one:

http://www.interventioncentral.org/behavioral-interventions/challenging-students/time-out-reinforcement[/url]

Many experts emphasize that time-out is time-out from reinforcement, because commonly parents may the mistake of giving kids too much attention when instituting time-out, thereby defeating the purpose and causing time-out to fail.

Every recent expert description I have found of time out starts with something like this:

"Time Out is probably the most widely researched technique for dealing with unwanted behavior in young children. Unfortunately, it is often used incorrectly."

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200109/why-our-kids-are-out-control?page=3[/url]

and proceeds to yet again try to get parents to use it correctly.

There is a whole field called Social Learning Theory that studies how we train each other, including the topic of how parents reinforce bad behavior. Read "Living with Children" by Patterson.

The idea that relocation is overused is my idea, no reference for that, note the sentence starts with "I think" not my usual uncategorical statement. But if you follow a good parenting book like "Incredible Years" closely, you will notice that simple ignoring (what I call "time-out in place") is to be used more frequently than time-out with relocation.

 

[bssage]

You seem to think you responded to my argument. I am saying there is no point in doing something unless you have convincing evidence it works. Even if it's harmless, there is no point in doing it.

I have responded that you have absolutely brought nothing new to the table. You did not link to a new study.

Your response is "I do it because it's harmless"?

Absolutely. They don't even have to demonstrate a behavior that needs corrected. I spank just because I can. 9 times a week. every week all year long :arghh:

I have tried a number of times to discuss the issue of whether spanking is useful, whether other methods can be substituted because they are equally or more effective.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=contradiction&l=1 So you saying spanking is effective? or are you saying "equally or more effective" than nothing.

When you find a study that has thrown out the 9 times a week spanker: the spanker who uses other forms of discipline. Then throw out the undesired results that can be attributed to the many other factors like location: socioeconomic status, education, IQ, ect

Lets say for example I use your numbers. Since I cant be relied on to know how many times I spanked. So lets say I spanked Cole 27 times between 2005 and 2012. That accounts for my misconception that he was spanked two or three times in his life. And he had issues later in life. Is that because he received the 27 spanks. Or is there any chance it because of his mental ability, The economy, his peer group, or other factors Did I spank Cole 27 times (no I have not spanked him 27 times) because he had control issues? Or does he have control issues because I spanked him? If he has control issues before I spanked and after I spanked. Are the problems because he has control issues : or because I spanked? Are his issues related to a divorce? or are they related to the 27 spanks? Did this study include people who did not spank in the last week? Was it a blind study? Did the people doing the study have an agenda? If you spanked once a week are you a non-spanker or a spanker?

None of us that I am aware of: are saying to start spanking your kids. We are saying: Not buying what your selling! It is not incumbent on me to prove "I am not buying" What I am saying is that the sited studies are flawed at best. This is all stuff already covered in the thread or in the older thread.

You can link a hundred blogs, stories, or headlines. They are referencing the same stuff. Just the delivery is different.

If you were to ask me a new insightful pertinent question. I will answer to the best of my ability. Or link to a new study I will read it. everything else at this point is just shaking the hive for the sake of shaking the hive.

 

[cybele]

I just included it for completeness on the theme that every method that has a corporal component seems to go wrong in the hands of some parent or other. There are always some outlyer parents.

I think it's probable that pstc supports some kind of holding procedure. Calm holding of a tantruming child seems to be a pretty common attachment parenting procedure, and, in my opinion, it's probably better than trying to reason with the child during a tantrum (which is what some parents do).

There is some kind of extreme holding associated with a nut-case "attachment therapy" wing of attachment parenting that has caused harm.

Hang on. I'm normally not Ptsc's biggest fan and often I think that his methods are wonderful in theory, but in practice of living as a family under one roof for up to 2 decades are idealistic, rather than practical, BUT he never, ever brings up all this holding stuff. You are the only one who does.

I never knew this existed until YOU started talking about it.
YOU post the videos about it.
YOU bring it up in conversations.

Parentastic does NOT.

 

[singledad]

A parent will say "I don't exceed the proven threshold of harm"

Wait, what? Where do you get that? There is no proven threshold of harm. The only thing that is there are studies that prove that constant, excessive spanking is harmful. That is all.

Over half the people in the world are spanking their kids 9 times a week

That is why I question their definition of "spanking". I suspect they've included several things that may or may not involve physical touch, but would not commonly be considered spanking.

See, even when I was a kid in SA in the 70/80s, where you were considered a bad parent if you didn't spank your kids "enough", I'm not aware of kids who were spanked more than once a day on a regular basis. And kids (well, boys at least) bragged about being spanked. Being able to "take" a spanking was considered manly. Kids were more likely to exaggerate the number of spankings they received than to downplay it...

Do these people even realize that 9 times a week means daily, and twice a day on weekends? Of course that would be harmful, but seriously, who does that?

And why don't they just state their definition of spanking in the paper? Why use some obscure test that isn't available to the general public? What are they hiding?

I'm sorry. I don't buy their numbers.