On Sparing the Rod:
Quite a discussion this weekend, eh CB? I started doing a bit of web research, but let it ride when the posting volume picked up. Looked up a few things this morning again, I may be duplicating some of the things you caught, but reenforcement can't hurt.
To back up to where I last contributed, to Nuni in Message 12261900, I don't think an occasional swat under duress is going to do any harm. As I think was discussed here, the problem with the standard examples, running into the street and the boiling pot on the stove, is that they seem to have more to do with the parents than the children, at least at the 2 year old level, where it came up originally. The parent is fearful, or angry? And what does hitting the kid do about it? At that age, the parent has to be responsible for keeping the kid out of the street and away from the stove.
The problem with spanking, as I understand it, is not with the occasional swat. People who do it tend to do it a lot more than occasionally, though, and I think that's where the problem is. From religioustolerance.org :
Anti-social behavior: The Family Research Laboratory of the University of New Hampshire conducted a large study involving over 3,000 mothers of 3 to 5 year old children during the late 1980's. The women were interviewed in 1986, 1988 and 1990. The found that 63% of the mothers had spanked their child at least once during the previous week. Among those that spanked, they hit their children a little over 3 times per week, on average. They found that the children which were spanked the most as 3 to 5 year olds exhibited higher levels of anti-social behavior when observed 2 and 4 years later. This included higher levels of hitting siblings, hitting other children in school, defying parents and ignoring parental rules. Dr. Murray Straus, the Co-director of the Laboratory noted how ironic it is that the behaviors for which parents spank children are liable to get worse as a result of the spanking.
From the source cited in the above excerpt, I found this: unh.edu
Corporal punishment of children by parents, such as spanking and slapping, has been an almost universal part of the childhood experience of American children. Research up to about 1980 shows that more than 90% of parents used corporal punishment on toddlers, and just over half continued this into the early teen years (Straus, 1994; Straus and Donnelly, 1993) Since then the rate has decreased, but it is still extremely high (Daro and Gelles, 1992; Straus, 1994). When a behavior is this prevalent, there is likely to be a set of social norms which encourage or at least legitimate it. Correspondingly, if structural changes in the society bring about a change in the behavior, cultural norms are likely to be recast to reflect and justify the new reality. This process is illustrated by the change in norms which followed the steady increase in the case of paid employment of middle class mothers from 1950 to 1980. Regardless of which occurs first, and despite manyexceptions, over time, cultural norms and actual behavior tend toward consistency.
What's the problem? I wouldn't want to bother those who know the truth with research again, just a few random bits from people who've read the research. From cnet.unb.ca
But the clearest evidence that physical punishments don't help to produce well-behaved, socialized people comes from studies of murderers, rapists, muggers and other violent criminals who threaten the lives and security of ordinary people. The life histories of notorious individuals - Adolf Hitler amongst them - record excessive physical discipline in childhood. Studies of whole prison populations all over the Western world show that criminals who use violence against their victims almost invariably had violence used against them when they were children. If our society is becoming increasingly violent it is certainly not because parents 'spare the rod'.
From silcon.com
In 1940, researchers Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck began their famous study of delinquent and nondelinquent boys. They discovered how certain early childhood experiences influence children to develop antisocial, violent behaviors. They showed that the first signs of delinquency often appear as early as three--long before children come into contact with influences outside the home. The Gluecks showed how parents' failure to manage their children calmly, gently and patiently, but readiness to spank, results in aggressive, assaultive children. The more severe and the earlier the mistreatment, the worse the outcome.
The Gluecks also found that the lowest incidence of antisocial behavior is always associated with children who are reared from infancy in attentive, supportive, nonviolent families.
From the same site, same author, silcon.com
The person whose closest caretakers used methods of infant care and child rearing that were gentle, patient and loving is not in prison. The person who sensed from earliest infancy that adults are the source of safety, security and comfort is not in prison. The person who always felt wanted is not in prison. The person who was respected, encouraged to explore and inquire is not in prison. The person who grew up seeing family members and others treat each other with respect and honor each other's privacy and dignity is not in prison. The person who had ample exposure in childhood to people who used reasoning, not violence, to solve problems is not in prison. The person whose physical and emotional needs during infancy and childhood were met is not in prison. To summarize: The child who is reared in an attentive, supportive, nonviolent family will never spend time behind bars.
To the skeptical reader, I offer the following challenge. Visit any prison and try to identify just one incarcerated felon who was brought up in a household where harmonious interaction was the norm. You will not succeed.
I think other research bears out the above, but that's enough for now.
Finally, one preemptive counterargument for the "I got spanked, and I turned out good" school. Kids are in general pretty resilient, even in horrible situations. In the Rumanian orphanages, I think the split was something like 25% no harm, 50% some problems, but mostly OK, 25%, real problems, and that was probably about as severe an environment as you could find. Spanking or corporal punishment isn't a sufficient condition for kids to turn out bad, but it seems to be a necessary one. Logically, I'd say that's a pretty good argument to just say no.
Cheers, Dan. |
