Discipline

[Nym90]

Spanking is acceptable in extreme circumstances.

But its use should be infrequent enough that it really means something, and the reasons for its use should be explained.

[Alcon]

I'm bumping this thread because I never realized I forgot to reply, and I always meant to.  Always a fun discussion to rehash.

I think controlled hitting can be called for under certain circumstances.  Timeouts are a pretty weak punishment, and most kids know it.  Under more extreme circumstances, something more dramatic can be called for.

There's a big difference between controlled hitting and beating.

I also think limited and controlled hitting is far from the worst thing a parent can do to a child.  Emotional abuse and neglect are far more damaging.

Maybe it's being an ADHD kid, but timeouts were infinitely worse to me than spanking could have ever been.  Besides, goofing off is part of being a kid.  If they are put in time out, they learn that their behaviours have negative consequences.  If they are spanked, they learn to relate those behaviours to being humiliated and physically hurt.

Personally I find being humiliated and physically hurt to be negative consequences.

It is.  But it teaches consequence of getting caught.  Actually, it teaches consequence of appearing guilty.

My central objection is that spanking has been proven to cause issues later on.  I don't want this to come across as "spanking has horrible consequences for every kid."  It doesn't.  But the questions as I see them are:

I. Is it generally effective as a short-term deterrent?

II. Is it generally effective in teaching the correct lesson?

III. Is it ethical?

IV. Are its long-term effects acceptable, considering the ethical implications (III)?

I don't always agree with the APA (which tends to shy away from taking culturally unpopular or "immoderate" positions), but I agree with their interpretations of the studies, which I've read.  The gist is:  There are more effective methods long-term, similarly-effective methods short-term, and corporal punishment may have negative results.  I disagree with their wishy-washy conclusion, but again, appeal-to-moderation is kind of what they do.

As to (I), I think it is effective in the short-term.  I think there are other short-term deterrents, but spanking may be the most effective.  So, it has that going for it.

As for (II), I don't think it is the right lesson.  Again, it teaches kids to avoid getting caught.  It teaches them that physical domination is OK when you're "right" about something.  APA-sponsored studies have shown links to domestic violence in grown-ups.  There are valid arguments that those studies are somewhat tainted, because parents who spank are more likely (on average) to escalate to physical abuse.

However, I think that the central lesson is just fundamentally unsound.  "I am bigger than you, and I can physically enforce my will on you because I am right, and you are my responsibility" is not a practical lesson.  Would you want an elder caretaker to do that to you?  Our society has a weird double-standard on this issue.  I think we contort ourselves to logically defend something that we'd otherwise reject.

As for ethics (III), I have major qualms.  It's a violent act, whatever it is.  You have a high onus to prove the necessity of a violent act on someone weaker.  Studies tend to show middling spanking effectiveness, with other punishments comparably effective.  No matter inherent flaws in the studies, I don't feel comfortable dismissing them totally when a related link exists.  The difficulty in establishing a link between "light" spanking and violence, because of the difficulty of separating degrees of the practice, doesn't mean we should assume the "light" version is guilt-free.  And even if that's probable, how possible does damage need to be before alternatives aren't much more attractive?

I think (IV) is essentially the test of whether the practice is valid to me, and the answer is no.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Spanking, that's it.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

None.

I was never spanked or anything like that. I was a scarily well-behaved child however.

H

[A18]

I guess 1, 2, and 5. Though I'm not sure what was meant by "verbal abuse/threatening."

[Alcon]

I'm interested in hearing how a pro-spanking person rebuts my points and the APA statement (which I think, explicitly or otherwise, is intended to discourage the practice)

[Alcon]

Man, that would have been a lot more fun if we disagreed at all

Thanks for taking the time to reply.  Didn't mean to single you out there, by the way, it's just what I ended up absent-mindedly quoting for a bump excuse.

[War on Want]

I barely approve of threatening, not much though and only if the child is being extremely terrible.

[NDN]

The first two are reasonable. However, the ones after make me uncomfortable. Not to mention they're mostly illegal.

[Хahar 🤔]

One and three, because I've experienced them.

[Alcon]

One and three, because I've experienced them.

*Sigh*  I so don't want to have to pick a fight here...

But you have published studies on this matter.  There are the things I raised, which I think are valid on a "macro" scale.  There are so many unanswered questions that deserve more than "if it ain't [apparently] broke [even if maybe it is on the whole], don't fix it."

You can take a single anecdotal example.  "It was done to me, I'm a good person and I'm happy, the people who did it to me aren't evil, it's OK."  That's really easy logic to pass on.  I think you see the problems with it, though.  Think of how many excitedly abhorrent applications that has.

My dad was abused and he is a PhD.  I don't think that makes abuse OK, or productive.  Neither, God willing, do you.

And I know abuse and spanking aren't the same thing, but you could apply the same justification to anything.  Seriously, anything!  Except maybe decapitation.  This exchange:

A: "Why is x  not unethical, considering [concerns]?"
B: "Because ____"
A: "But with ____, you could defend these bad things..."
B: "But those are clearly bad, this is just x."

...is not something I think anyone here genuinely believes in.  I think it's mostly rationalized.

Sorry, but I had to pick a fight eventually or I'd just keep getting ignored

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Option five is barely acceptable, & only depending on the type of threats employed. The first four options are completely unacceptable to me. If the kid is misbehaving badly enough to warrant such severe actions, that's what law enforcement is for.

[John Dibble]

     Option five is barely acceptable, & only depending on the type of threats employed. The first four options are completely unacceptable to me. If the kid is misbehaving badly enough to warrant such severe actions, that's what law enforcement is for.

So let me get this straight - if your five year old child is misbehaving enough to warrant a spanking or a light slap to the face you would call the cops?

[ilikeverin]

Spanking, like most forms of discipline, does little to change anything but the parent-child relationship and the behavior of the children when they are around the parent.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Top 2

[A18]

I'm interested in hearing how a pro-spanking person rebuts my points and the APA statement (which I think, explicitly or otherwise, is intended to discourage the practice)

If you want to link to some studies, I might be willing to skim through them. Generally speaking, though, I don't take that kind of literature very seriously. Isolating x variable in human beings is easier said than done--and in this case, even defining the variable is bound to be a nightmare.

[Alcon]

I'm interested in hearing how a pro-spanking person rebuts my points and the APA statement (which I think, explicitly or otherwise, is intended to discourage the practice)

If you want to link to some studies, I might be willing to skim through them. Generally speaking, though, I don't take that kind of literature very seriously. Isolating x variable in human beings is easier said than done--and in this case, even defining the variable is bound to be a nightmare.

I agree with your caveat, and included that with the argument in my original post.  For reference, here is the APA release on the meta-analysis of 88 studies:

http://www.apa.org/releases/spanking.html

The Gershoff study and its citations are readily available; if you are interested in them specifically, I can probably dig a (semi-legal maybe!) copy up for you.  There are also extensive peer reviews available that express the same concerns we raised.  They don't negate the studies nearly as much as I even did.

Just for clarity, again: I'm not advocating taking those purely at face value -- it is hard to stratify corporal punishment.  But, the situation pretty much presents itself as follows to me:

1. There is evidence indicative of the potential relationship between corporal punishment and psychological issues.

2. While the difficulty in separating extreme from lesser corporal punishment may introduce error into these findings, we still have an association between physical punishment for an act and inappropriate consequences.

3. There's little documented proof that spanking is any more effective, in long-term, as a teaching method than any other form of punishment.

4. Spanking may very well teach the wrong thing, as it is a "special case" moral exception that our culture has created.  (As I raised in my post)

5. I think, and I doubt many people will disagree, that you shouldn't violate someone's physical being an inflict pain unless you really have to.

I realize that this isn't black-and-white morally.  But even if you don't feel it's an abuse of parental privilege, I think that these points constitute a pretty strong indictment against the practice.  Other than tradition, immediacy and social acceptability, I don't see what it has going for it.

[Хahar 🤔]

One and three, because I've experienced them.

*Sigh*  I so don't want to have to pick a fight here...

But you have published studies on this matter.  There are the things I raised, which I think are valid on a "macro" scale.  There are so many unanswered questions that deserve more than "if it ain't [apparently] broke [even if maybe it is on the whole], don't fix it."

You can take a single anecdotal example.  "It was done to me, I'm a good person and I'm happy, the people who did it to me aren't evil, it's OK."  That's really easy logic to pass on.  I think you see the problems with it, though.  Think of how many excitedly abhorrent applications that has.

My dad was abused and he is a PhD.  I don't think that makes abuse OK, or productive.  Neither, God willing, do you.

And I know abuse and spanking aren't the same thing, but you could apply the same justification to anything.  Seriously, anything!  Except maybe decapitation.  This exchange:

A: "Why is x  not unethical, considering [concerns]?"
B: "Because ____"
A: "But with ____, you could defend these bad things..."
B: "But those are clearly bad, this is just x."

...is not something I think anyone here genuinely believes in.  I think it's mostly rationalized.

Sorry, but I had to pick a fight eventually or I'd just keep getting ignored

When did I say my argument was logical?

[ilikeverin]

1. There is evidence indicative of the potential relationship between corporal punishment and psychological issues.

2. While the difficulty in separating extreme from lesser corporal punishment may introduce error into these findings, we still have an association between physical punishment for an act and inappropriate consequences.

Wonderful.  You've found a correlation.  Now prove that spanking->these problems you cited.  I'd be far more likely to believe that spankers produce problem children than spanking produces problem children.

Don't get me wrong- I think spanking is wrong, and would never support it for the other reasons you mentioned (perhaps not 4).  But I don't like seeing evidence misused.

[Alcon]

When did I say my argument was logical?

You're a good guy, Xahar, but you confuse me

Wonderful.  You've found a correlation.  Now prove that spanking->these problems you cited.  I'd be far more likely to believe that spankers produce problem children than spanking produces problem children.

Don't get me wrong- I think spanking is wrong, and would never support it for the other reasons you mentioned (perhaps not 4).  But I don't like seeing evidence misused.

Hey, as I said, I don't think it's quantifiable either way.  It's just that hard to stratify the degrees of corporal punishment.  I agree that spankers probably produce more problem children than spanking does.  But I'm against dismissing the correlative evidence just because a caveat can be found.  It's a caveat I think has a strong effect.  I don't think its existence alone eliminates the possibility of a lesser correlation, and that possibility further compounds an otherwise morally murky matter.

I don't feel that I was misusing evidence.  I made my qualms with the study clear.  My objections are made from a combination of all of those items.  That is, it would matter less that a possible correlation exists if no valid alternatives were available, but they are; it would matter less if I saw this as harmonious in any applied system of ethics.  (I'd be interested to know your disagreement with #4, btw.)

I'll admit that I didn't dwell on the caveats for my entire post.  Sorry if you feel that I didn't give them due airing.  I wasn't meaning to gloss over them.  But they were considered in both the statements and conclusion.

[JSojourner]

None.  I consider some of those blatant forms of abuse...others potential forms of abuse, depending on the circumstance --

HOWEVER -- I do not consider spanking (if it is defined by a simple swat on a toddler's bottom or a quick slap of a hand as it reaches for a hot stove) as abusive.

Problem is, a good many people consider whippings and beatings to be "spanking".  I've seen some church websites where parents are told to give their children what they call "stripes" for willful, disobedient behavior. Use of a belt or a cane is recommended. 

That's just brutality.  And it makes children grow up into future victims...or future abusers.

[A18]

I agree with your caveat, and included that with the argument in my original post.  For reference, here is the APA release on the meta-analysis of 88 studies:

http://www.apa.org/releases/spanking.html

And what, specifically, is that page supposed to demonstrate? It contains scarcely a word about method.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The first of these simply evades the issue. We are trying to pin down the reliability of that very evidence. And as for any "association between physical punishment for an act and inappropriate consequences," I have no idea what that's meant to establish. Eating and obesity are similarly "associated."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe. But I don't know that "documented proof" is the appropriate standard; nor am I convinced that only the "long-term" matters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, that's the sort of thing I had in mind.

[Friz]

I was a pretty good kid growing up, so I was never subjected to anything, other than empty threats of spanking or soap in mouth.  (The latter of which I actually got once.)  So I went with none of the above.

[Alcon]

Warning - Updated link below, probably should read the next post before responding to this one

And what, specifically, is that page supposed to demonstrate? It contains scarcely a word about method.

Well, an APA endorsement does give some legitimacy, at least in that the APA doesn't warm up to "advocacy studies."  There's a lot of those, and without extensive Google work on the citations and researchers, they can be hard to identify.

I linked to it because the page gives a full reference to the article.  I was assuming you have access to an academic database through college (or whatever.)  If you do, what is it?  It'd be a lot easier (and less incriminating) to give you a link that way.

Citation: Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 128 #4, 2002.

The first of these simply evades the issue. We are trying to pin down the reliability of that very evidence. And as for any "association between physical punishment for an act and inappropriate consequences," I have no idea what that's meant to establish. Eating and obesity are similarly "associated."

I know we're trying to pin down the reliability, but sometimes "may be indicative" is the best you can get.  I'm not trying to avoid the issue.  I'm giving recognition to the fact that "the issue" may be only limitedly quantifiable.

The eating metaphor is not a good one, for two reasons.  First off, eating has a necessary positive consequence, and has established efficacy.  It's also easy to stratify eating, unlike corporal punishment.  You are asking for a piece of evidence I've conceded is not especially possible to extract.  My argument is not limited to that one facet.  If I knew of any way to accurately separate the degrees of corporal punishment, I'd be reproducing those experimental results up-front.  I mean, why not?

Maybe. But I don't know that "documented proof" is the appropriate standard; nor am I convinced that only the "long-term" matters.

Short-term does matter, yes.  But if short-term is potentially harmful long-term, teaches an inaccurate lesson (I don't see much dispute of that), is an ethical anomaly entirely enforced by cultural precepts, and involves what I think most people would rather avoid (physical harm to a child)...

...it seems like some concession should be given to moral restraint.  That, really, is my argument.  I don't think it's a convoluted one.

[Alcon]

Hey, just as I posted that, look what I found.  Sorry for the weasel-y source, but the original documentation seems intact to me.

I was actually undervaluing my source material.  Gershoff did attempt stratification, as hard as that is in a meta-analysis.  She found statistically significant associations at all levels.  I'm going to make a totally non-scientific concession here:  I think self-reporting issues may come into play, and some children who were abused may just report "spanked."

But I'm having difficulty finding support of any positive besides immediate compliance, which also reaches statistical significance.  No real surprise there.  But beyond that, I don't know if it's really possible for a very-not-universal, hard-to-quantify effect to show up in a meta-analysis with higher clarity.

It re-enforces the validity of the concern.  That's not to say it's possible to concretely establish "spanking definitely makes many kids more violent."  But how close does it need to get, and how many other valid caveats need to present themselves, before it's worth erring on the side of restraint?