Spanking Kids Leads to More Aggressive Behavior?

[dan2100]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100412/hl_time/08599198101900

Not sure if this should be more in the parenting section... Anyhow, comments?

[sbeaulieu]

Discipline is an evolutionary process that differs for each child. Having two of my own, I've used spanking sparingly and only at a young age. Trying to reason with a youngster is difficult because they lack the facilities of reasoning.

How it's applied is important. My son used to stick his hands in the VCR door...a danger of getting shocked. Spanking him gave a jolt of pain, which he would understand and undesirable. In turn, he stopped sticking his hand there. He was too young to understand why it was a bad idea to do so.

As he got older, I used time-outs and now just ground him. He's got his reasoning faculties down pretty good. So nowadays, reasoning out differences go a long way.

With my daughter, she's more sensitive. She only required a tap (just the mere act of the spank) where she would be brought to tears. That she had disappointed was enough motivator to get her to change her ways.

Spanking was only used for two reasons in my house - danger of injury and disrespect of mom and dad, and again at a young age.

~ Shane

Edited April 12, 2010 by sbeaulieu

[tjohnson]

http://news.yahoo.co.../08599198101900

Not sure if this should be more in the parenting section... Anyhow, comments?

Wow, there's a lot of comments on that article! Very controversial. I think it's pretty obvious that repeated physical punishment will lead to an attitude that "might is right".

[Brant Gaede]

http://news.yahoo.co.../08599198101900

Not sure if this should be more in the parenting section... Anyhow, comments?

Wow, there's a lot of comments on that article! Very controversial. I think it's pretty obvious that repeated physical punishment will lead to an attitude that "might is right".

Might may not be "right," but it rules.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

Might may not be "right," but it rules.

--Brant

The pen is mightier than the sword.

[dan2100]

http://news.yahoo.co.../08599198101900

Not sure if this should be more in the parenting section... Anyhow, comments?

Wow, there's a lot of comments on that article! Very controversial. I think it's pretty obvious that repeated physical punishment will lead to an attitude that "might is right".

It seems obvious to me too. It's also a view championed by some libertarian activists, such as Stefan Molyneux

http://www.freedomainradio.com/

I think his basic view is that if you reduce the amount of spanking and other violence used against children, eventually you'll slowly change society into an overall less violent one -- and the "might makes right" attitude will find less adherents.

[9thdoctor]

I think his basic view is that if you reduce the amount of spanking and other violence used against children, eventually you'll slowly change society into an overall less violent one -- and the "might makes right" attitude will find less adherents.

I don’t have a well formed opinion on this, but what if being aggressive at age 5 correlates to success at age 30? Maybe there’s a competitive advantage you could develop, particularly if no one else is doing it.

If you must have docile 5 year olds, try amputating all their limbs, they’ll never hit anyone then.

[Dragonfly]

The report states "of the nearly 2,500 youngsters in the study, those who were spanked more frequently at age 3 were more likely to be aggressive by age 5." It's the blank slate déjà vu all over again. Apparently they didn't consider the obvious possibility that those children were already genetically disposed to be more aggressive and thereby elicited more spanking by their parents. Some children can be real little devils from birth.

[Brant Gaede]

Might may not be "right," but it rules.

--Brant

The pen is mightier than the sword.

Uh, huh.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

The report states "of the nearly 2,500 youngsters in the study, those who were spanked more frequently at age 3 were more likely to be aggressive by age 5." It's the blank slate déjà vu all over again. Apparently they didn't consider the obvious possibility that those children were already genetically disposed to be more aggressive and thereby elicited more spanking by their parents. Some children can be real little devils from birth.

These types of studies are PC conclusions looking for the necessary evidence.

Drug companies use bs studies to sell their drugs by bamboozling doctors for the money. There are several drugs used to lower cholesterol, but that doesn't mean you've lowered your risk of heart attack; you haven't. Nada. Zip. Garbage--very expensive garbage.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

The report states "of the nearly 2,500 youngsters in the study, those who were spanked more frequently at age 3 were more likely to be aggressive by age 5." It's the blank slate déjà vu all over again. Apparently they didn't consider the obvious possibility that those children were already genetically disposed to be more aggressive and thereby elicited more spanking by their parents. Some children can be real little devils from birth.

Yes, and we should use physical punishment on them because that will make them much more angelic?

[Dragonfly]

Yes, and we should use physical punishment on them because that will make them much more angelic?

Talking won't make them more angelic either, you can't talk the aggression genes out of them. Physical punishment will at least limit their obnoxious behavior, it's the language they understand best.

[Brant Gaede]

Yes, and we should use physical punishment on them because that will make them much more angelic?

Talking won't make them more angelic either, you can't talk the aggression genes out of them. Physical punishment will at least limit their obnoxious behavior, it's the language they understand best.

"Hit them again! The son-of-a-bitches are from New Jersey!"

--Brant

[dan2100]

The report states "of the nearly 2,500 youngsters in the study, those who were spanked more frequently at age 3 were more likely to be aggressive by age 5." It's the blank slate déjà vu all over again. Apparently they didn't consider the obvious possibility that those children were already genetically disposed to be more aggressive and thereby elicited more spanking by their parents. Some children can be real little devils from birth.

Do you have evidence for a genetic factor here? Also, later in the same news story -- I haven't read the original study -- it states:

"Led by Catherine Taylor, the Tulane study was the first to control simultaneously for variables that are most likely to confound the association between spanking and later aggressive behavior. The researchers accounted for factors such as acts of neglect by the mother, violence or aggression between the parents, maternal stress and depression, the mother's use of alcohol and drugs, and even whether the mother considered abortion while pregnant with the child."

So, it looks like they did try to control for other factors. And "violence or aggression between the parents" might control for some genetic disposition to be "more aggressive," don't you think?

[dan2100]

Yes, and we should use physical punishment on them because that will make them much more angelic?

Talking won't make them more angelic either, you can't talk the aggression genes out of them. Physical punishment will at least limit their obnoxious behavior, it's the language they understand best.

So, the choice, to you, comes down to talking or physical punishment?

[Rich Engle]

"Hit them again! The son-of-a-bitches are from New Jersey!"

--Brant

I hear ya. If there's a blanket exception to be made, this might be it.

Edited April 13, 2010 by Rich Engle

[dan2100]

I think his basic view is that if you reduce the amount of spanking and other violence used against children, eventually you'll slowly change society into an overall less violent one -- and the "might makes right" attitude will find less adherents.

I don't have a well formed opinion on this, but what if being aggressive at age 5 correlates to success at age 30? Maybe there's a competitive advantage you could develop, particularly if no one else is doing it.

I'm not sure that's the case. I think this and other stuff I've read seems to show that using physical violence against kids doesn't teach them so much to be more competitive in productive and socially beneficially ways as to just be more violent and to see violence as a tool for changing other people's behavior. To me, that would seem to lower competitive advantage. (If not, then what don't really violent societies tend to produce more stuff and attract more talent and people? A lesson of history is that trade is better than raid -- or getting along with others is better than fighting them.)

If you must have docile 5 year olds, try amputating all their limbs, they'll never hit anyone then.

Very funny. I don't think, again, that's the choice. Also, I'm not sure I'd want docile children so much as children I could get along with who would grow up into well-adjusted adults.

And, from what I've seen, if a five-year old is hitting other kids, it's probably not because no one's amputated her or his limbs. It's much more likely, from my experience (which, I admit, is not far-ranging) and readings, that the child has a background where she or he sees violence being used and has it used against her or him.

[Dragonfly]

So, the choice, to you, comes down to talking or physical punishment?

Let's say between a bleeding-heart educational psychobabble treatment or physical punishment.

[dan2100]

So, the choice, to you, comes down to talking or physical punishment?

Let's say between a bleeding-heart educational psychobabble treatment or physical punishment.

I think the better question to ask is how a child would get to the point where anyone believes only physical violence will control him or her. I don't think, unlike some here, some kids are naturally aggressive or violent and can only be handled by using physical violence in return. (Aside from this, even were it true some are, there'd always be the danger of wrongly categorizing kids who weren't innately aggressive or violent and then treating them accordingly. I'd prefer to err against using force. Wouldn't you? In my experience, too, abusive parents are usually quick to use violence rather than try other options.)

I'd also like to raise again the problematic issue of what some call psychological violence.

[sbeaulieu]

Children are a product of their environments...they mimic. Hit them enough, they will stress and find an outlet to do the same unto others. We see this all the time. Some situations call for spanking, others for talk. If it comes to spanking, I think it's a big mistake to use anything other than your hands. May as well be wielding a weapon against your child otherwise. And that can have severe repercussions down the road.

~ Shane

[Rich Engle]

I'd also like to raise again the problematic issue of what some call psychological violence.

What is there to say about it? Let's see:

1. It's free, anyone can do it with a little pre-planning.

2. It tends to be highly effective, especially when administered to the undeveloped, or those with low self-esteem.

3. It has incredible staying power.

4. It has a high contagion level.

5. There are endless variations, thematic material available--so if you get bored with one, you'll surely be able to find another.

6. No marks on the outside.

All in all, very nearly perfect torture.

[dan2100]

Children are a product of their environments...they mimic. Hit them enough, they will stress and find an outlet to do the same unto others. We see this all the time. Some situations call for spanking, others for talk. If it comes to spanking, I think it's a big mistake to use anything other than your hands. May as well be wielding a weapon against your child otherwise. And that can have severe repercussions down the road.

~ Shane

What conditions do you think "call for spanking"? And why won't that teach the kid that hitting others is acceptable behavior? You know, "Daddy hit me when I was bad. Now my friend Kyle is being bad, so I'll hit him."

[sbeaulieu]

Children are a product of their environments...they mimic. Hit them enough, they will stress and find an outlet to do the same unto others. We see this all the time. Some situations call for spanking, others for talk. If it comes to spanking, I think it's a big mistake to use anything other than your hands. May as well be wielding a weapon against your child otherwise. And that can have severe repercussions down the road.

~ Shane

What conditions do you think "call for spanking"? And why won't that teach the kid that hitting others is acceptable behavior? You know, "Daddy hit me when I was bad. Now my friend Kyle is being bad, so I'll hit him."

I mentioned it earlier in this thread.

1. When the child poses a danger to himself through an act that might cause severe harm, disability, death. As an example, I stated my son stuck his hand in the VCR port...could have shocked himself.

2. Disrespect to parents.

The caveat to this is when they are young and don't understand reasoning. As this changes, so should the method of punishment.

~ Shane

[dan2100]

Children are a product of their environments...they mimic. Hit them enough, they will stress and find an outlet to do the same unto others. We see this all the time. Some situations call for spanking, others for talk. If it comes to spanking, I think it's a big mistake to use anything other than your hands. May as well be wielding a weapon against your child otherwise. And that can have severe repercussions down the road.

~ Shane

What conditions do you think "call for spanking"? And why won't that teach the kid that hitting others is acceptable behavior? You know, "Daddy hit me when I was bad. Now my friend Kyle is being bad, so I'll hit him."

I mentioned it earlier in this thread.

1. When the child poses a danger to himself through an act that might cause severe harm, disability, death. As an example, I stated my son stuck his hand in the VCR port...could have shocked himself.

2. Disrespect to parents.

The caveat to this is when they are young and don't understand reasoning. As this changes, so should the method of punishment.

With the first set of cases, I'm not sure, but let's focus on the second. What do you mean by disrespect here? How does a child disrespect a parent when she or he is really young and doesn't understand reasoning?

And why is this the sort of think that physical violence would do much about? I mean if the kid disrespects you, why would a spanking make her or him respect rather than, say, fear you?

It actually seems to me, too, that the younger the child is, the more damage -- both physically and psychologically -- physical violence can do. Don't you agree?

[9thdoctor]

I'm not sure that's the case. I think this and other stuff I've read seems to show that using physical violence against kids doesn't teach them so much to be more competitive in productive and socially beneficially ways as to just be more violent and to see violence as a tool for changing other people's behavior.

I’m not sure either. But “spare the rod, spoil the child” has been around for millennia, and studies inspired by political correctness are about as trustworthy as a global warming hockey stick graph. Aggressiveness is a positive survival trait if applied to the right goal, it seems we agree on that.

I think his basic view is that if you reduce the amount of spanking and other violence used against children, eventually you'll slowly change society into an overall less violent one -- and the "might makes right" attitude will find less adherents.

Alternately, you’ll end up with one neck for one leash.

I’ve known parents who swear up and down that they never physically punish their toddlers, but spend enough time around them and the truth is observed. I think there’s a lot of hypocrisy on this subject.