Spanking Kids Leads to More Aggressive Behavior?

[tjohnson]

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?

I do.

[tjohnson]

I think the idea that aggression is a good thing is related to the idea that competition is the ideal of human achievement. If you don't buy into that then the aggression doesn't look so good.

[sbeaulieu]

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?

Of the two words you used, I'd only agree with physical, not violent. First and foremost, a parent must not lose control. The idea is to discipline the child in such a way as to dissuade them from going to down path B when you are trying to get them to go down path A (not vent your frustrations on the child). One way or another fear is unavoidable, whether by raising your voice, lifting your hand, or even the child's perception that you will be disappointed.

To answer your question, Dan, what I mean by disrespect is when a child flat out says no when you say yes or goes out of their way to break rules...a battle of wills renowned as the terrible twos. I've seen too many parents letting their kids walk all over them for fear of rejection or guilt at lifting a finger. The result is a generation of kids and young adults that do not understand cause and effect or consequences of bad decisions. Why? Because their parents did little to nothing to intervene. Proper discipline remedies this.

Let me be very clear. I do not advocate violence against children...it's horrible. If you can get your children to follow your rules without lifting a finger, great! In my experience, it's a delicate balance of the two...leaning heavier on the "talks" than on "hands."

~ Shane

[dan2100]

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.

I'm not sure that longevity of an idea weighs in favor of it being true. The divine trinity of Christianity has been around for millenia. Is it true?

I'm also not sure that the anti-spanking and anti-child abuse movements are motivated or "inspired" by "political correctness." Nor do I think all these studies are worthless. One would have evaluate the study and not merely insist the it's "politcally correct" and can safely ignored.

Aggressiveness is a positive survival trait if applied to the right goal, it seems we agree on that.

No, I don't agree with that, though maybe you and I are using the word in a different manner. I wrote, above, that the evidence I've seen and my personal experience seem to tell me that "using physical violence against kids doesn't teach them so much to be more competitive in productive and socially beneficially ways..." For me, "competitive in productive and socially beneficially[sic] ways" doesn't mean aggressive. (Nor do I think competitiveness in and of itself is necessarily a good thing -- hence my modifier "productive and socially beneficially[sic]." I really don't foster a society where people compete with each other in destructive ways. Granted, there will likely always be some background destructiveness, but let's not encourage it.)

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.

Are you claiming here that physical violence against children brings them up to be freedom-lovers who would never be duped into being blind followers? Do you have any evidence for this? I would suspect the opposite is true. Plus, I'd also think that children suffering enough violence and psychological abuse would probably think more in terms of "people can't be reasoned with" and "if we need something done, force is the answer." In other words, even if they don't necessarily become dupes for some elite, they're very likely to see a statist solution as just the way the world works.

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.

Hypocrisy is another story all together, don't you think? That is, unless you're making the case that the studies are flawed because the researchers haven't factored in some level of deception by parents.

Let's turn this around. Imagine people were offering the same arguments about wife-beating as some have offered here for spanking. Imagine the advocates of reasonable and restrained wife-beating told you they only beat their wives when they show disrespect or when there's some physical danger in what the wife is doing. On the latter, imagine someone's wife is getting ready to touch a live wire, so the husband beats her -- doesn't just pull her away bruskly, but beats her. Imagine, too, that someone else tells us that without wife-beating, wives will become soft -- unable to compete in the real world (maybe because they're not aggressive in whatever sense you mean) and ready to be "one neck for one leash." Imagine, as well, that someone points out that even some of those who tell us they don't beat their wives occasionally do. What would your reaction be? To say some level of wife-beating is healthy and that a no wife-beating society would be, on the whole, a worse thing than one with at least some wife beating -- that we should try to make wife-beating less?

[9thdoctor]

Dan: Good points all. I hope it’s clear that I’ve been playing devil’s advocate to promote increased mastication/rumination. As I wrote in my first post on this thread, I don’t have a well-formed view on the subject.

Now, at the risk of massive thread drift, and being seen personally as a perv (am not!), here’s something hilarious that’s come to my attention, scroll down to post #9:

http://www.worldspankingforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=97094#post97094

[tjohnson]

Let's turn this around. Imagine people were offering the same arguments about wife-beating as some have offered here for spanking. Imagine the advocates of reasonable and restrained wife-beating told you they only beat their wives when they show disrespect or when there's some physical danger in what the wife is doing. On the latter, imagine someone's wife is getting ready to touch a live wire, so the husband beats her -- doesn't just pull her away bruskly, but beats her. Imagine, too, that someone else tells us that without wife-beating, wives will become soft -- unable to compete in the real world (maybe because they're not aggressive in whatever sense you mean) and ready to be "one neck for one leash." Imagine, as well, that someone points out that even some of those who tell us they don't beat their wives occasionally do. What would your reaction be? To say some level of wife-beating is healthy and that a no wife-beating society would be, on the whole, a worse thing than one with at least some wife beating -- that we should try to make wife-beating less?

LOL. You have a way with words Dan. I have 3 daughter and 2 grandsons. I spanked my first daughter somewhat, my 2nd daughter somewhat less and my 3rd daughter hardly at all. From my experience spanking is mostly about the parents venting anger and frustration. As I got older and "matured" I did not have so much anger and frustration to vent and so I dealt with my children in a more rational way. Now I have seen it stated that you should be calm and administer the spanking in an orderly fashion and frankly, I don't know what to say about that except that if I wasn't angry I don't think I could spank anyone, in fact, I would find it quite silly.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Dan: Good points all. I hope it’s clear that I’ve been playing devil’s advocate to promote increased mastication/rumination. As I wrote in my first post on this thread, I don’t have a well-formed view on the subject.

Now, at the risk of massive thread drift, and being seen personally as a perv (am not!), here’s something hilarious that’s come to my attention, scroll down to post #9:

http://www.worldspankingforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=97094#post97094

Dennis,

Too funny! I wonder if that guy knows how ridiculous he looks.

Jim

[dan2100]

Dan: Good points all. I hope it's clear that I've been playing devil's advocate to promote increased mastication/rumination. As I wrote in my first post on this thread, I don't have a well-formed view on the subject.

Actually, that wasn't clear to me.

Now, at the risk of massive thread drift, and being seen personally as a perv (am not!), here's something hilarious that's come to my attention, scroll down to post #9:

http://www.worldspan...97094#post97094

Hmm. Not sure of the relevance, though I've read that sexual turn ons are usually set early in childhood -- which, supposedly, explains the diversity of human sexual behavior.

[9thdoctor]

Too funny! I wonder if that guy knows how ridiculous he looks.

It took guts I’m sure, but yeah it looks ridiculous. He’s very active on Betsy Speicher’s site, and comes across as quite a Randroid on this site for spanking enthusiasts. Here he has an essay that’s on topic for this thread:

http://www.worldspankingforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=97151#post97151

I’m getting “stomach feelings” that it’s just not right to point this one out, but here goes: Here he discusses his experiences of the “few times” he’s stuck freshly shaved ginger root…no, if you want to know where, you’ll just have to follow the links.

http://www.worldspankingforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=97096#post97096

It seems he joined this site in April 2010, so maybe he’s on some kind of binge, and will regret being so public about his fetishes later. Also, he writes that he’s currently unemployed, so he must have time on his hands. This feels like watching a train wreck, where the conductor is holding up a copy of Atlas Shrugged to the camera rather than pulling on the emergency brake.

[tjohnson]

This feels like watching a train wreck, where the conductor is holding up a copy of Atlas Shrugged to the camera rather than pulling on the emergency brake.

LOL,

[dan2100]

Let's turn this around. Imagine people were offering the same arguments about wife-beating as some have offered here for spanking. Imagine the advocates of reasonable and restrained wife-beating told you they only beat their wives when they show disrespect or when there's some physical danger in what the wife is doing. On the latter, imagine someone's wife is getting ready to touch a live wire, so the husband beats her -- doesn't just pull her away bruskly, but beats her. Imagine, too, that someone else tells us that without wife-beating, wives will become soft -- unable to compete in the real world (maybe because they're not aggressive in whatever sense you mean) and ready to be "one neck for one leash." Imagine, as well, that someone points out that even some of those who tell us they don't beat their wives occasionally do. What would your reaction be? To say some level of wife-beating is healthy and that a no wife-beating society would be, on the whole, a worse thing than one with at least some wife beating -- that we should try to make wife-beating less?

LOL. You have a way with words Dan.

Thanks, though the analogy seemed to be crying out to be said. Though they don't use this analogy, Adele Faber and Elaine Mazlish, in their How to Talk So Kids Will Listen & Listen So Kids Will Talk, argue along similar lines about physical punishment. This book actually has helped parents I know -- or so they've told me. One father told me his son's behavior started to change once he started using some of the methods in the book -- which all seem aimed at treating children as individuals rather than merely tools or targets.

I have 3 daughter and 2 grandsons. I spanked my first daughter somewhat, my 2nd daughter somewhat less and my 3rd daughter hardly at all. From my experience spanking is mostly about the parents venting anger and frustration.

This seems to fit my observations and readings with regard to spanking: it seems more that the parent has lost control than anything else.

As I got older and "matured" I did not have so much anger and frustration to vent and so I dealt with my children in a more rational way. Now I have seen it stated that you should be calm and administer the spanking in an orderly fashion and frankly, I don't know what to say about that except that if I wasn't angry I don't think I could spank anyone, in fact, I would find it quite silly.

It's good to hear you've changed. I think the same can happen with many parents who now use physical violence against their children.

[sbeaulieu]

Let's turn this around. Imagine people were offering the same arguments about wife-beating as some have offered here for spanking. Imagine the advocates of reasonable and restrained wife-beating told you they only beat their wives when they show disrespect or when there's some physical danger in what the wife is doing. On the latter, imagine someone's wife is getting ready to touch a live wire, so the husband beats her -- doesn't just pull her away bruskly, but beats her. Imagine, too, that someone else tells us that without wife-beating, wives will become soft -- unable to compete in the real world (maybe because they're not aggressive in whatever sense you mean) and ready to be "one neck for one leash." Imagine, as well, that someone points out that even some of those who tell us they don't beat their wives occasionally do. What would your reaction be? To say some level of wife-beating is healthy and that a no wife-beating society would be, on the whole, a worse thing than one with at least some wife beating -- that we should try to make wife-beating less?

Dan,

To be fair, these are two wholely separate topics. So you've definitely turned this around. I can't see how comparing discipline to wife-beating proves your arguement, unless you measure any form of physical contact as outright abuse (meaning that your scale only has the #10, 10 being the highest).

Using my comments from earlier for your scenario is nonsensical. It takes my meaning out of context. Which is why I don't think the two relate in any way. Any man that beats his wife for the above-mentioned reasons is a jackass and a low-life. A parent properly disciplining their children is not.

~ Shane

Edited April 14, 2010 by sbeaulieu

[dan2100]

Let's turn this around. Imagine people were offering the same arguments about wife-beating as some have offered here for spanking. Imagine the advocates of reasonable and restrained wife-beating told you they only beat their wives when they show disrespect or when there's some physical danger in what the wife is doing. On the latter, imagine someone's wife is getting ready to touch a live wire, so the husband beats her -- doesn't just pull her away bruskly, but beats her. Imagine, too, that someone else tells us that without wife-beating, wives will become soft -- unable to compete in the real world (maybe because they're not aggressive in whatever sense you mean) and ready to be "one neck for one leash." Imagine, as well, that someone points out that even some of those who tell us they don't beat their wives occasionally do. What would your reaction be? To say some level of wife-beating is healthy and that a no wife-beating society would be, on the whole, a worse thing than one with at least some wife beating -- that we should [not] try to make wife-beating less?

Dan,

To be fair, these are two wholely separate topics. So you've definitely turned this around. I can't see how comparing discipline to wife-beating proves your arguement, unless you measure any form of physical contact as outright abuse (meaning that your scale only has the #10, 10 being the highest).

It's known as an analogy -- which relates things that might be seemingly unrelated. Of course, they could be unrelated, but merely saying they are unrelated is not the same as showing they are unrelated. Don't you agree.

Using my comments from earlier for your scenario is nonsensical. It takes my meaning out of context. Which is why I don't think the two relate in any way. Any man that beats his wife for the above-mentioned reasons is a jackass and a low-life. A parent properly disciplining their children is not.

~ Shane

Naturally, I don't expect someone who adamantly believes physical abuse if proper "disciplining" to agree with the analogy. I was only hoping it might make some here think more about it -- rather than merely state the analogy is "nonsensical" and dismiss it.

[Christopher]

NBranden makes the claim that any form of physical discipline is antithetical to the psychological development of the child. He hesitantly suggests that if there could be any justification for physical discipline, it would be in response to a child physically assaulting another child, and then only with the intention of teaching the child to understand the pain of physical aggression through discipline.

GS, you mentioned the idea that some people believe competition and achievement motivation are intertwined. There is a lot of psychology research that shows achievement motivation is based on a desire to achieve excellence in performance, to overcome moderately difficult challenges. Competition only plays a role in achievement when the focus of the competition is doing one's best (versus overcoming someone else).

You're the best, and you know it. Nothing's ever gonna keep you down!

[sbeaulieu]

It's known as an analogy -- which relates things that might be seemingly unrelated. Of course, they could be unrelated, but merely saying they are unrelated is not the same as showing they are unrelated. Don't you agree.

I'm well aware of what an analogy is. In this context, I'm assuming you mean that any form of physical discipline is likened to abuse. In that case, you and I differ in opinion. If you're a parent and can raise a child without physical discipline, good on you. If you're not a parent, then experience will answer that question for you once you are.

Naturally, I don't expect someone who adamantly believes physical abuse if proper "disciplining" to agree with the analogy. I was only hoping it might make some here think more about it -- rather than merely state the analogy is "nonsensical" and dismiss it.

You keep pushing the word "abuse." Maybe if you defined abuse, we could tread the same ground. Physical abuse, in my opinion, is hitting to assert power. It's the use of physical force because, in that person's mind, there is no other way for them to deal with who they're abusing (i.e., spousal abuse).

I see the analogy you're trying to make, but it's faulty. The objective of discipline in raising a child is to get a desired result when psychological approaches are impossible or exhausted. In spousal abuse, you're not trying to raise the partner, you're trying to control them and exert power. Child abuse is along these lines as well, not analogous to discipline. That's where I see the difference.

~ Shane

[dan2100]

NBranden makes the claim that any form of physical discipline is antithetical to the psychological development of the child. He hesitantly suggests that if there could be any justification for physical discipline, it would be in response to a child physically assaulting another child, and then only with the intention of teaching the child to understand the pain of physical aggression through discipline.

I think, many years ago in Full Context, some psychologist told an interviewer that this is why very young children shouldn't be left unsupervised with other very young children. I believe he [the psychologist] said the larger kid would, if my memory's correct here, dominate and coerce the smaller one. So, he was offering to pre-empt the situation. He also came out against physical punishment.

GS, you mentioned the idea that some people believe competition and achievement motivation are intertwined. There is a lot of psychology research that shows achievement motivation is based on a desire to achieve excellence in performance, to overcome moderately difficult challenges. Competition only plays a role in achievement when the focus of the competition is doing one's best (versus overcoming someone else).

You're the best, and you know it. Nothing's ever gonna keep you down!

That's interesting because I see some competitive situations where envy seems to be a or the driving motive -- in other words where the adversaries more want to see their opponent lose than for either to do his best.

[syrakusos]

I think it's pretty obvious that repeated physical punishment will lead to an attitude that "might is right".

Yup.

Speaking as a professional criminologist, you reap what you sow.

No doubt about it.

[Christopher]

GS, you mentioned the idea that some people believe competition and achievement motivation are intertwined. There is a lot of psychology research that shows achievement motivation is based on a desire to achieve excellence in performance, to overcome moderately difficult challenges. Competition only plays a role in achievement when the focus of the competition is doing one's best (versus overcoming someone else).

You're the best, and you know it. Nothing's ever gonna keep you down!

That's interesting because I see some competitive situations where envy seems to be a or the driving motive -- in other words where the adversaries more want to see their opponent lose than for either to do his best.

I may not have spoken clearly. Within the domain of implicit/emotional motivation, "achievement" has a set of specific meanings in Psychology. By definition the achievement motive is a focus on excellence and challenge versus defeating someone per se. The motivation for seeing an opponent lose or taken down could be called the "power" motive. Both motives can occur in competition, but the victory has different meanings to different motivations.

Aggression may ultimately be a form of power motivation (i.e. forceful actions which inherently have impact on other people). Therefore, teaching or modeling aggression may ultimately model the power motive and teach children to value having impact on other people.

[tjohnson]

Therefore, teaching or modeling aggression may ultimately model the power motive and teach children to value having impact on other people.

Yes, encouraging the power motive rather than the achievement motive, makes sense.

[Brant Gaede]

Therefore, teaching or modeling aggression may ultimately model the power motive and teach children to value having impact on other people.

Yes, encouraging the power motive rather than the achievement motive, makes sense.

I think you people are starting to intellectualize this subject a bit too much. So far what I agree with is don't spank the little brats.

What seems to be needed is a balance between competition and self-esteem enhancement. Other people help you stretch yourself beyond what you might think possible, which is most obvious in sports, but parents and teachers seldom seem to know enough about self-esteem and how to correctly nurture it. Empty, vacuous praise merely makes the child feel invisible as it doesn't connect to what he is trying to do. In fact, praise itself can be difficult and problematic. What needs to be done is to let him know he is capable of achievement and it is the achievement which is praised then he for that. The achievement seemingly gets the primary focus, however. These achievements then go up a ladder of difficulty and appropriate variety and it these which build the self-esteem because the child did them.

Since I am not an expert on teaching or child raising I can't say much more than this which is a combination of things I have read and experienced over a lifetime going back to my own childhood.

--Brant

Edited April 20, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[dan2100]

Yes, encouraging the power motive rather than the achievement motive, makes sense.

I think you people are starting to intellectualize this subject a bit too much. So far what I agree with is don't spank the little brats.

What seems to be needed is a balance between competition and self-esteem enhancement. Other people help you stretch yourself beyond what you might think possible, which is most obvious in sports, but parents and teachers seldom seem to know enough about self-esteem and how to correctly nurture it. Empty, vacuous praise merely makes the child feel invisible as it doesn't connect to what he is trying to do. In fact, praise itself can be difficult and problematic. What needs to be done is to let him know he is capable of achievement and it is the achievement which is praised then he for that. The achievement seemingly gets the primary focus, however. These achievements then go up a ladder of difficulty and appropriate variety and it these which build the self-esteem because the child did them.

Since I am not an expert on teaching or child raising I can't say much more than this which is a combination of things I have read and experienced over a lifetime going back to my own childhood.

--Brant

I've heard that too about praising the achievement, or the effort, rather than some abstract quality, such as being intelligent.

I also don't know enough about motives here to say what is meant by the "power motive" and the "achievement motive" -- and whether this makes much sense. It makes it sound like there is a motive switch inside a person's head -- where one moment she's operating from the power motive, the next she flips to the achievement motive, and the next after that to some other motive.

[Brant Gaede]

I think the really important thing, Dan, is communicating to the child that he or she is capable of getting things done--of figuring them out. There was a third grade teacher whose students, over the several decades she taught them, subsequently as a comparative body of students went on to be generally successful in life, including school, more than other teachers' students. So they focused on what she was doing. Over her career she used different teaching techniques to no different effect. What they found was she had the ability to communicate to each child, in effect, that he or she was enough--could accomplish things. Right there is the core of self-worth, of self-esteem.

--Brant

Edited April 20, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Christopher]

I also don't know enough about motives here to say what is meant by the "power motive" and the "achievement motive" -- and whether this makes much sense. It makes it sound like there is a motive switch inside a person's head -- where one moment she's operating from the power motive, the next she flips to the achievement motive, and the next after that to some other motive.

Although it's off-topic: generally what you say here is what happens, yes. Situations give rise to different motivated perspectives. That's why you'll be focused on work in your office one minute, then your wife surprises you by showing up and you change to a different perspective in the next minute. The issue is when you bring the wrong motive to a situation: for example, your wife calls you and you're still in "work mode," so you act what seems cold and she gets upset.

Back to on-topic, modeling aggression just helps solidify a child's perspective that interpersonal experience is associated to power motivation rather than intimacy, and so you get aggressive or dominating children when you model aggression in relationships with them.

[sbeaulieu]

Back to on-topic, modeling aggression just helps solidify a child's perspective that interpersonal experience is associated to power motivation rather than intimacy, and so you get aggressive or dominating children when you model aggression in relationships with them.

Is there a specific age-range that this starts, and is effective? This question is geared towards the achievement motive, but I'm sure that applied insufficiently, the power motive takes over?

~ Shane

[Christopher]

Back to on-topic, modeling aggression just helps solidify a child's perspective that interpersonal experience is associated to power motivation rather than intimacy, and so you get aggressive or dominating children when you model aggression in relationships with them.

Is there a specific age-range that this starts, and is effective? This question is geared towards the achievement motive, but I'm sure that applied insufficiently, the power motive takes over?

~ Shane

The only data I have is the following regarding achievement:

At around potty-training age, kids begin to learn the achievement motive

A child's achievement motivation at age six correlates to their achievement motivation in all later years through adulthood. At ages younger than six, their is no stable correlation.

I know there is a lot of research that shows very early years of parent-child attachment significantly influences the child's later relational functioning, so I'm sure aggression at even the earliest ages leaves a lasting effect.