Parents who use corporal punishment always seem to say the same thing. I don't buy it

[cali]

They say never hit your child in anger.

I don't buy that that most parents spank or switch or whatever when they're in a calm reasonable state. Here's a study that backs up the assertion that parents spank when they're angry:

Parents spank their children much more often than they admit and for trivial misbehaviors, suggest the just-published results of a study based on real-time home audio recordings.

The study also found that parents tend to strike their children out of anger and quite quickly after the children misbehaved — in other words, not as last resort.

Furthermore, the spanking doesn't work. The children in the study who were hit or slapped by their parents typically misbehaved again within 10 minutes.

"From the audio, we heard parents hitting their children for the most extraordinarily mundane offenses, typically violations of social conventions," said George Holden, the study’s lead researcher and a parenting and child development expert at Southern Methodist University, in a statement released with the study. “Also, corporal punishment wasn't being used as a last resort. On average, parents hit or spanked just half a minute after the conflict began."

<snip>

http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2014/04/parents-often-spank-out-anger-and-trivial-reasons-real-time-study-finds

Here's the abstract:

This study tested the feasibility of using audio recorders to collect novel information about family interactions. Research into corporal punishment (CP) has relied, almost exclusively, on self-report data; audio recordings have the promise of revealing new insights into the use and immediate consequences of CP. So we could hear how parents respond to child conflicts, 33 mothers wore digital audio recorders for up to 6 evenings. We identified a total of 41 CP incidents, in 15 families and involving 22 parent–child dyads. These incidents were evaluated on 6 guidelines culled from the writings of CP advocates. The results indicated, contrary to advice, CP was not being used in line with 3 of the 6 recommendations and for 2 others, the results were equivocal. The last recommendation could not be assessed with audio. Latency analyses revealed children, after being hit, were misbehaving again within 10 minutes after 73% of the incidents. Mothers’ self reports about whether they used CP were found to correspond to the audio data in 81% of the cases. Among the mothers who were hitting, CP occurred at a much higher rate than the literature indicates. These results should be viewed as preliminary because of the small sample of families and the even smaller number of families who used CP. Nevertheless, this pilot study demonstrates that audio recording naturally occurring momentary processes in the family is a viable method for collecting new data to address important questions about family interactions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved)

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2014-12893-001/

While doing research for this post, I came across this:

<snip>

Research shows that about two out of three American parents spank their children, said Dr. Shawna Lee, an assistant professor of social work at the University of Michigan. And her research shows 30% of parents say they spank kids as young as age 1.

<snip>

http://www.freep.com/story/life/family/kristen-jordan-shamus/2014/09/17/spanking-debate/15742199/

What the fuck?

[HereSince1628]

1. Did you see this from overnite? Corporal punishment is most suitable for younger kids

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5553326

The logic used suggested that for other (non-corporal?) punishment to be effective kids have to grow into a more advanced cognitive ability required to understand the non-corporal punishment.

This boils down to "You aren't smart enough to understand non-corporal punishment so I'll just hit you".

Expansion of that reasoning could be, and actually -may- be made to all manner of persons with cognitive impairments and could be used to justify, for example, spanking the elderly suffering from dementia. It could be part of police thinking in stories reported in GD wherein diabetics are beaten for acting incoherent.

I suppose this sentiment underlies American English speakers' popular phrase "Knocking some sense into _____".

[Nitram]

2. You're right that parents hit their children when they are angry.

No matter how convincing the rationalization provided afterwards. I've been the recipient of that anger, and the hypocritical words of explanation about how "it hurts me more than it does you" and "I'm doing it for your own good", as well as the cliched "tough love."

[HereSince1628]

5. I would say that in some of my father's beatings of me he was angry...

Angry is ambiguous and can communicate hostility to various interpersonal events.

But I think he struck out when he was angry about what he saw as lack of respect.

I think there were also other emotions involved.

Off the top of my head, I'd say frustration would certainly be in there, embarrassment/loss of face due to my/our behavior.

Not that such distinctions mattered much.

[Nitram]

13. Yes, both my parents were hyper-sensitive to "respect"

They had received similar treatment from their parents for the same reason.

[Brickbat]

3. I find the insistence that they hit their kids in a calm, cool manner even more horrifying.

Presenting it as a rational, carefully thought-through position is sad and wrong.

[cali]

6. that's a good point.

but man, the 30% who spank babies? that's so grotesque. I bet that the vast majority of those people are fundamentalist Christians.

[Nitram]

14. Brickbat, I believe you make a case for all corporal punishment being counter-productive.

[treestar]

4. K&R

[d_r]

7. if it works

why do they have to keep doing it?

[Coventina]

12. I was told it DOES work because pain is an effective tool to teach.

I kid you not!

That was on my thread about CP.

[Nitram]

15. Pain is a very effective tool - for instilling fear and anger

[Coventina]

17. Agreed, but try telling that to those who defend hitting kids.

I got nowhere.

It's sickening.

[d_r]

18. its frustrating isn't it

it seems simple to understand, physical punishment is associated with short-term compliance and long-term non-compliance. I can come up with many ways to explain it to people. Like a rat in a skinner box getting a food pellet when it presses a button with a green light and a shock when it presses a button with a red light. It will start pressing the button with the red light again after a while to "check" it. It extinguishes. Or talk to them about internal vs. external sense of right and wrong - that we don't allow children to come up with an internal moral code if we rely on external punishment, and so the only reason they do what is "right" is to avoid punishment and so they will be more likely to break a rule if they do not think they will be caught. That punishment encourages sneaky behavior.

And people who agree with you will nod their head knowingly, and people who do not will cling harder to their false beliefs. Part of that cognitive dissonance is because they were punished that way as children and do not want to admit it wasn't in their best interest. They can't get beyond defending their own experience.

Another part of it is the short term compliance makes the punisher believe it was successful and is rewarding. They fail to see the bigger picture, because they are more focused on getting through today.

Another part is the authoritarianism in it. They learned an authoritarian system and authoritarian systems make good followers of authoritarians. So when their leader tells them it is OK, they follow.

And it gets more complicated when you throw in culture, geography and SES. In some groups it is a sign of parental involvement and protection and that makes it more difficult to untangle.

So it should be so simple but it is not.

[Coventina]

24. "Punishment encourages sneaky behavior".

Man oh man are you right about that!!

By the time I left my single-digit years I didn't see my parents as an advocate or resource for ANYTHING, even when I should have.
Times when they could have or SHOULD have helped I remained secretive, always convinced that their involvement would only make things worse.

[Orrex]

28. If calmly and verbally correcting a child works, then why do parents have to keep doing it?

Why don't kids correct their behavior immediately upon hearing a calm, rational explanation of why that behavior is unacceptable?


I'm not arguing in favor of corporal punishment, but it is unreasonable to suggest that it fails as a form of discipline simply because it doesn't yield success on the first use.

[d_r]

30. the point is

you want them to be able to make decisions by themselves without the parent there to punish them.

[Orrex]

35. Then why not just say that outright?

If corporal punishment is faulted for failing to achieve its stated goal after one application, then it is reasonable to fault other methods of discipline if they don't succeed after a single application.

The point is you want them to be able to make decisions by themselves without the parent there to punish them.

Sure, that's the macroscopic goal, but of course that's not really what's being discussed. Instead, the debate is about whether corporal punishment can be an effective part of reaching that goal, and there is apparently no consensus on this point.

[d_r]

37. it is harder

to have long term goals than short term -
wait, no consensus on this point from whom?

[Orrex]

40. Consensus

Well, the fact that corporal punishment isn't outlawed in 50 states despite DU's passionate rejection of it suggests that differences of opinion remain.

it is harder to have long term goals than short term

Harder to achieve, sure. And for good or ill, the constraints of reality can make it impractical or impossible to ignore the short term in deference to the long term.


Again, that's not a defense of corporal punishment but rather an acknowledgment of the circumstances that can make it seem necessary.

[KurtNYC]

8. There is a parallel discussion in dog training

Much of main stream dog training, specifically 'alpha dog theory' has its roots in military training of dogs. Dogs were used extensively in WWI and when the war ended the dogs and their trainers were employed to help many of those blinded in the war. Alpha dog, the Koehler Method and (bogus) wolf pack theories dominated dog training for decades with a core theory being that you had to physically intimidate the dog.

In the 1980s Bonnie Bergin, a former grade school and special education teacher in California began to experiment with new ways to train dogs. Among her goals was to pair dogs with sighted but otherwise physically impaired people. Her first client was a quadriplegic woman who had her own doubts about whether she would be able to handle a dog let alone be helped by the pairing. Bergin identified 5 ways that dogs learn, none of them involved hitting, yelling, threatening or inflicting pain.

Ultimately Bergin proved and now champions the idea that only two things are needed:

1) establish an emotional connection between dog and client, and
2) teach the client to convey their requests in a way that the dog understands.

IMHO some of the best and most effective parenting practices use that same dynamic -- love and communication.

http://www.berginu.edu/discover/DrBergin.html

[Nitram]

16. Exxcellent observations, Kurt.

My parents also believed that training dogs must involve a lot of yelling and hitting. It took me years to discover that kindness and patience are so much more effective with both kids and dogs.

[pipi_k]

20. I was so glad

to find a trainer to work with who didn't believe in harsh methods.

I got my two girls when they were 10 months old, from someone who was only going to use them for breeding. Actually, it was the daughter of the woman who owned the kennel. She died and the daughter was getting out of the breeding business for the most part and getting more into showing.

Anyway, the girls were unsocialized. I found a trainer who used compassion and patience in training. Best thing that could have happened to help my girls (GSDs) to trust and bond with me and Mr Pipi.

They've been with us for over 5 years now, and they have never had a hand laid on them in anger or punishment. And they know that in this pack, they are not the Alpha dogs.

Anyone who has to use CP on a child or animal should not have one.

[Mr.Bill]

23. Thank you for bringing up dog training.

I was thinking about bringing it up, but was worried about being criticized for comparing children to dogs.

But there are valid comparisons to be made. I trained my dog to compete in obedience trials. At my kennel club's dog training classes on the first night they made it clear never to raise your voice to your dog. And if you hit your dog, you are expelled from the class on the spot. You can get a very obedient and compliant dog using nothing but positive reinforcement. The entire training class got the same results with the same methods.

But here's the catch. It takes a lot of work and patience. You don't get instant results, but over time you get great results. And it is an ongoing process. your dog is never fully and completely trained. It is a life long effort.

I think people who beat their children are just plain lazy. They won't or can't put out the effort it takes to have an obedient and well behaving child.

I say all this with the caveat that I never had children, so I'm certainly without experience. My wife did raise children before she met me though, and she agrees with me.

[mopinko]

25. yup yup. i still hear the old koehler shit.

i read his books many moons ago. i still hear that stuff form some big names.

[OneGrassRoot]

9. It's a lazy way to parent, imho.

All the above points made in this thread are excellent.

Another thing I see posted here and there:

It's okay to use a belt or switch or anything else, so long as you don't leave a mark.

Um, excuse me, but the people who say that OBVIOUSLY have no experience with it, on the giving or receiving end.

In my experience, nearly every single time a belt or switch or spoon or whatever is used, the parents INTEND to leave a mark.

They feel they didn't do it right if they DON'T leave a mark.

They feel the mark is what "reminds you not to do it again."

Society-sanctioned abuse. People are (rightfully) up in arms about hitting an adult partner but are split 50/50 on hitting a child.

Amazing, isn't it?

[bullwinkle428]

10. My mom was a rage-a-holic when we were growing up - we were ALWAYS

hit in anger!

K&R.

[Bettie]

11. I don't hit my kids

I was spanked/beaten as a child. I will never do that to my kids.

I yell too much, but I'm working on that.

And, with three boys, sometimes, one has to yell to be heard...but I still yell too much.

I've had to leave the room at times, to get my self under control when I was very angry, but I never resorted to hitting my kids.

[strawberries]

19. HI Bettie

My parents used to hits us with the police belt (dad was a cop). It was more of a threat, stop it or I am getting the police belt kind of thing. I remember once she hit me with it, but she hit me on the bum.

It hurt my feelings more than my bum. I too, never hit my kids, but I was a true yeller. Still am, but now they are older and laugh




I have a granddaughter who lives with me. Her mom gives her a time out. No hitting, no yelling, she just takes her hand and puts her in her room. I applaud her and wish I was that kind of mom.

We are all products of our environment, I guess

[Bettie]

22. Yes, are are products of our enviornment

I wish I could stay calm...and I try, but it doesn't always work.

I do take my kids aside and tell them that my behavior was inappropriate when it is.

But, my kids are also surprisingly easy. The biggest 'wrongs' they commit are bickering with each other and being too loud.

So, there's not even much occasion for yelling these days.

Mine don't fear me...at all, which makes me feel better, since I was terrified of both of my parents.

I wish I were a calm, serene mama, but I'm not and I own that.

You daughter (DIL?) sounds like a great mom!

[Califa]

27. Yes, I got tired of yelling

and somehow came up with a little trick to get my teenage boys to listen.

I would grab a finger, the one next to the thumb is best but the other ones work also. Just put a little pressure, it doesn't take much, toward the front or the direction the finger doesn't bend. This basically incapacitates the kid and keep the pressure on the "little darling" until he listens. It will work for a while until he wises up and keeps his fingers out of reach.

The finger trick does not hurt, it's just very uncomfortable. Before you try it on your teenage boy try it on yourself so you will understand how to do it, how much pressure, and how uncomfortable it is.

[Whiskeytide]

21. I was paddled when I was a child...

... with a wooden paddle that was made just for that purpose. Maybe three feet long and perhaps 1/2 inch thick. My mother was the paddler. I remember a few of them, but I don't remember ever receiving one after age 7 or 8. Those I do remember resulted from direct instances of disrespect or disobedience - i.e., not a "mistake" on my part, but rather genuinely bad behavior. Whether you agree with my mother's decision to paddle me or not, there is no doubt I deserved punishment each time.

I usually received two or three swats - with my pants on. They stung, but I remember the guilt and embarrassment being the worst part of it all. I don't recall my mother being "angry" any of the times I received a paddling - she was disappointed in my behavior and made it clear that was the reason I was paddled. That was why I felt badly about what I'd done. Each time it was "go to your room, your going to get a paddling" - and then it would happen 30 to 40 minutes later. Those 30 or 40 minutes were intense, solitary sessions of self-reflection.

As I got older and became an adult, I grew to respect my mother immensely. She was a caring and wonderful lady, and my kids loved her. I would stack her up against anyone as the best mom ever. I think she used that paddle more as a symbol of punishment - a means to the end - rather than a tool to inflict pain. As I said - never got one after age 8 - maybe because by that time I could be reasoned with (I suppose), and because I was more concerned with the loss of privileges my bad behavior might cause than I might have been with receiving a few swats from a paddle. At some point, I think it becomes ineffective as merely symbol anyway. As a kid gets older, the beatings would have to get more severe to have any effect, and then it does begin to be more about the pain inflicted. My mother must have understood this, so no paddlings after age 8.

When I had kids of my own, I was faced with the decision of whether or not to paddle them. I did - a few times each - always trying to follow my mothers model. Only for overt misbehavior - not because they screwed up. Only hard enough to make the point, and never in anger. But one day - inevitably - I found myself spanking my 5 year old when I was boiling over with rage (funny I don't even remember what he did!). I was mortified. I walked out of the house, chain smoked a half a pack of cigarettes, and swore it off. I never hit any of my children again.

What I learned is that I didn't have the self control my mother did. I couldn't be trusted to hand out such punishment. I think the problem with our approach to this issue today is that everyone who spanks likes to see themselves as my mother. But my mother was the rare exception to the rule. In reality, too many of them are instead like me.

[Moonwalk]

33. You see, this is what confuses me about the whole discussion....

I mean, are you really saying that your mother, this amazing woman, couldn't have disciplined you without the paddle? Or that if she hadn't used the paddle you wouldn't now be the ethical person you are? That you wouldn't respect her as much as you do now?

As for your point that there are those who can manage to hit without anger and with the right intent, but that most cannot do this and have to realize it....Wouldn't it be better for all of us, for children and parents and society, if we ALL doubted ourselves on that score? If none of us, not even your venerated mother, ever asserted that they could hit without anger and with good purpose? I mean, why take the chance of being wrong on such a thing? Why not err on the side of caution, always, when it comes to striking a child?

Which is to say, I just don't buy that even people who are savants at parenting and able to pull such a thing off should do so. Because if they are that good, they really don't need to paddle. And if they aren't, then they shouldn't paddle, because they're going to do it wrong.

[Whiskeytide]

38. That was actually my point.

No one should paddle because the rare ability to do it without doing it wrong is not possessed by many. I do believe my mother had that ability - but too many think of themselves as being like her, and not the 99.9% that don't get it. But its an illusion - or perhaps a delusion - on their part. So certainly the rule should be don't paddle.

And I suppose my mother could have disciplined me without the paddle. But I have no idea how I would have turned out. Maybe the same. Maybe not. I do know that I had absolutely no bad feelings about it. I never felt she didn't love me, never resented her. Now, I didn't like that paddle one bit. But I suspect it was merely a symbol of my misbehavior. So what exactly was it I didn't like?

[cali]

34. "intense, solitary, sessions of self-reflection"

Memory is a funny thing. do children of 5 or 6 really "self-reflect"? Certainly not in the way adults or older children do. Developmentally, that comes later. It's not unlikely that what you were doing in that time in your room awaiting your paddling was more like fearful anticipation.

I think kids who were disciplined as you were, have a vested interested in remembering things so as to preserve their love for their parents. You say that you don't remember your mother ever paddling you in anger. Maybe she didn't, but then again, maybe you have tailored your memories so as not to conflict with your narrative. And that vested interest pertains, I believe, to justifying what a parent using the kind of discipline you describe. You also describe embarrassment and guilt. Other words for those emotions are humiliation and shame. Not the healthiest of emotions for children to experience.

When you say you deserved this treatment, that it was for genuinely bad behavior, you don't give any examples. Disrespect and disobedience- to a certain extent- are part of normal healthy child development. They're often the first expressions of autonomy- as in the "terrible twos".

[Whiskeytide]

41. You make some very good points...

"...what you were doing in that time in your room awaiting your paddling was more like fearful anticipation".

Of course. I was being facetious. But I was sure as Hell sorry for what I did, was sorry I got caught, and was sorry I was in the position I was in. But I did, or at least I seem to recall that I did, realize I was the one who put myself there. Maybe not self reflection like we'd engage in it as adults, but it was still a powerful exercise in feeling sorry for myself.

"...maybe you have tailored your memories so as not to conflict with your narrative."

That's possible, I suppose. But you had to know her. She lived to be 85, so I was fortunate to be able to know her for quite a few years after I became an adult and had that perspective. I lived in another city for much of that time, but we were a close family, and we all saw each other often. She simply was a good person.

"Other words for those emotions are humiliation and shame. Not the healthiest of emotions for children to experience."

Generally I agree, but it depends on what you did. Those emotions can be powerful teaching moments. On one of the occasions (you asked for examples) I bullied another little boy who lived up the street. He threw a rock at my dog, and even though he missed, it's my first memory of being genuinely pissed off. I was bigger and a year older, and I pushed him around a little, broke some spokes out of his bike, and used all the vulgar words I knew at the time. She saw it all, came and got me, took me home and paddled me, and then took me back up there to apologize and promise to pay for the bike. My 'reason" was not good enough. My behavior was inexcusable, I knew it was unacceptable, and I probably should have felt shame and humiliation.

The other occasion I recall was when I was hanging around with a girl who was kind of the neighborhood troublemaker. She was two years older than I was, and each time we played together something unpleasant happened (all I remember is that someone's window ended up broken one of the times). I was told in no uncertain terms not to hang out with her anymore. I did anyway and got caught. Then I lied about it. I got three swats that time because I also put two comic books down the seat of my jeans while I was waiting in my room - seemed like a bright idea at the time.

You may have a point. I don't recall being afraid that my mother would actually "hurt" me beyond a stinging butt - but who knows what I've shaped my memories into. I do know that I never jumped on a smaller kid again, and that I didn't hang out with "Becky" anymore. So, good parenting or not, I got the messages being sent.

[Moonwalk]

42. So, let's go over this without the paddling and see what we get....

You bullied this kid and broke his bike. Your mother drags you to the kid, makes you apologize and has you work at this or that, handing over the money you make to the kid for repairs each time. Does the lack of a paddling mean that you will bully this kid or any other again? Does no paddling mean that you don't end up feeling ashamed of your behavior and contrite? That you wouldn't now say that your behavior was inexcusable?

Next occasion—no paddling but you have to return the comic books, face the person you stole them from, pay for them, whatever and, again, apologize and make amends. Maybe you're not allowed to play with your friends for a while, to teach you not to play with this girl, as asked. Does the lack of paddling change the outcome? Do you think you'd have still concluded that you did wrong or would the lack of a paddling have made you say, "Ha. I'm gonna do that again!"?

And it's not a matter of whether your mother would hurt you. But she was striking you with a piece of wood. Do you understand ever there'd been an occasion where she lost her balance, or swung in the wrong way, she could have hit you elsewhere? Maybe even in the head? She didn't want to "hurt" you, and she was, I'm sure, convinced there was no harm in the paddling. But she could have unintentionally done so. Very badly.

In the end, I don't see any reason to excuse the use of such because there is no way to assure that, whatever the parent's intentions, the child won't be badly damaged.

[Whiskeytide]

43. I didn't steal the comic books...

... I tried - unsuccessfully - to use them as padding.

You're not wrong in your speculation about what "could" go wrong during a paddling ... But such things could go wrong in an ironing event, or a cooking with grease event, or in a using a hammer event. If she lost her balance while paddling me, that's still just accident. She did not hit me to hurt me, but to reinforce a lesson to a 7 or 8 year old that sometimes didn't get it right away. Could that have turned out badly? Sure. Did it in my specific case? No.

I know you find it hard to wrap your mind around that, and that probably makes you a great parent. Your kids are very lucky.

But its still a fact specific, case by case analysis for me. If I hear someone say "I spank my kids", I don't automatically assume they are a monster, bully or abuser. How they do it, when they do it, why they do it ... all can make a difference. All I have is my own experience to back that up - but that's enough for me.

[mopinko]

26. i VERY RARELY ever hit any of my kids.

but i admit that the few times i did it was because i was SSOOOO pissed off that i couldnt think of anything else to do.

anyone who says otherwise is full of shit.

[KinMd]

29. If Adrian Peterson spanked his kid..

with a open hand on his butt..we're not talking about this today

[cali]

31. I'm talking about spanking, "whuppin'", switching, paddling

all of it.

[TheSarcastinator]

32. Violence is ALWAYS failure, period.

Using violent coercion upon children is the ultimate mark of parental failure.

[HereSince1628]

36. Yes, What exactly is different between bullying and corporal punishment

Oh, ja, it's true that bullying doesn't have to be corporal.

But, the parallels seem to be many and obvious.

I suppose one could argue that assertion of parental will onto a child is motivated by interest in the child's development.

But how do we know when it is motivated by such a lofty goal and when it isn't? The outcomes often look distressingly similar.

Particularly, in terms of predisposing toward later mental illness.

We cry out because the mentally ill are monsters among us, and then we excuse the very practices that serve as incubators for mental illness.

[Lancero]

39. I find it intresting the number of corperal punishment recipiants later say that they...

love and respect the person that punished them, that they have a emotional bond with this person.

Given that this love and respect is present for a person who uses violence, pain, and intimidation as a form of discipline - Well, not discipline at that young of age... When it starts, it more used as a form of control - it's hard to say if it's genuine care for a parent, or a case of Stockholm Syndrome.