Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Spanking Leads To Child Aggression And Anxiety, Regardless Of Cultural Norm

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:17 AM
link   
Source


The researchers found differences in how often mothers used physical discipline and the mothers' perceptions of how often other parents used physical discipline. Specifically:

* Mothers in Thailand were least likely to physically discipline their children, followed by mothers in China, the Philippines, Italy, India, and Kenya, with mothers in Kenya most likely to physically discipline their children.

* More frequent use of physical discipline was less strongly associated with child aggression and anxiety when it was perceived as being more culturally accepted, but physical discipline was also associated with more aggression and anxiety regardless of the perception of cultural acceptance.

* In countries in which physical discipline was more common and culturally accepted, children who were physically disciplined were less aggressive and less anxious than children who were physically disciplined in countries where physical discipline was rarely used.

* In all countries, however, higher use of physical discipline was associated with more child aggression and anxiety.


Related links:

Early Spankings Make for Aggressive Toddlers, Study Shows

Spanking creates defiant, aggressive children

Related thread:

Spanking may lower kids' IQs

I remember about this old research, thought I should post this on ATS. Were yourself spank as a child and how does that effect you?




posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Whatever, i believe that it is propaganda. I was spanked as a child nothing wrong with me. I mean I think that it is part of a movement for the goverment to start taking more rights away from parents.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 


This is more political correctness BS!

I was smacked as a child and haven't been affected by it in any negative way and neither has anyone else I know who was smacked as a child.

Children need discipline where appropriate i.e. light tap on the back of the hand when toddler goes to grab the fire etc

No-one is advocating beating your kids to death but theres nothing wrong with being slapped on the bum.

When I say slapped, I mean an open palm smack to the bum.

The do-gooders can come and say as much as they want but this study proves nothing in my opinion and isn't correct.

[edit on 30/9/09 by Death_Kron]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by kingoftheworld
Whatever, i believe that it is propaganda. I was spanked as a child nothing wrong with me. I mean I think that it is part of a movement for the goverment to start taking more rights away from parents.


I agree, and we have alot of stupid kids today who are also total jerks. Society is to blame, more than parenting or spanking. What's on TV and the Internet and parents that won't stop their kids from viewing it is the real problem. Parents must parent their children if they want them to be any good.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
The study is totally logical, but I understand the gripes you may have with it. I'll explain:

If you teach a child that others are best controlled through force then, yes, you'll end up with a higher propensity for aggression in the children which can manifest in violent crimes as an adult.

However, that effect can be offset by teaching children to communicate in other ways (other than force). I'm pretty confident in my assertion that the previous posters were taught to communicate in other ways besides force.

The problem is when children are being taught to communicate to and control others through force, and not being taught the fundamentals of articulate communication.

It is no accident the violent crime rate has been skyrocketing in the past three decades as literacy rates have fallen.

The U.S. has one of the highest violent crime rates in the industrialized world, one of the lowest literacy rates, and a society of questionable ethics that asserts violence against children is acceptable because "it happened to me, therefore, it must be ok".

I understand there is a world of difference between a brutal beating and an "open palm smack to the bum", but the basic communication is the same, especially in the eyes of a child.

What's the difference between a conventional bomb and a 50 megaton nuclear weapon? A magnanimous amount of force; but they're likely to illicit a similar response if used to control another since the basic communication is the same.

Don't be distracted by the exaggeration, the basics of a smack, a beating, a conventional weapon, and a hydrogen bomb are all the same. Force.

We really need to dispel this idea that others are best controlled by force, and fast. Increasingly violent crime, terrorism, a planet on the brink of nuclear disaster are the obvious results.

We can start by not teaching our kids that principle.

Truthfully,
Shane

[edit on 30-9-2009 by randolrs1]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
I could post stories of how I was spanked as a child and it didn't ruin me, or how some children were spanked and they turned out good, or how others were not spanked and they turned out bad... but I won't. That is firstly anecdotal, and secondly repetitive. Or I could show the obvious bias and illogical thinking in the study, instigating arguments about how ignorant or arrogant I am to think that a scientist could be in error. Instead, I wish to approach this from another angle.

When I was growing up, there was a joke that was going around. I think it has some application here. I present it as it was told to me many moons ago, which is in the context of the Alabama/Auburn football rivalry. I am sure the intelligent minds here on ATS can see the underlying idea despite this reference.


There once was an Auburn football player and biology major who decided to perform an experiment. He went out and found a frog. He then placed the frog on his floor and screamed at it "Jump, frog, jump!"

The frog jumped 8 feet. The Auburn football player wrote in his journal: "Frog with 4 legs can jump 8 feet."

He then cut off one of the frog's front legs, replaced the frog on his floor and screamed "Jump, frog, jump!"

The frog jumped again, but a bit sideways. It came to rest 6 feet from where it started. The Auburn football player wrote in his journal: "Frog with 3 legs can jump 6 feet."

He then cut off the frog's other front leg. This time when he yelled "Jump, frog, jump!", the frog skidded more than it actually jumped, but still managed to make it 4 feet from its starting point. He wrote in his journal: "Frog with 2 legs can jump 4 feet."

This time, he cut off one of the frog's back legs. He replaced it on his floor and yelled again, "Jump, frog, jump!". This time the frog managed to slide across the floor 2 feet. So he wrote in his journal: "Frog with 1 leg can jump 2 feet."

Finally, the Auburn football player cut off the frog's last leg. He sat the poor legless creature on his floor and yelled, "Jump, frog, jump!"

The poor frog twitched but did not leave its starting position.

The Auburn football player yelled again, "Jump, frog, jump!" The frog still did not move.

For the third time, the Auburn football player yelled, "Jump, frog, jump!" and this time clapped his hands to scare the frog. The frog still did not move.

So the Auburn football player wrote in his journal: "Frog with no legs cannot hear."


...

...

...

This is what we have in society today, not with this issue alone, but with every major social experiment that we have tried. When the results come in, we tend to analyze them is the mindset that our philosophy cannot be wrong. Therefore if the results are not what was expected, we look for other reasons to blame for the obvious problem.

Spanking: widespread attempts to curb corporal punishment have existed in whole within my lifespan. When I was younger, corporal punishment was considered not only an acceptable method of discipline, but a duty of parents when needed. A parent who did not spank their child when the child misbehaved was considered a bad parent. I can remember calls for removing children from households that refused to spank them because of 'neglect'.

Today, some areas of society have reversed this attitude. In these circles, spanking a child for any reason is seen as brutal and barbaric behavior. Governmental child abuse centers can be called in to remove a child from such a horrible situation, without regard to why the child was spanked, how the child was spanked, or any other aspects of the child's family life.

Even among rural areas where spanking is still prevalent, the attitude has changed, in no small part due to legal threats (perceived or real) that someone who spanks their child is somehow breaking the law and can be punished with removal of the child from the home. That punishment being worse than actual execution for many parents, there is obviously a tremendous worry in their minds whenever they come across a need for corporal punishment to be administered.

The results were originally touted to be a less aggressive society in general, with more capable and confident individuals inhabiting it and lower crime rates.

The actual results are more violent crimes being committed, more criminals (to the extent that many criminals are released to make room for others), a complete lack of respect for law enforcement, an overburdened family court system, widespread fear and hatred of governmental family intervention, lower educational standards and achievements, younger and younger criminals (regularly thwarting the past laws that protected minors from severe punishment), a less productive work force leading to a rapid loss of domestic factories (and the jobs they provided), a declining number of children in the traditional 'nuclear family' setting, and an overall lack of respect by children for the rights and property of others.

Experiment: FAILED

Yet, just as the student in the joke above tried to blame the lack of jumping ability on the frog's hearing, rather than placing it on the painfully obvious lack of ability, we look at the result as obviously something that is caused by another influence. Obviously spanking is bad, and therefore the experiment can only be a failure if something else was influencing the results.

Some day, should humanity survive, our children will look back on this era as the second Dark Ages, and shake their heads in wonder at our arrogance and ignorance. That is our legacy... that is our claim to fame... that is our destiny.

"Frog with no legs cannot hear."

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
When I was younger, corporal punishment was considered not only an acceptable method of discipline, but a duty of parents when needed. A parent who did not spank their child when the child misbehaved was considered a bad parent.


Is the issue as simple as one aspect contributing to the well-being or detriment of a child's welfare? No. Like everything in life there are a variety of factors that contribute to any outcome.

And I'm well aware of the social attitude that prevailed having received beatings in grocery stores where no one did anything.

Which is why this sort of attitude is seen as contributing to societies silence on the issue of child abuse. Which is precisely the reason why such studies as these have manifested. Are they overcompensating? Probably.

That's another issue society faces, throwing weight on the opposite end of the see-saw when things seem out of balance.

But is the study really incorrect in its findings? Perhaps a couple simple questions might illuminate the findings as simple common sense. (And these questions aren't simply for you, but for anyone who wishes to consider an alternative...

Does it make you happy or angry when someone hits you?

Does it make you comfortable or anxious when someone threatens you? (Bearing in mind that adrenaline is a stress hormone, please)



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I don't think there's a person on this planet, spanked or not, that can grow up in todays society without agression and axiety.

This is ridicluous.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
I noticed that the study particularly observed only mothers. Biologically and Psychologically the father is the arbiter of child discipline. It has long been known that a child's development after the toddler stage is far more dependent upon the father than the mother for this very reason. I wonder if their findings would be entirely different if they had studied fathers who spanked their children. I highly suspect that it would differ dramatically. I know my daughter reacts adversely towards any female that attempts to discipline her, but accepts discipline from males with resignation.

I never believed in spanking my child even though I was disciplinary spanked as a child. I was able to punish my child with a disapproving glare just as efficiently, if not more so. Only once have I had to spank my child and didn't even come in contact with her to make my point crystal clear.

There are far better ways to discipline a child than spanking, but spanking is not the horrific act that it is made out to be by these studies.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TravelerintheDark

Is the issue as simple as one aspect contributing to the well-being or detriment of a child's welfare? No. Like everything in life there are a variety of factors that contribute to any outcome.

Thank you. I will consider that as assistance in proving the point of my post.


Does it make you happy or angry when someone hits you?

Angry.


Does it make you comfortable or anxious when someone threatens you? (Bearing in mind that adrenaline is a stress hormone, please)

I do not need to bear anything in mind. The answer is anxious (assuming the threat is valid enough to be taken seriously; otherwise it is amusing).

Now that we have established the immediate results, let us take a look at the far-reaching results, shall we?

Does it still make you angry that someone hits you, without actually injuring you, when the act later turns out to have the effect of stopping you from seriously injuring yourself? (This time you can bear in mind that the hitter was aware that this would be the outcome.)

Does a threat still make you anxious later, when you realize that threat was made not to actually harm you, but to prevent you from making a heinous mistake? (Again, bear in mind that the threatener knew what would occur.)

"Frog with no legs cannot hear."

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I do not need to bear anything in mind.


No you don't. The questions were aimed broadly, not specifically at you. Perhaps you didn't 'hear' that part, but thanks for letting me know.



The answer is anxious (assuming the threat is valid enough to be taken seriously; otherwise it is amusing).


How about assuming that the person making that threat stands three times your height and outweighs you by a ratio of perhaps 6:1. Do you take it seriously then?



Does it still make you angry that someone hits you, without actually injuring you, when the act later turns out to have the effect of stopping you from seriously injuring yourself? (This time you can bear in mind that the hitter was aware that this would be the outcome.)


The bearing in mind bit is cute after your admonition that you yourself don't need to bear anything in mind. Rather hostile in tone isn't it?

Anyway...

So you believe hurting a child to prevent them from hurting themself is somehow better for their well-being? I don't see the logic.

If a child is about to touch a hot stove wouldn't pulling their hand away be just as effective in preventing injury? And perhaps more sane since inflicting pain as a deterrent to pain seems ludicrous to me.

Any by hitting without actually 'injuring' I'm assuming you mean nothing that requires medical attention? Welts, scrapes, minor bruising... they don't count as 'injuries'?

That's fine because what we're talking about here are psychological and emotional injuries not physical ones.

Yes, I would be angry. As illustrated above I'd be angry for the person not having the common sense to see the irrationality of what they had done. I'd prefer to be talked to, not hit.


Does a threat still make you anxious later, when you realize that threat was made not to actually harm you, but to prevent you from making a heinous mistake? (Again, bear in mind that the threatener knew what would occur.)


But it did harm me, so I can't honestly answer that question. In fact I've never known anyone to get hit who wasn't harmed in some fashion.



"Frog with no legs cannot hear."


Yeah, maybe you're right. So let me say it clearly...

Hitting hurts. Hurt is harm. You justify one harm over another by reasons of severity. Maybe for you that negates any other possibility. For me it doesn't.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 


It's nice to see common sense has been validated by a 'scientific study' for all those members here who worship science, yet still want to delude themselves that "my parents were violent to me and I'm fine thank you very much, so I'll carry on the family tradition of ignorance"



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Very eloquent proposal of your opinion on the subject, I enjoyed reading it.

However, your statement: "whenever they come across a need for corporal punishment to be administered" is the weak link in the 'argument'.

There is never a NEED for corporal punishment. There is ALWAYS a non violent and more effective solution.

Inflicting violence on a less powerful individual in order to effect a personally preferred outcome requires a state of unconsciousness or insanity, IMHO.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
This is time for a new research - pulling over and fining drivers leads to aggression and anxiety. Or even better - arresting criminals leads to aggression and anxiety. Regardless of cultural norm.
Of course it is better not to resort to spanking, for both sides. But sometimes it is needed. Just as giving fines for speeding reduces number of deadly crashes. Just as arresting criminals lowers their activity. Everything has its pros and cons, and it is funny that only one side was surveyed. How about presenting the whole picture?



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
 


In all these threads, the pro-spanking lobby claim that 'spanking is necessary under certain conditions'.

Please elucidate as I can't for the life of me think of a single situation where violent punishment is the only viable solution, or even the best solution.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by kingoftheworld
Whatever, i believe that it is propaganda. I was spanked as a child nothing wrong with me. I mean I think that it is part of a movement for the goverment to start taking more rights away from parents.


I have to agree. I was spanked as well. I understood it logically - do something bad, get a whooping. Helping a child understand what they did wrong through reasoning is not going to stop them from doing it again but rather help them see the benefit of doing it again. Timmy stole a cookie. Mommy explains to him why it is wrong to steal. Timmy understands. Now Timmy understands he has a choice between right and wrong, but Timmy will most likely give in to his impulses and steal again. It is the same with spanking. If the child understands it and is not effected by it because the cookie jar is still there, what is to stop the kid from stealing again?

I do think spanking has an effect on some kids psychologically but this most likely stem from the parents using the belt or whatever as a fear tactic, which can have a deep psychological harm on the child. I remember, on the show "Roseanne," Rosie and her sister Jackie went to their old house and saw the wall where their dad's belt hung. It was very traumatic for them because that belt had dark meanings to it. Even though the belt was not being used, they recalled how scared they were of it.

That is where the harm comes in - using punishment as something to fear instead of something use as justifiable by the crime committed. Breeding fear into a child is the worst thing a parent can do. And that is where the anxiety really sets in.

On a larger conspiratorial level, and to add this all up, I think this is a part of the U.N.'s agenda to restructure parental freedoms of the parents to discipline their child. This is one of the reason why spoiled children are never talked about, but god forbid, a child should be spanked!



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by RogerT
 


Violent punishment.... That sounds just right. Yeah.
Well , so far there sadly are no defined laws set by powerful pro-spanking lobby committee , so it is every violent offender for himself.
For me, criminal spanking execution is needed when all other methods fail. According to situation. To show my monstrous mindset, i think that if my child would have a "buy me buy me buy me or i will not move" attack and no attempts of shifting attention or promising to buy for birthday if behavior is good will help, a little of "violent punishment" can be used to show that this is unacceptable. Of course it will be much more humane to use methylphenidate ... This is socially acceptable.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
The problem here is that people are only looking at this on the spanking good or bad axis. Now a days a kid is medicated after being given one of the abc diagnosis. Since spanking was seen as such a bad thing something was needed to control children. Ta da in steps the big pharm. and it's cures for what ails you. Personally I'll take spanking over the dubious benefits of the other methods of controlling kids.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Discipline is not just punishment: it is also self control. Knowing when enough is enough. All one should want to accomplish during discipline of a child is getting the attention of the child so that they don't become reactive or defiant and also learn cause and effect rationalisms. Usually, one or two well timed swats just below the buttocks works wonders, or a well placed tap just above the wrist can work wonders for 'thrift' type discipline. I made mistakes and was 'spanked' at least 3 times a week, on average. I'm not a killer, am well adjusted, get along with my peers, am not threatened by them nor complacent when dealing with them.

The point is to teach them to think before acting, not beat them in to submission.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
I have a step child who is...a handful (being polite) Now, I havent smacked him despite plenty of provocation on his part. If I smack him...I would instantly be arrested for assult on a minor.

I was smacked plenty by my dad (pretty much systematic beatings), it left me with a real short temper and issues with authority, but I still believe in smacking, why? because despite my own experience most kids i knew when I was young grew up normally with the occasional spanking, now though children are able to run amok without fear of "actual" punishment. Ground a child for being naughty? thats no real punishment they will go and sit in their rooms on mobile phones texting friends and such, sit them on the "naughty" step is pretty much the same.

Kids now dont have the same respect for elders now, misbehave when I was a kid and youd get a clip round the ear from the police if you were caught by them, then get another one from your folks when you got back home..it made you think twice about doing it again.





new topics




 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join