Spanking Has Negative Side Effects
Hundreds of studies in peer-reviewed journals in the fields of medicine, psychology, sociology, and education have concluded that physical punishment of children has many negative effects on children that parents do not intend. Research has shown that the more children are spanked, the more likely it is that children will:
• Engage in antisocial behavior, such as lying, stealing, cheating, bullying, assaulting a sibling or peers;
• Act aggressively toward others;
• Develop mental health problems, such as depression and suicidality;
• Have a less close relationship with their parents;
• Be physically abused by their parents.
Children are often hit for aggressive behaviors and other antisocial behavior. Not only are parents sending a hypocritical message, “I’m going to hit you because you hit another”, but almost all studies show that more physical punishment is associated with more aggressiveness.A majority of prisoners were physically abused as children. Significantly more school shooting homicides have taken place in paddling states. Columbine, Pearl, Paducah, and Jonesboro school shootings took place in paddling states.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
a lot of the "negative side effects" have nothing to do with spanking , you have to take into consideration the parents lifestyle and area where they live. If a parent is a negative role model then of course a negative parent spanking a child for doing negative things will result in negative children . Too many people are wanting to get their spoiled kids diagnosed with ADHD or ADD so they can keep them doped up so they don't have to discipline or deal with their bad behavior. Parents are getting lazy and they don't want to deal with their children. Whatever happened to parents being parents and kids being kids? Your child doesn't not have the experience or knowledge to work with you like a team mate. Raise your children like children and stop expecting them to pitch in and make them try to raise them selves.
See post Child buttock-battering vs. DISCIPLINE.
Also remember that parenthood requires that you "be the bigger person", and hitting a person smaller than you because its easy and you can is far from such an example.
Has anyone who argues for hitting kids garnered more information or scrutinized the subject more meticulously, or even had more experience than just a few of the following?
American Acadamy of Pediatrics
Center for Effective Discipline
UNESCO
NASW - National Association of
Social Workers
National Organization for Women
Albert Einstein,From the essay
"On Education" in Out of My Later
Years, Philosophical Library,
Inc., 1950, New York. (pp. 33-35)
william sears, M.D.
Alvin Poussaint, M.D., Professor
of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical
School
Shere Hite, sex researcher,
sociopsychologist
The United Nations (Convention on
the Rights of the Child)
Murray Straus, Co-Director of the
Family Research Laboratory at the
University of New Hampshire
MedHeadlines
Spanking Kids Causes Sexual
Problems, February 29, 2008
Ashley Montagu, Anthropologist
Daniel F. Whiteside, Assistant
Surgeon General, Department of
Health & Human Services,
Administration of President
Ronald Reagan, 1990
People are Not for Hitting and
Children are People Too By Dr.
John Valusek, From "Empathic
Parenting," Volume 22,
Issue 1, Winter 1999
B. F. Skinner, Ph.D., author,
Professor of Psychology, Harvard
Dr. Haim G. Ginott, child
psychologist
Dr. Madeleine Y. Gómez is President of
PsycHealth, Ltd.
Herbert A. Falk, Ph.D., Excerpted
from Corporal Punishment: A Social
Interpretation of its Theory and
Practice in the Schools of the
United States, Bureau of
Publications, Teachers College,
Columbia University, 1941. pp.
144-47
Norma and Seymour Feshbach, from
The Young Child: Reviews of
Research, Edited by Willard W.
Hartup, Institute of Child
Development, University of
Minnesota. Published by the
National Association for the
Education of Young Children,
Washington, D.C. (1972).
Volume 2, pp. 290-292.
Desmond M. Tutu, Archbishop Emeritus, Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, 2006.
Some Antecedents of Felonious and
Delinquent Behavior, Alan DeWitt
Button, Ph.D. A version of this
paper was presented at the annual
convention, American Psychological
Association, Honolulu, Hawaii,
September 8, 1972.
Teresa Whitehurst, PhD
Elliott Barker, M.D.,The Social
Causes of Crime - Overview
By Melanie Barwick, PhD., C.Psych. CBC News, June 20, 2008
National Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Children
Scottish Human Rights Centre
Adah Maurer, Ph. D.
Elizabeth T. Gershoff, PhD /
Phoenix Children’s Hospital
Boris Sidis, Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 1919,
(vol. 14, pp. 333-348)
Jaap E. Doek, Chairperson, United
Nations Committee on the Rights of
the Child, 2006
Dr. Thomas Gordon
Advocates for Children in Therapy
Professor Susan H. Bitensky
Joan E. Durrant, Ph.D.
Study commissioned by
Germantown-based Brio Corp.,
Advisory Group Chairman: J. Ronald
Lally, Director of the WestEd
Center for Child and Family
Studies in San Francisco. Source:
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel,
October 14, 2000
Your last point, that children who are spanked are more likely to be abused by their parents later, is invalid. Unlike the other points, being abused is not something that the child can control. It is not an effect of spanking on the emotional state of the child. Rather, abuse is a tendency of the parents. If parents have abusive tendencies AFTER spanking their child, they probably had those tendencies BEFORE spanking their child. Also, if the parents in this study were abusive, obviously the results of this study do not reflect the effects of positive corrective discipline; they merely show that abused children will have problems later on.
There are things that are instant spankings in my book. If my 5 year old child runs out into the street. That's an instant spanking. If I walk in the room and my 13 year old is playing with a lighter, that's a spanking. Some things need to be arrested as soon as they happen. A talking to has no real impact in these situations. The message needs to be clear that this is simply unacceptable. That said, parents who spank at every infraction run the risk of the spanking losing it's impact and becomes meaningless. I've seen this with kids. It's not pretty. These kids become 'immune' to it, and it makes no difference anymore. These kids tend to be more anti-social.
I agree. The only people in society who can be hit for any reason other than self-defense are children. This is absurd! After physical punishment has been taken from the prisons and military, it remains legal to hit the smallest and weakest members of society. It would be one thing if Mr. Rosemond (not Dr. since he has no Ph.D) advocated legal physical punishment for all members of society (as is done in singapore) but its quite another thing that he advocates hitting children only. For those who believe in hitting children, please see the publication at http://nospank.net/pt2009.htm for the opposing viewpoints. Thanks
I doubt the "physical punishment" taken out of the military and prisons consists of telling inmates to "bend over" or "touch your toes" and then getting a minor swat on the tush. I'm pretty sure it consists of far worse.
With all due respect, take another look at that data! In almost half the schools of the U.S., corporal punishment is still legal , and in some instances, routine. Take a look at http://nospank.net/a7-05.pdf . One mother of a student who was corporeally punished at a Texas school reported "you could see blood through his underwear".
You may also want to consider these questions:
Ask ten spankers the right way to do it, and you'll get ten different, conflicting descriptions. The more closely you listen to them, the more confused the picture becomes. Following are just a few of the sticking points:
* What is the earliest age at which a child (infant) may be spanked?
* What is the oldest age at which a spanking may be appropriate?
* Should a spanking be applied to the bare bottom or clothed (diapered) bottom?
* Should spanking be done only in private, or immediately upon commission of the punishable offense?
* Should the spanker use the hand so as to get "instant feedback," or never use the hand, but rather a "neutral" object, e.g., a pastry spatula, hair brush, belt?
* Should spanking leave marks? If so, how long should the marks last, and should the marks on a fair-skinned child be assessed differently than the marks on a dark-skinned child?
* Should a spanking be prolonged until the child cries?
* Should a child be spanked for crying?
* Should girls be spanked differently than boys?
* Should boyfriends of single moms be authorized to spank cranky infants?
* Should stepdads have free rein to spank disobedient teenage stepdaughters?
It seems that the only common ground among spankers is each one's solemn belief that what he or she does is the One and Only True Method. They present themselves as irrefutable living proof of its benefits, and defend their right to bestow those same benefits on children under their control.
I, for one, would like to see some order imposed on this chaos. I recommend a temporary moratorium on all spanking pending the outcome of multilateral negotiations between spankers. The assembled spankers would commit themselves to engage in peaceful debate until they arrive at a consensus. The result would then be published in all major languages and distributed worldwide. It could be titled, "The Unified Theory of Spanking."
But there is a risk that my plan will not work as smoothly as I've described. The debate could degenerated into irreconcilable squabbling between the parties. They could stay deadlocked for eternity, thus rendering the whole issue moot and ushering in a brighter, healthier, happier era for generations to follow. Can you just imagine that?
Well... psychologists will say that the absolute earliest that you can spank your child is 18 months - 2 years old. Before 2 years, the kid might not be able to handle it, and before 18 months they probably won't even know what they did wrong.
I agree that parents have different views on spanking ...but that's because they're all dealing with a different types of children . The whole "positive reinforcement" by the experts is a nice idea - but it doesn't work with all kids. Some kids absolutely need punishment to establish boundaries - and there's a difference between physical punishment and physical abuse, just as there's a difference between scolding your child and verbally abusing them. I don't think teachers should be given too much freedom when it comes to corporeal punishment on another person's child.
That being said, parents need to take control of their children. I can think of nothing more damaging to a child then letting them run wild all the time (in fact, that is negligence and counts as a form of abuse) and some children (I've known a few) only respond to physical punishment.
Drawing blood or bruising is obviously an extreme form of punishment, but just as extreme is saying that parents should never ever spank their kids, period.
You're right to say that people should be careful when it comes to this. People who spank their children should only do so if it's necessary. If it is necessary, then they should make sure that the kid knows what they're being spanked for, make sure they (the parent) is not angry, and also make sure that they never hit hard enough to leave a bruise (or draw blood, as you mentioned).
1) You didn't specify which "psychologists" you were referring to (most of the fundamentalist "Bible-based" professionals who agree with hitting kids will give vastly different answers on the right way to do it, ex: James Dobson and Kevin Leman)
2) Professionals also have different views on how to administer corporal punishment to their wives correctly (see www.christiandomesticdiscipline.com ) because, as you said, there are different types of wives. Perhaps you should impart of your wisdom to that forum.
3) There are a lot more ways to punish than the caveman method of hitting. When you get pulled over for speeding, does the police officer tell you to "touch your toes" or bend over? I think not, or he would be charged with sexual assault! Why would it be ethical to subject an impressionable child to the same treatment?
4) That being said, maybe it would be a good idea to check out some books on appropriate discipline , and if you don't like to/ don't have time to read check out ABC's Suppernanny, or Dr. Phil or something.
1) Biological psychologists in general say that you shouldn't spank a child before 18 months (Boyd & Bee, Lifespan Development, 2008).
2)Really? You're comparing grown women to children ? Buddy, if you can't tell the difference, then i highly suggest celibacy (for like, the rest of your life). I think most people with common sense realize that when you get married to a grown-up there's not much " discipline " necessary. You don't raise a spouse.
3) Your opinion is extreme. You are taking an "all or nothing" approach. You're right, you CAN punish differently than spanking , but you refuse to acknowledge that one can also spank kids responsibly. If you feel that there is never, ever, a reason to spank a child (or that you're incapable of doing so responsibly) fine.
Shere Hite, sex researcher,
sociopsychologist
American Acadamy of Pediatrics
Alvin Poussaint, M.D., Professor
of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical
School
Murray Straus, Co-Director of the
Family Research Laboratory at the
University of New Hampshire
Ashley Montagu, Anthropologist
Daniel F. Whiteside, Assistant
Surgeon General, Department of
Health & Human Services,
Administration of President
Ronald Reagan, 1990
B. F. Skinner, Ph.D., author,
Professor of Psychology, Harvard
Dr. Haim G. Ginott, child
psychologist
Dr. Madeleine Y. Gómez is President of
PsycHealth, Ltd.
I was just pointing you to the facts. Most people I've talked to don't like hitting kids, and would do something differently if they knew how. When I point out how many other parents there are with challenging situations at home who know how to discipline without hitting, it is simply a call to question how well hitting kids really works. I think that is why popular TV shows such as "Supernanny", etc, are such a success. There is not one institution that teaches how to hit kids "responsibly".
The only side effect that being spanked as a child had on me was being able to determine a sense of right and wrong, and an utmost respect for my parents and other adults. WHAT AWFUL THINGS FOR A CHILD TO LEARN! Reading this argument, I was deeply offended, because basically you are saying that my parents abused me.
Regardless of the outcome, the end does not justify the means. Yes, your parents were probably sincere and your thoughts are sincere but that still doesn't justify using violent means to get a point across. There are plently of non violent ways to teach a child right from wrong out there. You are as close to them as your computer. A child's mind is capable of absorbing things at an early age and your parents should have been finding out what to say and then passing it on to you. There are lots of web sites that talk about parenting without spanking. SEEK AND YOU WILL FIND!
Let's see what the dictionary has to say about the word violent.
vi·o·lent [vahy-uh-luhnt] –adjective
1. acting with or characterized by uncontrolled, strong, rough force
Now in the case of a parent VIOLENTLY (uncontrolled, strong, rough force) spanking a child, then of course I agree, that is wrong. That was never the case with my parents. My parents also explained everything to me clearly before receiving my punishment, so that I understood why I was getting it. It was not "violent", and it was completely appropriate.
In the mind of a small child, anything that causes pain is violence. They just don't have the capacity to see the distinction between beating and spanking. Were you aware that the buttocks is a sexual zone and hitting a child there could mess them up sexually later in life? If I as a male employer was to hit a female employee on the buttocks because she misbehaved, I could be arrested and charged with sexual harassment. However, if she was a student in school under 18 in a paddling State, I could legally hit her buttocks with a wooden board and no charges could be laid against me. What is wrong here?
"A child's mind is capable of absorbing things at an early age and your parents should have been finding out what to say and then passing it on to you."
"They (children) just don't have the capacity to see the distinction between beating and spanking ."
It's hard to believe that these two arguments are from the same person, let alone the same conversation, but they are. How a child can be incapable of understanding the difference between a swat on the butt and a beating, but are able to understand why they shouldn't do what they do is beyond me. I am all for trying out different ways of parenting, but you've got to admit defeat eventually. How many times have you seen someone else's kid throwing a temper tantrum in a store, or doing something they rude, or dangerous, or anything else a kid shouldn't be doing in public, and heard the parent trying to coax them into being good, or try to bribe them, or very firmly tell them "no," or, worst of all, just ignore it, to no avail? When's the last time you heard a kid call an adult sir or ma'am? Obviously, there's something wrong with the way that America is doing discipline these days, because I'm pretty sure the kids haven't changed. Are there ways of disciplining your kids without spanking them? Sure. Is every parent Supernanny? No.
but i also have been abused when i was a child, and that would be the biggest reason why i really dont agree with it in a way. And having that happen i dont really hate people that often but i can now say that i definetly hate what they did and even maybe hate them and they cant get my love back and but you dont want to be the childs best friend either but children just need to know that the parent is there for them and to try to use more communication them physical force.
I have to agree to an axtent about that whatever works do it, but without going to far of course. But at least before beating a child eaither with a belt or hand to try talk to them first in an asertive tone to get their attention and try to see what the problem is at hand then, if that doesnt work taking other measures if necasary to. but i do agree with your point of veiw though.
One time my son would have been given corporal punishment because he had refused to pick up a piece of trash another student had thrown onto the ground. He advised that they would be sued individually, & his father would also seek to have assault charges filed against each person involved. The principal called me to verify my son's statements. I got my legal counsel on a conference call & spelled out what would befall each person involved in the decision to apply corporal punishment. No corporal punishment was administered. I had the resources to back my promise of legal retaliation, & I knew not one of them had the money to defend themselves in a personal lawsuit, nor were they authorized to cause the school district to incur the cost of responding to a lawsuit. Regardless of what the school was “legally” allowed to do, they feared an adverse personal financial outcome & backed off – gutless cowards. My son did not get swatted.
Hitting a child to inflict pain is abuse, of course. This discussion is ridiculous, I agree. If you were in one of the 24 countries that have banned hitting children then you would be obliged to say it was abuse because legally it's abuse.
I notice the cute pictures of a rabbit and kitten here. Hitting a bunny or kitten is abuse. Those who then say whacking a child is "not abuse" are serious hypocrites.
"Demagoguery" accurately describes the Rosemond rhetoric we see here. Demagoguery: "impassioned appeals to the prejudices and emotions of the populace." US parents are prejudiced and generally ignorant about child-hitting. They want the "right" to keep swinging away and Rosemond appeals to them. That's why his books sell and why he's rich. And why he spends most of his time in his fancy house in the Bahamas.
I think spanking leads a child to fear thier parents and not trust them. Now, if your child is running towards the street, then a tap on thier bottom is ok. Only if they do something life threatening. I spanked my oldest all the time. He is a great young man now. Now, by the grace of God I have an autistic 3 yr old. He is non-verbal and doesn't understand me. When I smacked his hand the look in his eyes was unbearable. Then he smacked my hand. Now he does it all the time. So no, spanking is unacceptable....and has a negative impact on a young child.....
First of all, you beg the question by pretending that all spanking is abuse. If that were the case, then this discussion is ridiculous. Clearly, spanking is not abuse. And stating that prisoners were abused as children has no intellectual value with respect to this discussion. We are talking about spanking. Secondly, to say that parents who spank will become abusive is again, confusing the two, unlike things.