Study: Spanking increases childhood defiance and mental health issues

[Shadowferal]

Parents need to raise their children properly.
And that means stop being the child's best buddy.

[Espe]

Parents need to raise their children properly.
And that means stop being the child's best buddy.

It also means not falling back on the laziest punishment because you're tired, or stressed, or you had to endure it so they should too.

At least, it should, but as we both know there is no test for becoming a parent and anyone, even the most dysfunctional and abusive people are freely allowed to pop out as many as they'd like as long as they steer clear of CPS and law enforcement.

[Aori]

Still waiting on a study that isn't based on conjecture.

When my child is throwing a tantrum and won't stop, guess whats coming? A spanking. I'm not going to let my child run around like a fucking savage.

[Espe]

When my child is throwing a tantrum and won't stop, guess whats coming? A spanking. I'm not going to let my child run around like a fucking savage.

Seems like a well-reasoned, responsible line of thinking that I'm sure will produce excellent results for you.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Still waiting on a study that isn't based on conjecture.

Didn't see any conjecture in there. Care to expand upon this, with quotes from the study itself?

[Aori]

Seems like a well-reasoned, responsible line of thinking that I'm sure will produce excellent results for you.

I don't have a little savage running around, so the results are good.

[Dug]

I don't have a little savage running around, so the results are good.

I've always wondered what happens to parents that spank when their children are older. How do you discipline your children then that you couldn't do when they were younger? Cause there's a certain age where spanking is just laughable unless you go full on belt beating.

[Charge me Doctor]

Opinion pieces are cute.

this 12$ "study" is an opinion piece by the way

[Espe]

I don't have a little savage running around, so the results are good.

Clearly that was the only way to achieve the stated goal and your children will be just fine I'm sure. Plenty of research to show that.

[Vynny]

In one of the largest, most comprehensive studies on the topic, researchers found:



Source: http://news.utexas.edu/2016/04/25/ri...by-researchers


I'm sure there will be many anecdotal stories about how "I was spanked, and I turned out fine." Similarly, I'm sure many people could tell us how they used to smoke a pack of cigarettes a day, and yet they're currently completely healthy.

The science seems to be settled on this issue for the time being. Stop spanking your children.

One study doesn't mean that the science is settled. For the science to be settled, you need to test it, and then repeat the study with similar results and also look at the same issue from a different perspective to look for corroborating results. This ensures that the results are reliable and that the scope isn't too narrow or too broad. For example, the effects of spanking could very well be related to the reason for being spanked. If a parents uses spankings for bad reasons then it could cause damage; whereas, using spankings in certain appropriate situations might be beneficial, but this study doesn't look into the reasons that they were spanked at all. There could also be a genetic perspective where a "bad egg" predisposed to antisocial behaviors that gets spanked was already behaving in a more antisocial manner thus it could be that a genetic predisposition towards antisocial behavior causes the child to get spanked rather than the child getting spanked causes the adoption of antisocial behaviors. The point is that, no the science is not settled. This study would only settle things if blank slate theory was true which we know it is not. And before you get on me the science not being settled on that, we don't exactly how much nature influences our behavior and personality, but we do know that people raised in a similar manner can turn out radically different and that twins orphaned at birth that are raised in two different households have quite a lot of commonalities despite the difference in environment, so genetics do have a noticeable impact on personality thus it's important to take that into account when doing studies on how humans respond to subjective stimuli which this study does not.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you take the advice of medical professional when they tell you to vaccinate your children?

When they're sick, will you bring your children to the doctor to solicit the advice of medical professionals?

Biology and Psychology are completely different fields of discipline. There's a reason the term "Hard Science" exists. There's also a reason why people want Neurology to really take off because Psychology is very hit or miss and has very unreliable predictive capabilities.

[Cthulhu 2020]

One study doesn't mean that the science is settled.

Luckily for us, this "one study" is actually a meta-analysis of hundreds of studies.

Know what a meta-analysis is?

[Spectral]

I'm sure someone (or many, many someones) have already mentioned it, but I find an alternative, plausible hypothesis to be that aggressive, violent people are more likely to hit their kids and that aggressive, violent people are also more likely to have aggressive, violent children. I wouldn't be at all surprised by a feedback loop that increases this relationship. I don't find the, "we controlled for that" portion of things to be plausible, especially in the context of a meta-analysis.

[Shadowferal]

Poll: Most Approve of Spanking Kids

- - - Updated - - -

Luckily for us, this "one study" is actually a meta-analysis of hundreds of studies.

Know what a meta-analysis is?

Know what "presumption" is?

[Vynny]

Probably not. Because the people who outright reject the implications of these study are of the position that physical discipline has a positive influence on children; thus behavioral issues are primarily the result of inadequate discipline.

So to suggest that the behavioral issues existed beforehand and that resulted in greater discipline is contradictory of the narrative that physical discipline solves instead of causing behavioral issues.

In order words it's logically self contradictory bullshit.

Here's what you said, see if you can spot why your argument is bullshit

1. One of the main reasons people deny this study is because they think that physical discipline is positive and they think that behavioral issues are the results of inadequate discipline.

2. You think that behavioral issues could precede spanking thus showing how it could be a chicken/egg scenario.

3. Thus your point is SELF contradictory.

Do you see the problem????????? He made a point that contradicted other points made that were also in disagreement with what the OP said, but it did not contradict his own point thus it cannot be SELF contradictory because he does not contradict HIMSELF. Have I made it perfectly clear to you?

[Luxxor]

People without kids commenting on this are cute.

Batman do you have kids...

[Vynny]

Luckily for us, this "one study" is actually a meta-analysis of hundreds of studies.

Know what a meta-analysis is?

Yes I do, I also know that meta-analyses have their own host of limitations and caveats such as study availability, study selection biases, individual problems with the composing studies themselves. So if they used a few studies that had a small sample size or had poor methodology then the meta-analysis will also be skewed by the results of those studies. Also, studies that have positive results are more likely to be published thus studies that did not prove their hypothesis are less likely to be included into the meta-analysis thus causing the data to be skewed. Lastly, if those doing the analysis do not somehow control for their own study selection bias then they could include disproportionately more studies that support their preconceived biases rather than a representative number of studies that show varying results. Also, glad to see that you focused on that rather than the main points of my argument which were the fact that this study did not take into account the reasons for children being spanked nor did it take into account genetics in anyway whatsoever. And if you wanna tell me that a child will react the same way to getting spanked for no good reason and getting spanked for doing something like purposefully breaking something because they were having a tantrum then you better have evidence to back that up.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I'm sure someone (or many, many someones) have already mentioned it, but I find an alternative, plausible hypothesis to be that aggressive, violent people are more likely to hit their kids and that aggressive, violent people are also more likely to have aggressive, violent children. I wouldn't be at all surprised by a feedback loop that increases this relationship. I don't find the, "we controlled for that" portion of things to be plausible, especially in the context of a meta-analysis.

That's... actually one of the areas they covered.

There's a reason this is a comprehensive meta-analysis of 50 years of research across the entire field.

[Luxxor]

That's... actually one of the areas they covered.

There's a reason this is a comprehensive meta-analysis of 50 years of research across the entire field.

Batman, if you dont have kids please shutup.

[Spectral]

That's... actually one of the areas they covered.

There's a reason this is a comprehensive meta-analysis of 50 years of research across the entire field.

As mentioned, I don't buy that study designs can control away the impact of genetic and other innate differences. I'm particularly suspect of this in the context of a field that has a huge credibility crisis stemming from failures of replication.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Yes I do, I also know that meta-analyses have their own host of limitations and caveats such as study availability, study selection biases, individual problems with the composing studies themselves. So if they used a few studies that had a small sample size or had poor methodology then the meta-analysis will also be skewed by the results of those studies.

This was addressed and controlled for. It took studies from both sides.

Also, studies that have positive results are more likely to be published thus studies that did not prove their hypothesis are less likely to be included into the meta-analysis thus causing the data to be skewed.

You do realize that more often than not, the original hypothesis is altered? You set out asking one question, and by the time you're done it's an entirely different questions because of the results. Researchers don't just NOT publish their studies if it doesn't match the original hypothesis. Their investors and benefactors expect results. There are a few journals that only publish results that they WANT published. This journal is not one of those, as it has some studies about corporal punishment that were inconclusive

Lastly, if those doing the analysis do not somehow control for their own study selection bias then they could include disproportionately more studies that support their preconceived biases rather than a representative number of studies that show varying results.

The source list is large and quite varied.

Also, glad to see that you focused on that rather than the main points of my argument which were the fact that this study did not take into account the reasons for children being spanked nor did it take into account genetics in anyway whatsoever. And if you wanna tell me that a child will react the same way to getting spanked for no good reason and getting spanked for doing something like purposefully breaking something because they were having a tantrum then you better have evidence to back that up.

"genetics", is this like when people say black people are more predisposed to being violent?

People don't realize that meta analysis of hundreds of studies including a total of 160,000 patients will have a massive variety, and when there are very obvious and strong indicators of a certain trend from such a massive pool, there's no excuses that can be made for sampling bias or much else.

As said, one of the most interesting (and sad) conclusions from this is that victims of domestic violence were more likely to defend the actions of their partner the more they had been spanked as a child, with an extremely strong correlation.

- - - Updated - - -

As mentioned, I don't buy that study designs can control away the impact of genetic and other innate differences. I'm particularly suspect of this in the context of a field that has a huge credibility crisis stemming from failures of replication.

Predisposition for violence based off nature in individuals as opposed to nurture can create a margin of error, but as we know, margin of error also decreases the larger the sampling size.