New Evidence For The Benefits Of Never Spanking Homework Help

New Evidence For The Benefits Of Never Spanking
This is a Rhetorical Reading Response. I will attach the article to this.
This has to be 2 pages with a separate works cited page. Double spaced, New Time Roman font.
Paragraph 1: sentence 1: Name of author, genre, and title of work date in parentheses; a
rhetorically active verb; and a “that” clause containing the major assertion, main idea or
thesis statement.
sentence 2: An explanation of how the author develops and supports the thesis, usually in
chronological order.
sentence 3: A statement of the author’s apparent purpose, followed by an “in order to” phase
sentence 4: a description of the intended audience and/or the relationship the author
establishes with the audience.
Paragraph 2: write a response to the text. Are you confused? annoyed? Do you agree? (in the
case of the article, I don’t agree that it case abuse later in life, corporal punishment and
spanking a child are clearly 2 different things. A parent has to have control and my owe
children got spanked and they are not violent.
Paragraph 3: Write a analytical paragraph about the text in which you make an interpretive
claim about the way the text is written or the meaning of the text and support it. Use plenty
of examples (quotations, paraphrases) citing as appropriate.

New Evidence For The Benefits Of Never Spanking
Murray A Straus. Society.
New Brunswick: Sep/Oct 2001. Vol. 38, Iss. 6; pg. 52, 9 pgs
Virtually a revolution has occurred in the last four years in the state of scientific knowledge
about the long-term effects of corporal punishment. Straus summarizes the results of that
research and explains why the new research shows, more clearly than ever before, the benefits
of avoiding corporal punishment.
Virtually a revolution has occurred in the last four years in the state of scientific knowledge
about the long-term effects of corporal punishment. This article summarizes the results of that
research and explains why the new research shows, more clearly than ever before, the benefits
of avoiding corporal punishment.
Somewhat ironically, at the same time as these new studies were appearing, voices arose in
state legislatures, the mass media, and in social science journals to defend corporal
punishment. Consequently, a second purpose is to put these recent defenses of corporal
punishment in perspective.
This is followed by a section explaining a paradox concerning trends in corporal punishment.
Public belief in the necessity of corporal punishment and the percentage of parents who hit
teenagers is about half of what it was only 30 years ago. Despite these dramatic changes, 94
percent of parents of toddlers in a recent national survey reported spanking, which is about
the same as it was in 1975 (Straus and Stewart, 1999).
The article concludes with an estimate of the benefits to children, to parents, and to society
as a whole that could occur if corporal punishment were to cease.
Defenders of corporal punishment say or imply that no-corporal punishment is the same as
no-discipline or “permissiveness.” Consequently, before discussing the new research, it is
important to emphasize that no-corporal punishment does not mean no-discipline. Writers and
organizations leading the movement away from corporal punishment believe that rules and
discipline are necessary, but that they will be more effective without corporal punishment.
Their goal is to inform parents about these more effective disciplinary strategies, as
exemplified in the very name of one such organization-the Center For Effective Discipline (see
their web site: http://www.stophitting. com; see also the web site of Positive Parenting
program http:11 parenting. umn.edu).
Previous Research on Corporal Punishment
In order to grasp the importance of the new research, the limitations of the previous 45 years
of research need to be understood. These 45 years saw the publication of more than 80 studies
linking corporal punishment to child behavior problems such as physical violence. A
meta-analysis of these studies by Gershoff (in press) found that almost all showed that the
more corporal punishment a child had experienced, the worse the behavior of the child.
Gershoff’s review reveals a consistency of findings that is rare in social science research.
Thompson concluded that “Although … corporal punishment does secure children’s immediate
compliance, it also increases the likelihood of eleven [types of] negative outcomes [such as
increased physical aggression by the child and depression later in life]. Moreover, even
studies conducted by defenders of corporal punishment show that, even when the criterion is
immediate compliance, non-corporal discipline strategies work just as well as corporal
punishment.
The studies in my book Beating the Devil Out of Them are examples of the type of negative
outcome reviewed by Thompson. For example, the more corporal punishment experienced, the
greater the probability of hitting a wife or husband later in life. Another study of
kindergarten children used data on corporal punishment obtained by interviews with the mothers
of the children. Six months later the children were observed in school. Instances of physical
aggression were tallied for each child. The children of mothers who used corporal punishment
attacked other children twice as often as the children whose mothers did not. The children of
mothers who went beyond ordinary corporal punishment had four times the rate of attacking other
children. This illustrates another principle: that the psychologically harmful effects of
corporal punishment are parallel to the harmful effects of physical abuse, except that the
magnitude of the effect is less.
Despite the unusually high constancy in the findings of research on corporal punishment, there
is a serious problem with all the previous research, these studies do not indicate which is
cause and which is effect. That is, they do not take into account the fact that aggression and
other behavior problems of the child lead parents to spank. Consequently, although there is
clear evidence that the more corporal punishment, the greater the probability of hitting a
spouse later in life, that finding could simply indicate that the parents were responding to a
high level of aggression by the child at Time 1. For example, they might have spanked because
the child repeatedly grabbed toys from or hit a brother or sister. Since aggression is a
relatively stable trait, it is not surprising that the most aggressive children at Time I are
still the most aggressive at Time 2 and are now hitting their wives or husbands. To deal with
that problem, the research needs to take into account the child’s aggression or other
antisocial behavior at Time 1 (the time of the spanking). Studies using that design can examine
whether, in the months or years following, the behavior of children who were spanked improves
(as most people in the USA think will be the case) or gets worse. There are finally new studies
that use this design and provide information on long term change in the child’s behavior.
Five New Landmark Studies
In the three-year period 1997-1999 five studies became available that can be considered
“landmark” studies because they overcame this serious defect in 45 years of previous research
on the long-term effects of corporal punishment. All five of the new studies took into account
the child’s behavior at Time 1, and all five were based on large and nationally representative
samples ofAmerican children. None of them depended on adults recalling what happened when they
were children.
Study 1: Corporal Punishment and Subsequent Antisocial Behavior
This research studied over 3,000 children in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (Straus,
et al., 1997). The children were in three age groups: 3-5,6-9, and 10-14. The mothers of all
three groups of children were interviewed at the start of the study in 1988, and then again in
1990 and 1992. The findings were very similar for all three age groups and for change after two
years and four years. To avoid excess detail only the results for the 6-9 year old children and
for the change in antisocial behavior two years after the first interview will be described
here.
Measure of corporal punishment. To measure corporal punishment, the mothers were told
“Sometimes kids mind pretty well and sometimes they don’t,” and asked “About how many times, if
any, have you had to spank your child in the past week?”
Measure of Antisocial Behavior. To measure Antisocial Behavior the mothers were asked whether,
in the past three months, the child frequently “cheats or tells lies,” “bullies or is cruel/
mean to others;””does not feel sorry after misbehaving,””breaks things deliberately,” “is
disobedient at school,” “has trouble getting along with teachers.” This was used to create a
measure of the number of antisocial behaviors frequently engaged in by the child.
Other Variables. We also took into account several other variables that could affect antisocial
behavior by the child. These include the sex of child, cognitive stimulation provided by the
parents, emotional support by the mother, ethnic group of the mother, and socioeconomic status
of the family.
Findings. The more corporal punishment used during the first year of the study, the greater the
tendency for Antisocial Behavior to increase subsequent to the corporal punishment. It also
shows that this effect applied to both Euro American children and children of other ethnic
groups. Of course, other things also influence Antisocial Behavior. For example, girls have
lower rates of Antisocial Behavior than boys, and children whose mothers are warm and
supportive are less likely to behave in antisocial ways. Although these other variables do
lessen the effect of corporal punishment, we found that the tendency for corporal punishment to
make things worse over the long run applies regardless of race, socioeconomic status, gender of
the child, and regardless of the extent to which the mother provides cognitive stimulation and
emotional support.
Study 2: A Second Study of Corporal Punishment and Antisocial Behavior
Sample and Measures. Gunnoe and Mariner (1997) analyzed data from another large and
representative sample ofAmerican children-the National Survey of Families and Households. They
studied 1,112 children in two age groups: 4-7 and 8-11. In half of the cases the mother was
interviewed and in the other half the father provided the information. The parents were first
interviewed in 1987-88, and then five years later. Gunnoe and Mariner’s measure of corporal
punishment was the same as in the Straus et al. study just described; that is, how often the
parent spanked in the previous week.
Gunnoe and Mariner examined the effect of corporal punishment on two aspects of the child’s
behavior: fighting at school and antisocial behavior. Their Antisocial Behavior measure was
also the same as in the Straus et al. study.
Findings on Fighting. Gunnoe and Mariner found that the more corporal punishment in 198788, the
greater the amount of fighting at school five years later. This is consistent with the theory
that in the long run corporal punishment is counter-productive. However, for toddlers and for
African-American children, they found the opposite, i.e. that corporal punishment is associated
with less fighting 5 years later. Gunnoe and Mariner suggest that this occurs because younger
children and African-American children tend to regard corporal punishment as a legitimate
parental behavior rather than as an aggressive act. However, corporal punishment by parents of
young children and by African-American parents is so nearly universal (for example, 94 percent
of parents of toddlers) that it suggests an alternative explanation: that no-corporal
punishment means no-discipline. If that is the case, it is no wonder that children whose
parents exercise no-discipline are less well behaved. Corporal punishment may not be good for
children, but failure to properly supervise and control is even worse.
Findings on Antisocial Behavior. The findings on the relation of corporal punishment to
Antisocial Behavior show that the more corporal punishment experienced by the children in Year
1, the higher the level of Antisocial Behavior five years later. Moreover, they found that the
harmful effect of corporal punishment applies to all the categories of children they
studied-that is, to children in each age group, to all races, and to both boys and girls. Thus,
both of these major long-term prospective studies resulted in evidence that, although corporal
punishment may work in the short run, in the long run it tends to boomerang and make things
worse.
An important sidelight of the Gunnoe and Mariner study is that it illustrates the way
inconvenient findings can be ignored to give a desired “spin.” The findings section includes
one brief sentence acknowledging that their study “replicates the Straus et al. findings.” This
crucial finding is never again mentioned. The extensive discussion and conclusion sections omit
mentioning the results showing that corporal punishment at Time 1 was associated with more
antisocial behavior subsequently for children of all ages and all ethnic groups. Marjorie
Gunnoe told me that she is opposed to spanking and has never spanked her own children. So the
spin she put on the findings is not a reflection of personal values or behavior. Perhaps it
reflects teaching at a college affiliated with a church which teaches that God expects parents
to spank.
Study 3: Corporal Punishment and Child-to-Parent Violence
Timothy Brezina (1999) analyzed data on a nationally representative sample of 1,519 adolescent
boys who participated in the Youth in Transition study. This is a three-wave panel study that
was begun in 1966. Although the data refer to a previous generation of high school students,
there is no reason to think that the relationship between corporal punishment and children
hitting parents is different now that it was then, except that the rate may have decreased
because fewer parents now slap teen-agers.
Measure of Corporal Punishment. Corporal punishment was measured by asking the boys “How often
do your parents actually slap you?” The response categories ranged from 1 (never) to 5
(always). Twenty eight percent of the boys reported being slapped by their parents during the
year of the first wave of the study when their average age was 15, and 19 percent were slapped
during the wave 2 year (a year and half later).
Measure of Child Aggression. The boys were asked similar questions about how often they hit
their father and their mother. Eleven percent reported hitting a parent the first year, and 7
percent reported hitting a parent at Time 2 of the study.
Findings. Brezina found that corporal punishment at Time 1 was associated with an increased
probability of a child assaulting the parent a year and a half later. Thus, while it is true
that corporal punishment teaches the child a lesson, it is certainly not the lesson intended by
the parents.
As with the other four studies, the data analysis took into account some of the many other
factors that affect the probability of child-to-parent violence. These include the
socioeconomic status and race of the family, the age of the parents, the child’s attachment to
the parent, child’s attitude toward aggression, and child’s physical size.
Study 4: Corporal Punishment and Dating Violence
Simons, Lin, and Gordon (1998) tested the theory that corporal punishment by the parents
increases the probability of later hitting a partner in a dating relationship. They studied 113
boys in a rural area of the state of Iowa, beginning when they were in the 7th grade or about
age 13.
Measure of Corporal Punishment. The mothers and the fathers of these boys were asked how often
they spanked or slapped the child when he did something wrong, and how often they used a belt
or paddle for corporal punishment. These questions were repeated in waves 2 and 3 of this
5-year study. The scores for the mother and the father for each of the three years were
combined to create an overall measure of corporal punishment. More than half of the boys
experienced corporal punishment during those years. Consequently, the findings about corporal
punishment apply to the majority of boys in that community, not just to the children of a small
group of violent parents.
Measure of Dating Violence. The information on dating violence came from the boys, so it is not
influenced by whether the parents viewed the boy as aggressive. The boys were asked whether, in
the last year, “When you had a disagreement with your girlfriend, how often did you hit, push,
shove her?”
Measure of Delinquency at Time 1. As explained earlier, it is critical to take into account the
misbehavior that leads parents to use corporal punishment. In this study, that was done by
asking the boys at Time 1 how often they had engaged in each of 24 delinquent acts such as
skipping school, stealing, and physically attacking someone with a weapon; and also how often
they had used drugs and alcohol.
Parental involvement and support. Finally the study also took into account the extent to which
the parents showed warmth and affection, were consistent in their discipline, monitored and
supervised the child, and explained rules and expectations. In addition, it also controlled for
witnessing parental violence.
Findings. Simons and his colleagues found that the more corporal punishment experienced by
these boys, the greater the probability of their physically assaulting a girlfriend. Moreover,
like the other prospective studies, the analysis took into account the misbehavior that led
parents to use corporal punishment, and also the quality of parenting. This means that the
relation of corporal punishment to violence against a girlfriend is very unlikely to be due to
poor parenting. Rather, it is another study showing that the long run effect of corporal
punishment is to engender more rather than less misbehavior. In short, spanking boomerangs.
Study 5: Corporal Punishment and Child’s Cognitive Development
The last of these five studies (Straus and Paschall, 1999) was prompted by studies showing that
talking to children (including pre-speech infants) is associated with an increase in neural
connections in the brain and in cognitive performance. Those findings led us to theorize that
if parents avoid corporal punishment, they are more likely to engage in verbal methods of
behavior control such as explaining to the child, and that the increased verbal interaction
with the child will in turn enhance the child’s cognitive ability.
This theory was tested on 806 children of mothers in the National Longitudinal Study of Youth
who were age 2 to 4 in the first year of our analysis, and the tests were repeated for an
additional 704 children who were age 5 to 9 in the first year. Corporal punishment was measured
by whether the mother was observed hitting the child during the interview and by a question on
frequency of spanking in the past week. A corporal punishment scale was created by adding the
number of times the parent spanked in two sample weeks. Cognitive ability was measured in Year
I and two years later by tests appropriate for the age of the child at the time of testing such
as the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test.
The study took into account the mother’s age and education, whether the father was present in
the household, number of children in the family, mother’s supportiveness and cognitive
stimulation, ethnic group, and the child’s age, gender, and child’s birth weight.
The less corporal punishment parents use on toddlers, the greater the probability that the
child will have an above average cognitive growth. The greater benefit of avoiding corporal
punishment for the younger children is consistent with the research showing the most rapid
growth of neural connections in the brain at early ages. It is also consistent with the theory
that what the child learns as an infant and toddler is crucial because it provides the
necessary basis for subsequent cognitive development. The greater adverse effect on cognitive
development for toddlers has an extremely important practical implication because the defenders
of corporal punishment have now retreated to limiting their advocacy to toddlers. Their
recommendation is not based on empirical evidence. The evidence from this study suggests that,
at least in so far as cognitive development is concerned, supporters of corporal punishment
have unwittingly advised parents to use corporal punishment at the ages when it will have the
most adverse effect.
The Message Of The Five Studies:”Don’t Spank”
Each of the five studies I briefly summarized is far from perfect. They can be picked apart one
by one, as can just about every epidemiological study. This is what the tobacco industry did
for many years. The Surgeon General’s committee on smoking did the opposite. Their review of
the research acknowledged the limitations of the studies when taken one-by-one. But they
concluded that despite the defects of the individual studies, the cumulative evidence indicated
that smoking does cause lung cancer and other diseases, and they called for an end to smoking.
With respect to spanking, I believe that the cumulative weight of the evidence, and especially
the five prospective studies provides sufficient evidence for a new Surgeon General’s warning.
A start in that direction was made by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which in 1998
published “Guidelines for Effective Discipline” (Pediatrics 101:723-728) that advises parents
to avoid spanking.
Is There a Backlash?
It is ironic that during the same period as the new and more definitive research was appearing,
there were hostile or ridiculing articles in newspapers and magazines on the idea of never
spanking a child. In 1999,Arizona and Arkansas passed laws to remind parents and teachers that
they have the right to use corporal punishment and to urge them to do so. There has also been a
contentious debate in scientific journals on the appropriateness of corporal punishment. These
developments made some advocates for children concerned that there is a backlash against the
idea of no-spanking. However, there are several reasons for doubting the existence of a
backlash in the sense of a reversal in the trend of decreasing public support for corporal
punishment, or in the sense of non-spanking parents reverting to using corporal punishment.
One reason for doubting the existence of a backlash is that, each year, a larger and larger
proportion of the American population opposes corporal punishment. In 1968, which was only a
generation ago, almost everyone (94 percent) believed that corporal punishment is sometimes
necessary. But in the last 30 years public support for corporal punishment has been decreasing.
By 1999, almost half of US adults rejected the idea that spanking is necessary.
The Advocates Are Long-Tie Supporters
In 1968, those who favored corporal punishment did not need to speak out to defend their view
because, as just indicated, almost everyone believed it was necessary. The dramatic decrease in
support for corporal punishment means that long time advocates of corporal punishment now have
reason to be worried, and they are speaking out. Consequently, their recent publications do not
indicate a backlash in the sense of a change from being opposed to corporal punishment to
favoring it. I suggest that it is more like dying gasps of support for an ancient mode of
bringing up children that is heading towards extinction.
The efforts of those who favor corporal punishment have also been spurred on by the increase in
crime in many countries. The rise in youth crime in the United States, although recently
reversed, is a very disturbing trend, and it has prompted a search for causes and corrective
steps. It should be no surprise that people who have always believed in the use of corporal
punishment believe that a return to their favored mode of bringing up children will help cure
the crime problem. They argue that children need “discipline,” which is correct. However, they
equate discipline with corporal punishment, which is not correct. No-corporal punishment does
not mean no-discipline. Delinquency prevention does require, among other things, discipline in
the sense of clear rules and standards for behavior and parental supervision and monitoring and
enforcement. To the extent that part of the explanation for crime, especially crime by youth,
is the lack of discipline, the appropriate step is not a return to corporal punishment but
parental standards, monitoring, and enforcement by non-violent methods. In fact, as the studies
reviewed here indicate, if discipline takes the form of more corporal punishment, the problem
will be exacerbated because, while corporal punishment does work with some children, more
typically it boomerangs and increases the level of juvenile delinquency and other behavior
problems.
The criticism in scientific journals of research on corporal punishment is also not a backlash.
It has to be viewed in the light of the norms of science. A standard aspect of science is to
examine research critically, to raise questions, and to suggest alternative interpretations of
findings. This results in a somewhat paradoxical tendency for criticism to increase as the
amount of research goes up. There has recently been an increase in research showing long-term
harmful effects of corporal punishment. Given the critical ethos of science, it is only to be
expected that the increased research has elicited more commentary and criticism, especially on
the part of those who believed in corporal punishment in the first place.
Three Paradoxes About Corporal Punishment
Three paradoxical aspects of the movement away from corporal punishment are worth noting. The
first is that, although approval of corporal punishment had declined precipitously in the last
generation, almost all parents continue to spank toddlers. The second paradox is that
professionals advising parents, including those who are opposed to spanking, generally fail to
tell parents not to spank. They call this avoiding a”negative approach.Finally, and most
paradoxically of all, focusing almost exclusively on a so-called “positive approach,”
unwittingly contributes to perpetuating corporal punishment and helps explain the first
paradox.
Paradox 1: Contradictory Trends. Some aspects of corporal punishment have changed in major
ways. A smaller and smaller percent of the public favors spanking (Straus and Mathur, 1996).
Fewer parents now use belts, hairbrushes and paddles. The percent of parents who hit
adolescents has dropped by half since 1975. Nevertheless, other aspects of corporal punishment
continue to be prevalent, chronic, and severe. The 1995 Gallup national survey of parents
(Straus and Stewart, 1999) found that:
Almost all parents of toddlers (94 percent) used corporal punishment that year Parents who
spanked a toddler, did it an average of about three times a week
* 28 percent of parents of children age 5-12 used an object such as a belt or hairbrush
* Over a third of parents of 13-year-old children hit them that year
The myths about corporal punishment in Beating The Devil Out Of Them provide important clues to
understanding why parents who “don’t believe in spanking” continue to do so. These myths also
undermine the ability of professionals who advise parents to do what is needed to end corporal
punishment.
Paradox 2: Opposing Spanking but Failing to Say Don’t Spank. Many pediatricians, developmental
psychologists, and parent educators are now opposed to corporal punishment, at least in
principle. But most also continue to believe that there may be a situation where spanking by
parents is necessary or acceptable (Schenck, 2000). This is based on cultural myths. One myth
is that spanking works when other things do not. Another is that “mild” corporal punishment is
harmless. All but a small minority of parents and professionals continue to believe these myths
despite the experimental and other evidence showing that other disciplinary strategies work
just as well as spanking, even in the short run and are more effective in the long run as shown
by the first four of the studies described earlier in this article.
Consequently, when I suggest to pediatricians, parent educators, or social scientists that it
is essential to tell parents that they should never spank or use any other type of corporal
punishment, with rare exception, that idea has been rejected. Some, like one of America’s
leading developmental psychologists, object because of the unproven belief that it would turn
off parents. Some object on the false belief that it could be harmful because parents do not
know what else to do. They argue for a “positive approach” by which they mean teaching parents
alternative disciplinary strategies, as compared to what they call the “negative approach” of
advising to never spank. As a result, the typical pattern is to say nothing about spanking.
Fortunately, that is slowly changing. Although they are still the exception, an increasing
number of books for parents, parent education programs, and guidelines for professionals advise
never-spanking.
Both the movement away from spanking, and an important limitation of that movement are
illustrated by publication of the “Guidelines For Effective Discipline” of the American Academy
of Pediatrics. This was an important step forward, but it also reflects the same problem. It
recommends that parents avoid corporal punishment. However, it also carefully avoids saying
that parents should never spank. This may seem like splitting hairs, but because of the typical
sequence of parent-child interaction that eventuates in corporal punishment described in the
next paragraph, it is a major obstacle to ending corporal punishment. Omitting a never-spank
message is a serious obstacle because, in the absence of a commitment to never-spank, even
parents who are against spanking continue to spank. It is important to understand what
underlies the paradox of parents who are opposed to spanking, nonetheless spanking.
Paradox 3: Failing To Be Explicit Against Spanking Results in More Spanking. The paradox that
fewer and fewer parents are in favor of spanking, but almost all spank toddlers reflects a
combination of needing to cope with the typical behavior of toddlers and perceiving those
behaviors through the lens of the myth that spanking works when other things do not.
When toddlers are corrected for misbehavior (such as hitting another child or disobeying), the
“recidivism” rate is about 80 percent within the same day and about 50 percent within two
hours. For some children it is within two minutes. One researcher (who is a defender of
corporal punishment) found that these “time to failure” rates apply equally to corporal
punishment and to other disciplinary strategies (Larzelere, et al., 1996). Consequently, on any
given day, a parent is almost certain to find that so-called alternative disciplinary
strategies such as explaining, deprivation of privileges