“Spanking is love and scolding is affection.” — Chinese proverb
Exhaustive research and study on the subject has shown that appropriate corporal punishment, when not used as an impulsive resource by an out of control parent, does
not lead to violent behavior by the child in their adult life. Even though research maintained by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information, predominantly indicates that this is true, there has been an increasing movement in the past several decades to label any form of corporal punishment as “the legitimization of violence”, “hitting”, and “child abuse”. Despite the fact that over the course of 20 years, 27 states have banned school corporal punishment, nearly half of U.S. parents now use physical punishment for disciplining their children. This suggests a trend towards a governmental blanket injunction that contrasts with the prevailing parental practices.
The term “spanking” used herein adopts the definition decided upon during an American Academy of Pediatrics conference on the effects of corporal punishment. Conference participants concluded that little evidence could be found for or against the use of spanking, defined as non-injurious physical punishment, applied with and open hand to the buttocks or extremities. Recent research has failed to determine whether spanking is an effective form of behavior modification or whether it has long-term negative consequences.
Though some parents may use “discipline” and “spanking” as a prelude and excuse for what is really abuse, it is nevertheless erroneous to extrapolate further to say that all parents who spank are abusive. In a John Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health study, titled “Ethnicity, Income, and Parenting Contexts of Physical Punishment in a National Sample of Families With Young Children”, by L.S.Wissow, it was discovered that although some studies relate physical punishment and later dysfunction, others suggest that its effects depend on the context in which it is used. The authors analyzed data from the Commonwealth Fund Survey of Parents with Young Children, a national sample of 2,017 parents with children younger than three. Parents reported their use of spanking, five other disciplinary practices, and four nurturing interactions. The authors used cluster analysis to define four groups of parents with distinct patterns of discipline and nurturing. Two groups with above-average use of spanking shared a high prevalence of parent depressive symptoms and a low level of nurturing but had markedly different demographic profiles and use of nonphysical punishment. Interestingly, parents who reported below-average spanking had relatively low levels of both disciplinary and nurturing interactions. Parents who used average levels of spanking made frequent use of nonphysical disciplinary strategies and had high levels of nurturing interactions.
In 1996, even the liberal bastion at the U.C. Berkeley, Institute of Human Development offered the journal article to the American Academy of Pediatrics, “A Blanket Injunction Against Disciplinary Use of Spanking Is Not Warranted by the Data” which was authored by D. Baumrind. This article explains why current research findings do not provide scientific evidence against spanking by parents. Seven propositions in support of disciplinary spanking are outlined. First, spanking provides adverse consequences for disobedience after reasoning has been used. Second, power-assertive methods such as spanking may enhance the internalization of appropriate behavior, which has been explained through reasoning. Third, spanking has different consequences at each developmental level and is most effective during the child’s first six years. Reasoning is most important during adolescence. Fourth the effectiveness of physical discipline depends on the culture of the family. Working-class and African American families are more accepting of physical discipline. Fifth, there is no empirical evidence to support the theory that spanking is related to child abuse and aggressive behavior in children. Sixth, research must consider differences between prudent and imprudent application of punishment as well as types of child aggression when examining negative outcomes. Finally studies that indicate a correlation between physical punishment and negative outcomes do not establish causality.
[author unknown]
- Re: Spanking 打屁股?给有小孩的咖啡豆posted on 02/19/2008
Sometimes spanking is called for, especially when kids are WILLFULLY disobedient.
But never spank kids out of anger. Wait until yourself cool down and explain to them why you they are being spanked.
- Re: Spanking 打屁股?给有小孩的咖啡豆posted on 02/19/2008
moab wrote:
“Spanking is love and scolding is affection.” — Chinese proverb
Spare the rod and spoil the child. -- American proverb
有一天带孩子们看贝多芬,贝多芬小时候又学钢琴又学提琴,挨了不
少揍,我就跟孩子说,学琴都得挨揍的。
上回青冈看不惯孩童学京剧,我就知道孩童学杂技,学滑冰,学体操
,那可是不容易。但生存与竞争,本身即很艰辛。
- Re: Spanking 打屁股?给有小孩的咖啡豆posted on 02/19/2008
补充得好。
xw wrote:
moab wrote:Spare the rod and spoil the child. -- American proverb
“Spanking is love and scolding is affection.” — Chinese proverb
有一天带孩子们看贝多芬,贝多芬小时候又学钢琴又学提琴,挨了不
少揍,我就跟孩子说,学琴都得挨揍的。
上回青冈看不惯孩童学京剧,我就知道孩童学杂技,学滑冰,学体操
,那可是不容易。但生存与竞争,本身即很艰辛。
- Re: Spanking 打屁股?给有小孩的咖啡豆posted on 02/19/2008
在新西兰,打小孩屁股是犯法的,最近就有家长被抓进去坐牢。
新西兰还在讨论是否"Time out"也将变成非法的... - Re: Spanking 打屁股?给有小孩的咖啡豆posted on 02/20/2008
我贴这篇文章的本意是提醒大家不要走极端,中国老的教育方式虽然有问题,但不是一无是处,美国的也不是什么都好。
哪天我有了小孩,我会discipline他/她,比方说打手心,但是我一定会告诉他/她错在哪里。
阿慧 wrote:
在新西兰,打小孩屁股是犯法的,最近就有家长被抓进去坐牢。
新西兰还在讨论是否"Time out"也将变成非法的... - Re: Spanking 打屁股?给有小孩的咖啡豆posted on 02/20/2008
不走极端也不行啊,法律放在哪里谁敢啊?!
moab wrote:
我贴这篇文章的本意是提醒大家不要走极端,中国老的教育方式虽然有问题,但不是一无是处,美国的也不是什么都好。
哪天我有了小孩,我会discipline他/她,比方说打手心,但是我一定会告诉他/她错在哪里。
阿慧 wrote:
在新西兰,打小孩屁股是犯法的,最近就有家长被抓进去坐牢。
新西兰还在讨论是否"Time out"也将变成非法的...
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation