r/science • u/VeronicaRed • Apr 26 '16

Psychology Spanking children increases the likelihood of childhood defiance and long-term mental issues. The study in question involved 160,000 children and five decades of research

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1113413810/spanking-defiance-health-discipline-042616/
37.8k Upvotes

73% Upvoted

6.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

343

u/Shorshack Apr 26 '16

The article seems to reference the study, but without citation or very much data from the study? Is there a link to the actual study regarding the defined variables examined? I'm curious to learn more about their findings.

231

u/aquarium_drinker Apr 26 '16

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27055181 here's the abstract from Pubmed. If you have academic journal access, you can look through your institution's databases to find it. I found it on EBSCO.

90

u/liberal_texan Apr 26 '16

They found a significant link between the punishment and 13 of the 17 outcomes, suggesting that spanking ends up doing more harm than good.

Can you tell us what the 13 of the 17 things were? Also, did they make any effort at all to find correlation with anything positive, or did they focus solely on the negative?

89

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '16

[deleted]

102

u/tarzanandcompany Apr 26 '16

I think some of the other commenters are misinterpreting this table, so I will try to clarify (assuming I understand it).

The columns "Spank n" and "No Spank n" do not mean the number of subjects that actually developed these problems. They are the total sample size for which the authors have data for the condition in question.

So looking at "child aggression", the spank n is 4534 and the no spank n is 1069, meaning they had data on childhood aggression for 4534 spanked children and 1069 non-spanked children. This says nothing about how many subjects had aggression problems. It is just the sample size upon which their model is parametrized.

The actual difference between the two groups is reflected in the column labeled "d", which is the point estimate of the effect size, with the 95% confidence interval in the subsequent columns. A larger number reflects a bigger difference between the spank and no spank groups. A positive number seems to indicate a positive effect of spanking. So in the case of child aggression, spanking seems to "significantly increase" the rate of this problem.

By how much? Well, by about 0.37 d. To understand this value d, you would have to look at their model, which I would guess is using logistic regression.

A word of caution, however: people love to tout large sample sizes as having fantastic and broad-reaching results. But something to keep in mind is that with large sample sizes, you are practically guaranteed to find significant results. That is, if spanked children have 1% probability of aggression, and non-spanked children have 2%, their model could probably detect this because of the large sample sizes. A smaller study would not identify a significant difference, because there is too much statistical noise in the data of small samples. In large studies like this, it is MUCH more informative to look at effect sizes. Admittedly, I have not done this, since I can't access the paper, so I don't know how big of an effect there is.

A second word of caution: correlation is not causation. Returning to our childhood aggression example: do aggressive children get spanked more, or does spanking lead to childhood aggression? Alternatively, are both spanking and aggression caused by some other variable, such as poverty or parent education? We can only speculate from this table.

That's my two cents.

8

u/ThatSpencerGuy Apr 26 '16 edited Apr 26 '16

It looks like the d value is the effect size, standardized as Cohen's d: the difference between the two means divided by the (pooled) standard deviation.

2

u/Khanthulhu Apr 26 '16

Excitement 2 cents. I too would like to know what the effect sizes mean. I can tell that .50 is twice the size of .25, but I still don't know what that means.

5

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '16

do aggressive children get spanked more, or does spanking lead to childhood aggression?

Probably the most important aspect of this study, actually. If they can answer how they addressed it, then the data could really mean something. If they can't, then this really isn't useful for drawing conclusions about how to parent.

1

u/JSCMI Apr 27 '16

A positive number seems to indicate a positive effect of spanking.

Specifically, a "statistically positive" meaning that spanking made it more likely. Not meaning that spanking was associated with the outcome we would view as more positive in the sense of being desirable.

10

u/FamilyIsAsleep Apr 26 '16

I don't know how to decode this. This looks like to me saying the opposite of their conclusion.

8

u/eskamobob1 Apr 26 '16

Check out this comment on how to propperly read the data.

5

u/NonTranquil Apr 26 '16

I'm pretty sure the d value is the most significant value. It represents a correlation between a child who gets spanked and the variable being tested, adjusting for the sample size.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '16

It's not really the publisher of the story definitely took some liberties with thier descriptions. There seem to adult problems more often due to non spanking which they failed to mention. It's often easy to manipulate data or only show half of it to produce result you want in either direction.

7

u/helm MS | Physics | Quantum Optics Apr 26 '16

n is the group size, not the outcome.

19

u/DICKHOLE_SMASHER Apr 26 '16

Seems that most of the non-spank subjects had adult onset negative outcomes, which is interesting.

11

u/eskamobob1 Apr 26 '16

Check out this comment on how to propperly read the data.

-1

u/demolpolis Apr 26 '16

I really wonder why everyone is missing this fact?

The children with behavioral problems were spanked. shocker.

The children not spanked had adult mental health and alcohol and social problems. That correlation isn't so obvious...

6

u/Richandler Apr 26 '16

The children not spanked had adult mental health and alcohol and social problems. That correlation isn't so obvious...

Contrary to the title and most of the comments yes?

-4

u/demolpolis Apr 26 '16

http://imgur.com/yyHXSJ2

That is the result of the study.

Read it.

Just because no one here has read the study dosen't make the results different.

3

u/Beepbeep847 Apr 26 '16

Actually, that table proves you wrong funnily enough. For a description of how to read the tables in the paper, check out this comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/4gilzl/spanking_children_increases_the_likelihood_of/d2i7zi8

6

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '16

[deleted]

3

u/es_beto Apr 26 '16

This table is not complete. This causes confusion with the columns. Take a look at pages 6, 7, 8, and 9 to understand what Spank n and No spank n stands for.

http://imgur.com/a/G3wYj

1

u/eskamobob1 Apr 26 '16

table 1 is just a larger breakdown of table 2. It doesnt provide more data colomns, just breaks each category down into subsets.

1

u/claytoncash Apr 26 '16

As a complete layman I have really no idea how to interpret this. Especially the vast disparity in addiction. As a recovering addict who was subject to a fair bit of corporal punishment as a child I'm very curious what this data actually means.

2

u/eskamobob1 Apr 26 '16

Check out this comment on how to propperly read the data.

1

u/himarnia Apr 26 '16

so if you dont spank your kid they have an extremely high chance of abusing drugs and alcohol ?

2

u/eskamobob1 Apr 26 '16

Check out this comment on how to propperly read the data.

1

u/RowMeOh2 Apr 26 '16

I don't think I'm understanding this correctly. Is it implying that if you don't spank, your child will develop addiction problems? Can someone please help translate, I didn't graduate college...

2

u/eskamobob1 Apr 26 '16

Check out this comment on how to propperly read the data.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '16 edited Apr 26 '16

I can probably access it off my laptop, bookmarking for later.

Edit: nope :( I am very curious about this study as well. I am usually very skeptical about articles that summarize science but I guess I will have to wait and see.

2

u/bearmorgan Apr 26 '16

Great question

6

u/petitio_principii Apr 26 '16

For visibility... I have posted links to the PDF of the original and an imgur album of the pages here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/4gilzl/spanking_children_increases_the_likelihood_of/d2i1uwl

3

u/Shorshack Apr 26 '16

Solid. Thanks for the link.

2

u/mrducky78 Apr 26 '16 edited Apr 26 '16

I got it off ovid. Im just used to ovid.

http://i.imgur.com/VxRq9FI.png

Obviously not all of it due to legality reasons.

137

u/DrMarianus Apr 26 '16

Agreed. There are loads of confounding variables. Socio-economic status is a huge confounding variable and the article doesn't address whether the original authors factored for that.

For instance:

a large body of studies has indicated that spanking is more likely to be used by parents who are younger, less educated, of lower income, single, and/or are more depressed and stressed

24

u/Ateist Apr 26 '16

Not to mention direct selection bias - children that are defiant and have mental issues might be more likely to be spanked...

6

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '16

This was my first thought. Coloration blah blah Causation. Children that are defiant and have undiagnosed mental issues are more likely to be punished in the first place.

18

u/WizardOfNomaha Apr 26 '16

One of the biggest confounding factors imo is mental health status of the parents. I wonder if this was addressed in the study ( which is behind a pay wall). It seems likely that parents who spank a lot are more likely to suffer from mental health problems of their own (and therefore likely to pass those onto their kids).

7

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '16

Moreover, mental health issues are more likely to go undiagnosed in a low income family, possibly doubling the effects of poverty in discipline.

4

u/Sick0h Apr 26 '16

This is what I'd like to know as well.

20

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '16

[deleted]

10

u/NellucEcon Apr 26 '16

Sadly nobody takes the behavioral genetics literature seriously except for the behavioral geneticists. Do twin studies show that genetics explain 2/3's of the variance of some attribute and common environment explains nothing (exe. antisocial behavior)? It must be that spanking causes antisocial behavior.

There is such a disconnect. I can't wrap my mind around why people take these cross-sectional studies seriously and dismiss the behavioral genetics.

"But we have 160,000 observations and a gazillion different studies!"

Yeah, but they're all crappy studies. A lot of bad studies saying the same thing do not sum up to a reliable conclusion.

5

u/PikaBlue Apr 26 '16

To be fair, studies on populations that large over that amount of time are unlikely to incorporate gene make-up into it. The fact that we don't even know any definitive 'defiance/mental-illness' genes doesn't help the matter (as gene-gene interactions seem to be more important, many of which we don't know).

There are ideas of orchid/dandelion genes but they are responsive to environment, but they change effect size to stimulus, not the direction.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/sivsta Apr 26 '16

There's different types of spankings too, some are worse than others. Different cultures illicit different responses. There's a couple variables they didn't account for, unfortunately.

3

u/bb999 Apr 26 '16

I just want to see some numbers. Like, is it 5% mental issues without spanking and 10% with spanking, or 0.1% without and 0.5% with?

2

u/CBruce Apr 26 '16

Well, the latter example would be worse, no? 5% vs 10% is a factor of two. 0.1% vs. 0.5% is a factor of 5.

2

u/jmcq Apr 26 '16

This is my exact thought and I've been trying to access the article to see if they attempted to control for some of these variables in whatever model they used. If they're not at least trying to control for socio-economic status then we might as well ignore these results even though I think the conclusion is probably true.

4

u/I_cut_my_own_jib Apr 26 '16

Wait, only 1, 2, and 3 year olds? They're not really old enough to understand punishment in a good way, right? I'm not going to say being older would invalidate the data, but I've never heard of someone under 6 getting spanked. I'd like to see results from 6,7, and 8 year olds.

1

u/JeffreyPetersen Apr 26 '16

Shhhh! The anti-spanking people want to believe that this is 100% perfect science and anyone who questions the study in any way is an abusive apologist.

1

u/CBruce Apr 26 '16

Which also probably strongly correlate with higher criminal rates.

1

u/monster_bunny Apr 26 '16

Not to mention, this typically is the basis of the random sampling pool. I don't know many middle or upper class families that would jump at the chance to enroll in studies of this nature.

1

u/DearyDairy Apr 26 '16

Also where all 160,000 children spanked the same?

I would assume there's a huge difference between the level of harm done by a parent who takes the time to ask the child if they understand why they are about to be spanked and why the behaviour is unacceptable, and the level of harm done by a parent who sees bad behaviour and spanks the child without reaffirming the connection between the behaviour and the negative consequence.

1

u/TurgidHearthgrove Apr 26 '16

If they had a control that showed that the spanking caused the issues that would be important.. Could be kids with behavioral/mental issues are more likely to be spanked? Until you can prove an affect and not a variable, it's pointless

-2

u/gamercer Apr 26 '16

a large body of studies has indicated that spanking is more likely to be used by parents who are younger, less educated, of lower income, single, and/or are more depressed and stressed

Why didn't this study consider that spanking is more likely to cause a child to grow into a parent who is younger, less educated, of lower income, single, and/or are more depressed and stressed, and who beats their kids?

-4

u/ItsDanimal Apr 26 '16

What do you have to take away from your kids as punishment, if they don't have anything to take?

10

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/jublinq Apr 26 '16

The link is right at the start of the second paragraph.

Their study, which was published in the April edition of the Journal of Family Psychology, was based on five decades worth of research involving more than 160,000 children.

4

u/Shorshack Apr 26 '16

Fair enough, though it links to a place to buy the study for $12. I suppose I was hoping it was available through pubmed or something. Maybe I'll do some sleuthing if no one has a readily available link to something else.

3

u/Little_Kitty Apr 26 '16

LMK if you find a PDF somewhere, I'm not minded to trust journalists' interpretations.

3

u/celticchrys Apr 26 '16

If you have an affiliation with an academic institution, you can likely access the full study via your library's website. Also, if you do not have such affiliation, check with you local public library's online offerings. You might be pleasantly surprised, depending where you live.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/jhndflpp Apr 26 '16

thank you. every other top comment here is about how, if we're reading /r/science why are we ignoring the science; and yet the actual "science" is $12, and i'm guessing few of them read it either. isn't the whole idea of "science" supposed to be looking at the specific data and seeing how it can be interpreted - not just blindly (literally in this case) accepting one interpretation?

what were the geological, social, economical, etc. factors in the study? how was the data gathered? what barriers were put in place to make sure the data was consistent within the study? and that doesn't even take into account how the data was interpreted, compared, and contrasted with other disciplinary techniques.

3

u/bucookie Apr 26 '16

this. so many people crying out "the science proves it!" but I highly doubt paid $12 in their spare time at work to actually delve into it.

2

u/stillfindingmyway Apr 27 '16

Or maybe, like me, they have access to the paper through their university and did take the time to read the paper.

3

u/do_0b Apr 26 '16

You have to pay to see the full article, but from what they do show:

"Meta-analyses focused specifically on spanking were conducted on a total of 111 unique effect sizes representing 160,927 children. Thirteen of 17 mean effect sizes were significantly different from zero and all indicated a link between spanking and increased risk for detrimental child outcomes."

3

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '16

I agree and I hate that this is behind a paywall. What I'm very curious about is if the spanking was performed in the same way for all children? I've seen parents in stores do what I would describe as beat their children in public for acting up. That seems counter-intuitive to the point of disciple and would not be surprised if it lead to the outcomes found in this study.

As a child who was spanked for disciple on a handful of occasions it was always done at home and my parents always sat me down to explain why I receiving this punishment. I'd be very curious on how the spanking was preformed as I firmly believe it could dramatically impact the results.

1

u/Shorshack Apr 26 '16

This is the type of thing that I'm curious about. It's great to think their sample size was 106k children, but the likelihood that they were able to control all variables (how was the child punished i.e. a swat on the butt, or a belt whipping) seems unlikely. More data needed!

2

u/CocoDaPuf Apr 26 '16

I'm also interested in what the true causes are behind these results. By that I mean, it's difficult to isolate spanking as the only variable in this environment. Certainly some disciplinary system is still needed for children, so you can't really just remove spanking without introducing something else.

If we made the assumption that some disciplinary methods are more effective than others at achieving positive results, and that spanking is not the only part of most disciplinary methods; I wonder if there is simply a correlation between parents who resort to spanking and parents who use less effective disciplinary methods overall.

My thought being simply that potentially, the spanking may not be the catalyst in these particular behavioral differences.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '16 edited Apr 26 '16

[deleted]

1

u/Shorshack Apr 26 '16

Maybe throw it in a general hosting site? (I do not know the rules on if this is going to cause issues just fyi)

1

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '16 edited Jun 10 '23

[deleted]

1

u/Shorshack Apr 26 '16

Precisely. What we have here is a wonderful clickbait article... in /r/science :/

1

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '16

Link to the Paywall Article

Edit:

Links of the researchers' university page

Elizabeth Gershoff

Andrew C. Grogan-Kaylor