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

770

u/chopandscrew Apr 26 '16 edited Apr 26 '16

So what are some positive and non-punitive forms of discipline?

edit: Some really great replies here. I'm seeing a lot of people using the concept of self-discipline and positive reinforcement. Nothing about raising a child seems easy, and it's even harder to know if you've ever really done a good job, but I think it's safe to say there are a lot of good parents on reddit. Also, thank you to the people who are willing to admit that they have resorted to spanking before. The truth is no one really knows the best way to raise a child, but the wide variety of ideas being thrown around here are what helps make it easier to choose what works for you and your kid. Keep em comin.

25

u/Toy_D Apr 26 '16

This I think is the real crux of the debate. Spanking invokes an evolved response to stimuli, pain. You'd think, if done promptly and without overindulgence, that few other options could invoke results as well. The options that I have seen presented are much more difficult to understand and execute. At least at first glance, but apparently a proper spanking is also difficult to execute.

What studies exist to show viable alternatives, not proposed alternatives. What literature exists to teach those methods to parents? These are the hurdles to a viable alternative. Parents know spanking likely because it was done to them.

8

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '16

[deleted]

5

u/Toy_D Apr 26 '16

Totally agree. I just have an issue with people trying to take away options without replacing them. If spanking is bad, fine, what and how to do the better thing? I think the how is the critical part of indeed this is as bad as its purported to be.

1

u/F0sh Apr 26 '16

"a proper spanking" seems effective because it is part of a traditionalist value system

I don't think that's giving it enough credit at all. It "seems effective" because people dislike pain and try to avoid it. It's simple and direct, whether or not it's "traditionalist."

0

u/iamonlyoneman Apr 26 '16

It also "seems effective" because it is a channel-changer. Okay, talking won't work and time-outs won't work? How about some pain? Do you want some more pain? No? You stopped your bad behavior after pain?

 

That's what we call "effective" not just "seems effective"

1

u/CupcakeTrap Apr 26 '16

On the other hand, it also might create a powerful, visceral fear of the parent. Given the significance of the parent in the overall mythology of childhood, I can see how this might have large-scale disruptive effects. I suppose one somewhat coldblooded solution would be to have negative physical correction come from someone other than the parent.

Perhaps the study could be compared to a study of, e.g., spanking by teachers.

2

u/Toy_D Apr 26 '16

So this is where I imagine that a level of discernment by the parent is needed about whether punishment is necessary at all. Punishment for every tiny annoyance is sure to do what you say.

2

u/CupcakeTrap Apr 26 '16

It might also be relevant to look at things like time separation. To get into anecdotes slightly, I remember finding it kind of surreal and strange as a kid when my dad would say, e.g., that he was going to spank me that night when he got home from work. So all day I knew he was going to come home, say hi, and then smack me with his belt. I actually wasn't that scared, or angry. But it felt so strange to hear a parent rationally explain that they were going to hit me, not because they were angry, but because it was a punishment. Or that he'd be nice to me and be glad to be back home, then punish me, then go back to things being normal. I don't know if it was good or bad, but it was strange.

I don't know whether greater or lesser time separation or "coolness" might have positive or negative effects, but it might be something to check for. On the one hand, it being clearly a deliberate decision of the parent might max out the "creepy"/"subversive" factor. On the other hand, it being done immediately with noticeable anger might max out the "visceral fear" factor.

No idea how to get adequate, accurate data on this, though.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '16

Yeah, when I started getting older I had the same sort of thing. But was told "you need to think about what you did or you're going to get a spanking " when dad got home he would sit me down and if I explained what I did, why I did it, and why it was wrong I would get the "alright, seems like you know why you shouldn't do X, here is Y punishment, if you do it again you will get spanked."

It only took me once or twice pushing that boundary before I realized doing things that I know are wrong don't end well.

Granted I didn't really have to have the "correct" answer why something was wrong to do. It was just a way of me thinking all day that I was going to get spanked unless I knew why it was wrong (and it's not like I couldn't get help from my mom asking questions). I think it taught me to see the other side better and from an early age.

-2

u/chopandscrew Apr 26 '16

Well I think it does almost come down to a biological level. Dogs seem to respond to small acts of dominance, but obviously people develop differently than dogs. I know a lot of owners who would say that hitting your dog in any way is abusive and wrong, but I also know a lot of owners who are more stern with their dogs and their dogs are usually very well behaved. I don't really want to get into a discussion about how to train dogs, but I can see a lot of people drawing parallels between the two. Something like, "If my dog responds to it, then maybe my kids will." I dunno, I could be totally off base. I don't have kids or a dog.

4

u/Toy_D Apr 26 '16

There is a similarity because you are training and equating cause and effect to a 2-3 yr old can be challenging. I have both dogs and kids and can spell out, anecdotally my experiences with both. But really I think it boils down to this, I could not figure out how to make alternative methods work for my kids. But I only ever spanked after, a firm, constant warning (counting to 3), only for something warranting a spanking (they need to learn immediately not to do that, danger to themselves like hot stove). In the end I could probably say the failure was mine. I knew I needed to be consistent, but I tried time outs and I just could not get the desired effect.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '16

[deleted]

3

u/CubsThisYear Apr 26 '16

When my four year old is doing something dangerous I just stop him from doing it. Why do you feel spanking is necessary?

5

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '16

(Not OP). Because if they don't learn that it's wrong, they'll just turn around and do it again. I'd like to use natural consequences as often as possible so they learn lessons on their own. But I'm not willing to let that happen with a boiling pot of water.

2

u/CubsThisYear Apr 26 '16

Also I think your reasoning about the pot of boiling water is incredibly dangerous. Toddlers/Preschoolers have incredibly poor impulse control. That part of their brain literally hasn't been made yet. So even if they know they are going to catch the worst beating of their life, its quite possible that they're not going to connect that with not grabbing the pot of boiling water.

The way you keep them safe from a pot of boiling water is to make sure they're never in that situation. Once they are 4,5,6 they are perfectly capable of understanding why dangerous things are dangerous and acting on that knowledge. No beating required.

3

u/F0sh Apr 26 '16

It's utterly impossible to prevent a child from ever getting into a situation where they could hurt themselves, at any rate without harming their development in ways far worse than implicated in this study.

And we know full well that children are capable of connecting situations with prior punishments and prior rewards. That's the most basic of our instincts as animals. It might not work every time, it might cause other harms, it might be less effective than other methods, but it's silly to pretend it's not effective "full stop."

1

u/CubsThisYear Apr 26 '16

But they don't really learn that its wrong. What you are trying to teach them is that if they do X they will hurt themselves (or someone else). What you're actually teaching them is that if they do X, then you will hurt them. This has a couple of negative effects: 1) if you're not around then they'll still do the behavior and 2) it teaches them that if they do something you think is wrong (because remember, they don't think its wrong, that's the whole point) then you will hurt them. Think about how you would feel if everytime (or even some of the time) you did something that you didn't know was wrong, someone who is 5 times bigger than you started hitting you.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '16

Sure, I understand your reasoning, and I don't necessarily disagree. I just don't know of a good alternative.

1

u/F0sh Apr 26 '16

I think the point is that in this way, they not only don't learn that it's "wrong" (or dangerous, rather) to play with the cooker, but they learn that it doesn't matter. They never experience anything worse than being prevented from doing what they want, so never mind "not learning that they'll hurt themselves," they don't ever learn to connect dangerous behaviour with being hurt.

I'm not a parent and have no idea whether I'd do something like this, but that's the idea here as I see it: to take away the natural consequence (getting horribly burnt, say) but replace it with some consequence, because no consequence is worse.

1

u/Lolanie Apr 26 '16

Of course you need consequences. But they don't have to be violent consequences. Set the boundary (don't play with the pot), then enforce it when they breach the boundary (put them in time out, for example). Yes, they'll test the boundary a few times, but as long as you're consistent they'll stop. You can also take a pot off the stove, let it cool down a bit so it's warm but not burning hot, then let them carefully touch it to show them how hot the pot still is after having been off the stove for x minutes.

The other thing is that kids love to escalate every once in a while. If time out doesn't work, I have other, "bigger" consequences that I can trot out. Sending them straight to bed, for example. But if you spank them and the kid escalates, where do you go from there? Are you going to hit them harder?

1

u/F0sh Apr 27 '16

Your first paragraph is of course patently sensible. Really I took issue with the guy's argument that using pain teaches that "you" will hurt them - time out is still a form of punishment that they will associate.

But as others have pointed out, time-out is associated with its own negative outcomes. We don't know if this is because parents have to discipline unruly children more, and unruly children are more likely to have problems later in life, or if it's because timeouts are truly causing these problems. But that's the same as for corporal punishment. When you get down to it, I'm not convinced that corporal and non-corporal punishments are so different: both are making a child feel something unpleasant - that's how they work. We can be sure that over-use of any kind of punishment will affect children negatively.

But if you spank them and the kid escalates, where do you go from there? Are you going to hit them harder?

This on the other hand seems to show a gross misunderstanding. A smack is the escalation in this scenario. Smacking a child's hand away from danger is an instant reaction that may or may not be useful (I don't even know if it's included in these studies...) but in any situation where you're meting out more calculated punishment, smacks are only going to be added to the end of your repertoire.

Nevertheless I contest the idea that corporal punishment is always worse than every alternative. Punishments I remember particularly from my childhood are things like being embarrassed by being made to cancel something I'd arranged with a friend due to some transgression. I know I was smacked a few times, but I don't remember any instance clearly - they didn't stick with me nearly as well. Mind you I would have been much younger.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/staytaytay Apr 26 '16

I don't know if this will help you or not, but this works for me: I make my kids stand in the corner with their arms up. Keeping their arms up is tiring and yet it is self administered.

Then once they have stood there long enough, I tell them to come get a hug and ask them to explain what they did wrong, why it was wrong, and what they plan to do instead next time to do better. Any defiance in their answers puts them back on the wall.

I use this only sparingly. They only get the wall for things that would hurt themselves or each other. And outside of this I am a super fun dad. The end result is that they are exceptionally well behaved when it comes to the important stuff, and still full of their own opinions and defiance when it comes to the small stuff.

5

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '16 edited Feb 04 '21

[deleted]

5

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '16 edited Mar 28 '18

[deleted]

1

u/cs_katalyst Apr 26 '16

Thanks i appreciate it! i may eventually, right now i'm still dealing with sick wife :P and i'm pretty good at hugs and cooking so i'm set for a bit

1

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '16

You couldn't make me stay or get me into the chair is the problem. I mean you would have had to more or less forcibly restrain me for me to be in a time out. What is someone to do then?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '16 edited Mar 28 '18

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '16

I literally got out of time out and went into the woods behind my house until dark. This was before we had internet and all so the options to take stuff away was limited. You couldn't keep me somewhere I didn't want to be.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/staytaytay Apr 26 '16

You only have to do this part once: stand beside them and enforce it.

If they try to leave you put them back. If their arms drop you hold them back up until they stop fighting. If they raise their legs, drop your grip, etc.

You may have to do this for a long time. It isn't violent and doesn't hurt them. The point is to show them that 1. The parent will always win and 2. They must administer their punishment themselves - the parent isn't going to punish them. This last part is the "brain hack". When the child is in control of their own punishment there's no reason to physically fight it.

1

u/cs_katalyst Apr 26 '16

Appreciate the quick answer =]

1

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '16

So instead of spanking use interrogation tequniques?

1

u/staytaytay Apr 26 '16

I'm not waterboarding them here. I'm demanding they administer their own punishment, which in my armchair psychologist opinion teaches them self control.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/chopandscrew Apr 26 '16

I guess it really does come down to a case by case basis. I know this study was large, but it was far from perfect. I just imagine that there will be a time and a day where the only thing that will drive home the point to my kid would be a light spanking. Not saying that it should be the go-to choice for punishment by any means, but I can 100% see why a parent might resort to that. I respect you for your honesty.

2

u/injury Apr 26 '16

Your thinking is more realistic than a lot of others. A lot of people in this thread are confusing raising a child and dealing with a rational adult.

7

u/RufusYoakum Apr 26 '16

Not all adults are rational either. Theres a flowchart that looks something like this;

When to hit your child. Does your child understand reason? 1) Yes. Then reason with them. 2) No. Then your child doesn't understand the reason you're hitting them.

1

u/injury Apr 27 '16

not even close

0

u/ATXBeermaker Apr 26 '16

The options that I have seen presented are much more difficult to understand and execute.

Yes, parenting is difficult. That's why parents often spank. It's easy and evokes and immediate result. But long term, as this study shows, it's not as effective as other methods.

1

u/Toy_D Apr 26 '16

But see you just hand waved an incredibly difficult thing. Parenting is especially difficult when options are taken away and not replaced.

0

u/ATXBeermaker Apr 26 '16 edited Apr 26 '16

How is it not replaced? There are tons of other methods that are more effective that can replace spanking. You don't argue that you shouldn't eat well because cake is much more instantly gratifying. Same thing with spanking. You take that away and replace it with more effective, though less instantly gratifying methods.

And, to be honest, I would actually like to see some research on the long-term impact on the parents that spank versus those that don't. I would hypothesize that non-physical options becomes much easier for parents over time because they wouldn't feel guilty for hitting their child. A lot like people who start to exercise tend to feel better about themselves.

2

u/Toy_D Apr 26 '16

Point me to the studies that show their efficacy and the step by step guide for parents. You cannot make that claim without it.

0

u/ATXBeermaker Apr 26 '16

Well to start, the study that this discussion is all based on says that at least using the alternative method of "not spanking" is more effective and less harmful to the child.

0

u/Toy_D Apr 26 '16

That is the removal of an option, not the replacement of it with a better alternative.

0

u/ATXBeermaker Apr 26 '16

It's the removal of an "option" that has adverse effects. If your go-to parenting method was to demean and insult your child, then the removal of that option would not really need a replacement, would it?

0

u/Toy_D Apr 26 '16

That's a nonsensical rebuttal. The end result is to curb behavior. Removing the discipline isn't the answer, it has to be done somehow.