SPANKING BY PARENTS: THE PRIMORDIAL VIOLENCE AND ITS ...
SPANKING BY PARENTS: THE PRIMORDIAL VIOLENCE AND ITS ...
SPANKING BY PARENTS: THE PRIMORDIAL VIOLENCE AND ITS ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Soc 695 Family Violence Research In World Perspective Murray A. Straus<br />
<strong>SPANKING</strong> <strong>BY</strong> <strong>PARENTS</strong>: <strong>THE</strong> <strong>PRIMORDIAL</strong> <strong>VIOLENCE</strong><br />
<strong>AND</strong> <strong>ITS</strong> EFFECTS ON CHILDREN<br />
SIX QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED<br />
1. WHAT IS CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (CP)?<br />
2. HOW PREVALENT IS CP <strong>BY</strong> <strong>PARENTS</strong> IN AROUND <strong>THE</strong><br />
WORLD?<br />
3. ARE CHILDREN WHO ARE SPANKED REALLY HARMED?<br />
4. IS CP SOMETIMES NECESSARY TO HAVE WELL-BEHAVED<br />
CHILDREN?<br />
5. WHAT ARE <strong>THE</strong> TRENDS IN USE OF CP?<br />
6. WHAT WOULD A WORLD WITHOUT CP BE LIKE?<br />
CP83 1
Question 1: WHAT IS CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (CP)?<br />
� A. USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE<br />
� B. WITH <strong>THE</strong> INTENTION OF CAUSING BODILY PAIN<br />
� C. BUT NOT INJURY<br />
� D. FOR PURPOSES OF CORRECTION OR CONTROL<br />
EXAMPLES<br />
•“SPANK,” “SMACK”<br />
•SLAP H<strong>AND</strong><br />
•SHAKE, SHOVE, JERK<br />
•GRAB OR SQUEEZE HARD<br />
•TWIST EAR<br />
etc.<br />
� IF C <strong>AND</strong> D ARE PRESENT:<br />
A LEGALLY PERMITTED TYPE OF PHYSICAL ATTACK<br />
CP83 2
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT HAS BEEN <strong>THE</strong> NORM<br />
FOR THOUS<strong>AND</strong>S OF YEARS, <strong>AND</strong> STILL IS<br />
ANCIENT ISRAEL: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son; but he that<br />
loveth him chasteneth him betimes Proverbs 13:24<br />
"This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is<br />
a glutton and a drunkard. Then all the men of the town shall stone him<br />
to death. Deuteronomy 22;12<br />
18 th CENTURY ENGL<strong>AND</strong>: "When they turned a year old..., they were<br />
taught to fear the rod and to cry softly...." (Susanna Wesley to her son<br />
John, the founder of the Methodist Church, cited in Miller and Swanson<br />
1958:10)<br />
2001-2006 – Next Slide<br />
CP83 3
PERCENT WHO AGREE “A GOOD HARD <strong>SPANKING</strong> IS SOMETIMES NECESSARY”<br />
ALL NATIONS MEDIAN: Total = 52 % Males = 56% Females = 51%<br />
High Half Of Nations Low Half Of Nations<br />
Total Male Female Total Male Female<br />
Taiwan 74.3 80.7 71.6 Australia 53.2 57.7 52.1<br />
Tanzania 71.1 71.6 68.4 Canada 51.7 55.2 50.2<br />
South Africa 67.6 61.0 67.2 Hungary 51.6 45.6 54.3<br />
Mexico 66.7 70.8 65.7 Iran 51.6 57.1 50.0<br />
Singapore 65.5 68.2 64.2 Greece 50.3 67.3 43.2<br />
United States 60.8 68.9 56.7 Lithuania 48.8 57.6 44.2<br />
Germany 60.1 63.8 58.5 Switzerland 45.2 52.6 41.6<br />
Hong Kong 60.1 65.4 57.9 Romania 42.0 56.7 40.4<br />
South Korea 59.0 63.5 56.4 Japan 35.1 45.0 25.4<br />
Russia 58.8 65.3 54.0 Guatemala 33.4 40.0 24.8<br />
China 58.4 64.7 54.9 Malta 33.3 45.9 28.8<br />
India 56.3 59.1 54.8 Venezuela 28.3 40.9 19.3<br />
Great Britain 55.0 62.3 53.6 Belgium 23.0 27.8 21.5<br />
New Zealand 54.4 51.3 55.4 Israel 23.0 23.8 22.7<br />
Australia 53.2 57.7 52.1 Portugal 20.8 27.7 16.9<br />
Canada 51.7 55.2 50.2 Brazil 19.3 25.0 16.4<br />
CP83<br />
In rank order of national context total (VS01_1)`<br />
4
Question 2: How<br />
prevalent is CP<br />
CP83 5
WORLD VISION STUDY OF<br />
CHILD ABUSE <strong>AND</strong> NEGLECT IN 5 COUNTRIES<br />
SAMPLE 971 household with a child at home in Romania, Kenya,<br />
Ghana, Thailand, and Brazil<br />
Stratified random sample. Mostly female respondents<br />
Hit your child with your<br />
hand<br />
Hit your child with a stick<br />
or belt<br />
Percent In Past Year<br />
Romania Kenya Thailand<br />
Iasi Cj CT M S Ghana BS P<br />
Brazil<br />
70 74 58 64 64 66 27 21 72<br />
42 53 22 70 82 84 70 75 % 41<br />
From: World Vision (2001) Crying Out: Children And Communities Speak on Abuse<br />
and Neglect, Appendix B.<br />
CP83 6
<strong>THE</strong><br />
<strong>PRIMORDIAL</strong><br />
<strong>VIOLENCE</strong><br />
Over 90% hit<br />
toddlers<br />
More than<br />
a third<br />
hit infants<br />
US national survey,<br />
1,000 children, Straus<br />
& Stewart, 1999<br />
One out of<br />
four are still<br />
hitting at<br />
age 16<br />
CP83 7
LOW SES<br />
<strong>PARENTS</strong><br />
HIT MORE,<br />
BUT NOT<br />
MUCH<br />
MORE<br />
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT OF CHILDREN AGE 7-9,<br />
SAO PAULO, BRAZIL, 1999 (N=271)<br />
45%<br />
40%<br />
35%<br />
30%<br />
25%<br />
20%<br />
15%<br />
10%<br />
5%<br />
0%<br />
LOW HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX<br />
AREA<br />
HIGH HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX<br />
AREA<br />
SPANK, SLAP SHOVE, KICK PULL EAR, HAIR BELT, BRUSH PUNCH, SOCK<br />
MARIA AMELIA AZEVEDO <strong>AND</strong> VIVIANNE NORGUIRA DE<br />
AZEVEDO GUERRA, 2001 HITTING MANIA. SAO PAULO:<br />
IGLU EDITORIA<br />
CP83 8<br />
AVEZEDO1
RATES FROM INTERVIEWING A NATIONAL SAMPLE OF CHILDREN, 2007*<br />
* Harris Internet Youth Survey<br />
CP83 9
CP83 10
SOME O<strong>THE</strong>R CORPORAL PUNISHMENT RATES<br />
Chile 85.7% children in public schools<br />
54.1% children in private school<br />
(Vargas, Lopez, Perez, Zuniga, Toro & Ciocca, 1995)<br />
Egypt 72.9% children over 10, past year (Youssef, Attia & Kamel, 1998b)<br />
Italy 76.8% (Bardi & Borgognini-Tarli, 2001)<br />
India 76.4% (Hunter, Jain, Sadowski & Sanhueza, 2000)<br />
Mexico 74.9% (Frias-Armenta & McCloskey, 1998)<br />
Jamaica *79% of mothers beat their two to five year olds with an implement<br />
* 87% children age 11-12 ever<br />
* 70% in the previous four weeks (N=1,172, Samms-Vaugham et al 2004)<br />
(Sample of 75 economically deprived families, Landman, Grantham-<br />
McGregor & Desai, 1983)<br />
CP83 11
32 Nations In<br />
the International<br />
Dating<br />
Violence<br />
Study<br />
PERCENT SPANKED OR HIT A LOT BEFORE AGE 12<br />
ALL NATIONS MEDIAN: Total = 52, Males = 55, Females = 50<br />
High Half Of Nations Low Half Of Nations<br />
Total Male Female Total Male Female<br />
Taiwan 74.3 80.7 71.6 Australia 53.2 57.7 52.1<br />
Tanzania 71.1 71.6 68.4 Canada 51.7 55.2 50.2<br />
South Africa 67.6 61.0 67.2 Hungary 51.6 45.6 54.3<br />
Mexico 66.7 70.8 65.7 Iran 51.6 57.1 50.0<br />
Singapore 65.5 68.2 64.2 Greece 50.3 67.3 43.2<br />
United States 60.8 68.9 56.7 Lithuania 48.8 57.6 44.2<br />
Germany 60.1 63.8 58.5 Switzerland 45.2 52.6 41.6<br />
Hong Kong 60.1 65.4 57.9 Romania 42.0 56.7 40.4<br />
South Korea 59.0 63.5 56.4 Japan 35.1 45.0 25.4<br />
Russia 58.8 65.3 54.0 Guatemala 33.4 40.0 24.8<br />
China 58.4 64.7 54.9 Malta 33.3 45.9 28.8<br />
India 56.3 59.1 54.8 Venezuela 28.3 40.9 19.3<br />
Great Britain 55.0 62.3 53.6 Belgium 23.0 27.8 21.5<br />
New Zealand 54.4 51.3 55.4 Israel 23.0 23.8 22.7<br />
Australia 53.2 57.7 52.1 Portugal 20.8 27.7 16.9<br />
Canada 51.7 55.2 50.2 Brazil 19.3 25.0 16.4<br />
CP83<br />
In rank order of national context total (VS01_1)<br />
12
CONCLUSION:<br />
CHILDREN IN MOST OF <strong>THE</strong> WORLD, ARE<br />
BROUGHT UP MORE VIOLENTLY<br />
THAN IS GENERALLY REALIZED<br />
• MORE PREVALENT 94% of toddlers spanked (USA & UK)<br />
• MORE CHRONIC 3+ Times a week for toddlers<br />
• MORE SEVERE 28% Used a paddle, belt, etc.<br />
• LONGER DURATION 13 years for a third of US Children<br />
17 years for 14% of US children<br />
CP83 13
Question 3: ARE CHILDREN WHO ARE SPANKED<br />
REALLY HARMED?<br />
<strong>THE</strong> RESEARCH SHOWS THAT CP:<br />
* Lowers the chances of many things all parents want for their their<br />
children<br />
* Increases the risk of many serious and life-long life long problems<br />
<strong>PARENTS</strong> CAN’T SEE WHAT <strong>THE</strong> RESEARCH SHOWS BECAUSE<br />
* They have no way to know what the child will be like in the future<br />
* Research can find this out because based on following children<br />
for years<br />
* Therefore: Parents have to go on the basis of research which<br />
shows the harmful side effects of spanking<br />
LIKE SMOKERS WHO ALSO CAN'T SEE WHAT <strong>THE</strong> EFFECTS ARE<br />
Both smokers and parents can only get information on the<br />
benefits of stopping from research<br />
CP83 14
WHAT <strong>THE</strong> RESEARCH SHOWS<br />
ABOUT <strong>THE</strong> EFFECTS OF <strong>SPANKING</strong><br />
• Slows mental development<br />
• Reduces academic performance in elementary school<br />
• Increases anger and aggressiveness<br />
• Increases probability of Depression<br />
• Lowers occupational achievement and income<br />
• Increases probability of violence against dating and marital<br />
partners<br />
• Increases probability of physical abuse of a child<br />
RESULTS FROM SOME OF <strong>THE</strong> STUDIES SHOWING <strong>THE</strong>SE EFFECTS<br />
CP83 15
GROWTH IN<br />
COGNITIVE ABILITY<br />
OF CHILDREN<br />
TWO YEARS LATER<br />
* Not spanked:<br />
increased faster than<br />
average<br />
AVERAGE<br />
Data from the National<br />
Longitudinal Survey Of<br />
Youth. 1,510 children<br />
CHANGE IN SCORE 1986-90<br />
6<br />
5<br />
4<br />
3<br />
2<br />
1<br />
0<br />
-1<br />
-2<br />
-3<br />
NONE<br />
CP83 16<br />
ONCE<br />
CP41CHART 3 COGNITIVE<br />
AGE 2-4<br />
AGE 5-9<br />
TWICE<br />
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN TWO SAMPLE WEEKS<br />
3+
CP83 17
SPANKED<br />
The more spanking<br />
the more antisocial<br />
behavior two years<br />
later<br />
NOT SPANKED<br />
Antisocial behavior<br />
measured two years<br />
later decreased<br />
CHANGE<br />
IN<br />
ANTI-<br />
SOCIAL<br />
BEHAVIOR<br />
*<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
0<br />
-5<br />
FIGURE 1. CHANGE IN ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR<br />
FROM 1988 TO 1990 <strong>BY</strong> <strong>SPANKING</strong> IN 1988<br />
(CHILDREN 6-9) )<br />
EURO-AMER.<br />
MINORITY<br />
NONE ONCE TWICE THREE +<br />
TIMES SPANKED IN PREVIOUS WEEK<br />
* ADJUSTED FOR TIME-1 ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR, COGNITIVE STIMULATION <strong>AND</strong><br />
CP83 EMOTIONAL SUPPORT <strong>BY</strong> <strong>THE</strong> MO<strong>THE</strong>R, CHILD GENDER, <strong>AND</strong><br />
SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS. CP67-1 ANTISOCIAL<br />
18
CHILDREN IN SIX<br />
DIVERSE NATIONS<br />
<strong>THE</strong> MORE CORPORAL<br />
PUNISHMENT<br />
<strong>THE</strong> MORE:<br />
• MORE AGGRESSION<br />
• MORE ANXIETY<br />
Lansford, J. E. et al (2005). Physical<br />
Discipline and Children’s Adjustment:<br />
Cultural Normativeness as a Moderator.<br />
Child Development.<br />
CP83 19
CP83 20
CP83 21
<strong>BY</strong><br />
PARENT<br />
<strong>THE</strong> MORE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT,<br />
<strong>THE</strong> GREATER <strong>THE</strong> PROBABILITY OF<br />
PHYSICALLY ABUSING A CHILD<br />
CP83 22<br />
OF PARENT
<strong>THE</strong>SE ARE ALL “RISK FACTORS,”<br />
NOT ONE-TO-ONE LINKS<br />
• A CONDITION WHICH INCREASES <strong>THE</strong> PROBABILITY OF A<br />
DISEASE OR PROBLEM<br />
• EXAMPLES:<br />
– SMOKING <strong>AND</strong> DEATH FROM SMOKING RELATED DISEASE<br />
(33% chance of death from a smoking related disease – which<br />
means that 64% do not)<br />
– FREQUENT <strong>SPANKING</strong> <strong>AND</strong> DELINQUENCY<br />
(24% chance - 5 fold increase, but 76% do not become<br />
delinquent)<br />
– BINGE DRINKING <strong>AND</strong> WIFE BEATING<br />
(19% chance - 3 fold increase, but 81% of binge drinkers do not<br />
beat their wives)<br />
CP83 23
Question 4.<br />
IS CP<br />
NECESSARY TO<br />
HAVE WELL-<br />
BEHAVED<br />
CHILDREN?<br />
SHORT RUN<br />
EFFECTIVE-<br />
NESS:<br />
CP “WORKS”<br />
BUT NO BETTER<br />
THAN O<strong>THE</strong>R<br />
METHODS<br />
HOURS<br />
TO<br />
REPET-<br />
ITION<br />
10<br />
9<br />
8<br />
7<br />
6<br />
5<br />
4<br />
3<br />
2<br />
1<br />
0<br />
FIGURE 3. HOURS TO REPITITON OF MISBEHAVIOR <strong>BY</strong><br />
40 CHILDREN AGE 2-3<br />
CORPORAL<br />
PUNISH ONLY<br />
CORPORAL<br />
PUNISH +<br />
REASONING<br />
FIGHTS AGAIN<br />
NON-<br />
CORPORAL<br />
PUNISH<br />
REASONING<br />
ONLY<br />
TYPE OF DISCIPLINE<br />
REASONING +<br />
FORCED<br />
COMPLINACE<br />
2,853 INSTANCES OF DISOBEDIANCE, 785 INSTANCES OF FIGHTING<br />
CP67-3 LARZELERE (FROM LARZELERE & MIR<strong>AND</strong>A, TABLES 2 & 3)<br />
REASONING +<br />
NON-<br />
CORPORAL<br />
PUNISH<br />
CP83 24
LONG-RUN<br />
EFFECTIVENESS:<br />
CP BOOMERANGS<br />
CP83 25
CHANGE<br />
IN<br />
ANTISOCIAL<br />
BEHAVIOR<br />
NOT<br />
SPANKED:<br />
BEHAVIOR<br />
IMPROVED<br />
*<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
0<br />
-5<br />
FIGURE 1. CHANGE IN ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR<br />
FROM 1988 TO 1990 <strong>BY</strong> <strong>SPANKING</strong> IN 1988<br />
(CHILDREN 6-9) )<br />
EURO-AMER.<br />
MINORITY<br />
NONE ONCE TWICE THREE +<br />
TIMES SPANKED IN PREVIOUS WEEK<br />
SPANKED:<br />
BEHAVIOR<br />
GOT WORSE<br />
* ADJUSTED FOR TIME-1 ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR, COGNITIVE STIMULATION <strong>AND</strong><br />
CP83 EMOTIONAL SUPPORT <strong>BY</strong> <strong>THE</strong> MO<strong>THE</strong>R, CHILD GENDER, <strong>AND</strong><br />
SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS. CP67-1 ANTISOCIAL<br />
26
TWO REASONS<br />
WHY CP MAKES<br />
THINGS WORSE IN<br />
<strong>THE</strong> LONG RUN<br />
1. LESS WELL<br />
DEVELOPED<br />
CONSCIENCE<br />
CP83 27
2. WEAKENS<br />
BOND TO<br />
PARENT<br />
FIG A. CLOSENESS OF CHILD TO MO<strong>THE</strong>R<br />
<strong>BY</strong> CORPORAL PUNISHMENT<br />
(713 CHILDREN AGE 5-18 IN TW O MINNESTA CITIES)<br />
BONDING SCALE *<br />
54<br />
52<br />
50<br />
48<br />
46<br />
44<br />
42<br />
40<br />
BONDING2A BONDING3A<br />
. NONE ONCE 3-5 6 +<br />
.<br />
TIMES SPANKED IN PREVIOUS SIX<br />
MONTHS<br />
*ADJUSTED FOR AGE, GENDER OF CHILD, <strong>AND</strong> SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS,<br />
CP83 28<br />
CP40A
SOME O<strong>THE</strong>R REASONS LONG TERM<br />
EFFECTIVENESS OF CP IS LOW<br />
* FROM SCHOOL AGE ON -- OUT OF SIGHT MOST OF <strong>THE</strong> TIME<br />
* CHILDREN GET "TOO BIG" <strong>THE</strong>N WHAT?<br />
* LESS OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN HOW TO GET NEEDS FILLED <strong>BY</strong><br />
EXPLAINING<br />
NEGOTIATING<br />
CREATIVE ALTERNATIVES<br />
COMPROMISE<br />
C:\My Documents\A2\CHARTS\CP\EFFECTIV\EFFECTIV 2D.doc<br />
CP83 29
Question 5:<br />
WHAT ARE<br />
<strong>THE</strong> TRENDS<br />
IN USE OF<br />
CP?<br />
CP83 30<br />
(USA)
CP83 31
<strong>THE</strong> MOST<br />
CHANGE HAS<br />
BEEN IN<br />
SWEDEN<br />
CP83 32
UNITED NATIONS<br />
SECOND WORLD SUMMIT ON CHILDREN<br />
“All countries to adopt legislation, policies and<br />
programmes to protect children from all forms of violence,<br />
whether at home, in school or in the community”: and<br />
“protect children from torture and other cruel, inhuman or<br />
degrading treatment, including corporal punishment”.<br />
CP83 33
HITTING CHILDREN BANNED IN <strong>THE</strong>SE COUNTRIES<br />
As of 2006<br />
15 <strong>BY</strong> STATUTE<br />
Austria<br />
Bulgaria<br />
Croatia<br />
Cyprus<br />
Denmark<br />
Finland<br />
Germany<br />
Hungary<br />
Iceland<br />
Israel<br />
Latvia<br />
Norway<br />
Romania<br />
Sweden<br />
Ukraine<br />
<strong>BY</strong> HIGH COURT RULING:<br />
Israel, Italy<br />
Steps to implement<br />
vary from almost none<br />
to very extensive<br />
CP83 34
QUESTION 6: WHAT <strong>THE</strong> WORLD MIGHT BE LIKE IF<br />
ADULTS STOPPED <strong>SPANKING</strong>?<br />
<strong>THE</strong> EXAMPLE OF SWEDEN<br />
(Durrant, 1998)<br />
• CP in schools banned in 1928;<br />
• CP by parents banned in 1979 (but no criminal penalties)<br />
<strong>VIOLENCE</strong> AGAINST CHILDREN SINCE 1979 BAN<br />
• Public approval of CP declined to near zero<br />
• Use of CP declined sharply but continues<br />
• Child physical abuse has not increased<br />
(Child abuse deaths remain lowest in the world)<br />
• Reports of CP increased as a result of intervention effort<br />
YOUTH CRIME <strong>AND</strong> PROBLEMS SINCE 1979 BAN:<br />
• Crime rates decreased<br />
• Alcohol and drug use decreased<br />
• Suicide decreased<br />
• Reports of assault by youth increased – reflects redefinition of bullying as<br />
assault and zero tolerance<br />
CP83 35
<strong>THE</strong>SE ARE ALL “RISK FACTORS,”<br />
NOT ONE-TO-ONE LINKS<br />
• A CONDITION WHICH INCREASES <strong>THE</strong> PROBABILITY OF A<br />
DISEASE OR PROBLEM<br />
• EXAMPLES:<br />
– SMOKING <strong>AND</strong> DEATH FROM SMOKING RELATED DISEASE<br />
(33% chance of death from a smoking related disease – which<br />
means that 64% do not)<br />
– FREQUENT <strong>SPANKING</strong> <strong>AND</strong> DELINQUENCY<br />
(24% chance - 5 fold increase, but 76% do not become<br />
delinquent)<br />
– BINGE DRINKING <strong>AND</strong> WIFE BEATING<br />
(19% chance - 3 fold increase, but 81% of binge drinkers do not<br />
beat their wives)<br />
CP83 36
Chart 5-4.1 Comparison of the Effect of Corporal Punishment<br />
With Effects From Other Domains<br />
Smoking and lung cancer<br />
Media violence and<br />
aggression<br />
CP and cognitive<br />
development*<br />
Condom use and sexually<br />
transmitted HIV<br />
CP and adult criminal<br />
behavior among men*<br />
Passive smoking and lung<br />
cancer at work<br />
Exposure to lead and IQ<br />
scores in children<br />
Nicotine patch and<br />
smoking cessation<br />
Calcium intake and bone<br />
mass<br />
Homework and academic<br />
achievement<br />
Exposure to asbestos and<br />
laryngeal cancer<br />
Self-examination and<br />
extent of breast cancer<br />
0 0.1 0.2<br />
Correlation<br />
0.3 0.4<br />
* Partial correlation. See Appendix 5 for explanation, Other effect sizes are from Bushman, B. J.,<br />
& Anderson, C. A. (2001). Media violence and the American public: Scientific facts versus media<br />
misinformation. American Psychologist, 56(6/7), 477-489.<br />
CP83 37
WHY ENDING CP<br />
CAN BE A MAJOR<br />
BENEFIT FOR<br />
CHILDREN <strong>AND</strong><br />
SOCIETY<br />
CP83 38
QUESTION 6 AGAIN: WHAT WOULD <strong>THE</strong> WORLD<br />
BE LIKE IF ADULTS STOPPED <strong>SPANKING</strong>?<br />
FOR <strong>PARENTS</strong><br />
* LESS HASSLE<br />
* LESS BETTER BEHAVED CHILDREN<br />
FOR CHILDREN<br />
* LESS RISK OF PHYSICAL ABUSE<br />
* LESS DELINQUENCY<br />
* ENHANCED MENTAL ABILITY <strong>AND</strong> SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT<br />
FOR <strong>THE</strong> NEXT GENERATION<br />
* LESS “STREET <strong>VIOLENCE</strong>”<br />
* LESS DEPRESSION <strong>AND</strong> SUICIDE<br />
* LESS WIFE BEATING<br />
* HIGHER ECONOMIC ACHIEVMENT<br />
A LESS VIOLENT, HEALTHIER, WEALTHIER, <strong>AND</strong> WISER WORLD<br />
CP83 39
END<br />
CP83 40
A FEW REFERENCES<br />
Giles-Sims, J., Straus, M. A., & Sugarman, D. B. (1995). Child, maternal and family<br />
characteristics associated with spanking. Family Relations, 44(2), 170-176.<br />
Greven, P. (1990). Spare the child: The religious roots of punishment and the<br />
psychological impact of physical abuse. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.<br />
Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors<br />
and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin,<br />
128(4), 539-579.<br />
Simons, R. L., Lin, K.-H., & Gordon, L. C. (1998). Socialization in the Family of origin<br />
and male dating violence: A prospective study. Journal of Marriage and the<br />
Family, 60(2), 467-478.<br />
Straus, M. A. (1995). Corporal punishment of children and depression and suicide in<br />
adulthood. In J. McCord (Ed.), Coercion and Punishment in Long Term<br />
Perspective. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press.<br />
Straus, M. A. (2005). Children should never, ever, be spanked no matter what the<br />
circumstances. In R. J. Gelles & D. R. Loseke (Eds.), Current Controversies<br />
about Family Violence (2nd ed., pp. chapter 9). Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.<br />
Straus, M. A. (2007 in press). The primordial violence: Corporal punishment by parents,<br />
cognitive development, and crime. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.<br />
Straus, M. A., Sugarman, D. B., & Giles-Sims, J. (1997). Spanking by parents and<br />
subsequent antisocial behavior of children. Archives of pediatric and adolescent<br />
medicine, 151(August), 761-767.<br />
CP83 41
FOR EVIDENCE ON ALL<br />
<strong>THE</strong>SE POINTS <strong>AND</strong><br />
MANY O<strong>THE</strong>RS see<br />
* This book<br />
* Papers on my website<br />
(1 st slide)<br />
* References on last<br />
slide<br />
* ALSO Forthcoming<br />
book<br />
CP83 42
I. <strong>SPANKING</strong> -- <strong>THE</strong> VIRTUOUS<br />
<strong>VIOLENCE</strong><br />
1. The Conspiracy of Silence<br />
2. Everyone Does It, But Less Now<br />
3. Hitting Adolescents<br />
4. Who Spanks the Most?<br />
II. <strong>THE</strong> PRICE OF VIRTUE<br />
5. Depression and Suicide<br />
6. Physical Abuse<br />
7. Violence and Crime<br />
8. The Fusion of Sex and Violence<br />
9. Alienation and Reduced Income<br />
Ill. <strong>THE</strong> FUTURE<br />
10. Ten Myths that Perpetuate Corporal<br />
Punishment<br />
I I. Social Evolution and Corporal<br />
Punishment<br />
12. The Benefits of Never Spanking: New<br />
and More Definitive Evidence<br />
2 nd Edition, 2001<br />
Transaction Publishers<br />
390 Campus Drive<br />
Somerset, NJ 08873<br />
Toll free-US only 888-999-6778<br />
or 732-445-1245<br />
Fax. 732-748-9801<br />
www.transactionpub.com<br />
In UK and Europe:<br />
Transaction Publishers (UK)<br />
C/O EDS 3 Henrietta Street<br />
Covent Garden<br />
London WC2E 8LU<br />
Tel. +44 (0)20 7 240 0856<br />
Fax. +44 (0)20 7 379 0609<br />
CP83 43
Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, In Press 2007. www.altamirapress.com<br />
<strong>THE</strong> <strong>PRIMORDIAL</strong> <strong>VIOLENCE</strong>:<br />
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT <strong>BY</strong> <strong>PARENTS</strong>, COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT,<br />
<strong>AND</strong> CRIME<br />
Murray A. Straus and Rose A. Medeiros<br />
University of New Hampshire murray.straus@unh.edu<br />
Part I. SOCIAL CAUSES <strong>AND</strong> CONTEXT<br />
1-1 Prevalence, Chronicity, And Severity of Corporal Punishmnt In The USA<br />
1-2 Corporal Punishment In The Lives Of University Students In 16 Countries<br />
1-3 There Was An Old Woman Who Lived In A Shoe – What Did She Do?<br />
1-4 Violent Attitudes and Cultural Norms Underling Corporal Punishment<br />
Part II. CHILD BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS<br />
2-1 Spanking To Control Antisocial Behavior - The Boomerang Effect<br />
2-2 The Effects of Impulsive Spanking and Never Spanking<br />
2-3 Corporal Punishment, the Child-To-Mother Bond, And Delinquency<br />
2-4 Corporal Punishment And Risky Sex<br />
3-1<br />
PART III. HUMAN CAPITAL<br />
Slowing Of Cognitive Development<br />
3-2 Lower Educational Achievement Test Scores<br />
3-3 Reduced Chances of College Graduation<br />
CP83 44
4-1<br />
Part IV. ADULT <strong>VIOLENCE</strong> <strong>AND</strong> O<strong>THE</strong>R CRIME<br />
Why Corporal Punishment Is Linked To Physically Assaulting A Spouse<br />
4-2 Corporal Punishment and Crime in Ethnic Group Context<br />
4-3 Corporal Punishment And Violence Against Dating Partners Worldwide<br />
4-4 Spanking and Crime in Adulthood By High Risk Children<br />
Chapter<br />
<strong>THE</strong> <strong>PRIMORDIAL</strong> <strong>VIOLENCE</strong> (CONTINUED)<br />
Part V. SOCIAL CHANGE <strong>AND</strong> TRENDS<br />
5-1 The Decline in Public Support Of Spanking<br />
5-2 Why Everyone Spanks Toddlers And What To Do About It<br />
5-3 Corporal Punishment And Societal Violence<br />
5-4 A World Without Spanking<br />
CP83 45
WHY PAY ATTENTION TO <strong>SPANKING</strong>?<br />
�MOST <strong>SPANKING</strong> IS DONE <strong>BY</strong> LOVING <strong>PARENTS</strong> TO CORRECT<br />
<strong>AND</strong> TRAIN CHILDREN<br />
�<strong>THE</strong> HARMFUL EFFECTS FOR AN INDIVIDUAL CHILD ARE SMALL<br />
COMPARED TO <strong>THE</strong> EFFECTS OF PHYSICAL ABUSE<br />
BUT<br />
�IT VIOLATES <strong>THE</strong> RIGHTS OF CHILDREN AS DEFINED IN <strong>THE</strong><br />
UNITED NATIONS CHARTER ON CHILDREN’S RIGHTS<br />
�A VERY LARGE PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN ARE SPANKED<br />
�CHILDREN ARE TYPICALLY HIT FOR MANY YEARS – IN <strong>THE</strong> USA,<br />
ON AVERAGE UNTIL <strong>THE</strong>Y ARE ABOUT 12 YEARS OLD, I.E. FOR<br />
ABOUT 12 YEARS<br />
�<strong>THE</strong> EFFECT ON <strong>THE</strong> WELFARE OF CHILDREN IS VERY LARGE –<br />
GREATER THAN <strong>THE</strong> HARMFUL EFFECT OF PHYSICAL ABUSE<br />
CP83 46
Percent Who Spanked in Past<br />
Week<br />
Average Number Of Times per Week<br />
%<br />
80<br />
70<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
RELIGIOUS DIFFERENCES IN <strong>SPANKING</strong> CHILDREN 3-5<br />
CATHOLIC<br />
2.8 3.6 3.3 3.6<br />
NONE<br />
PROTESTANT<br />
O<strong>THE</strong>R<br />
Giles-Sims, Jean., Murray A. Straus, and David B. Sugarman. 1995. "Child, maternal and<br />
CP83 47<br />
family characteristics associated with spanking." Family Relations 44:170-176.<br />
`
CHINESE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT RATES<br />
Survey by the Guangdong Provincial Women's Federation<br />
• 54% of university and middle-school students experienced corporal<br />
punishment<br />
• 80% of parents and teachers believe corporal punishment has<br />
benefits<br />
Survey by the University of Hong Kong (2003-04)<br />
• 44% of parents had beaten their children to "straighten" them up.<br />
Joy Lu “Spare the rod and spoil the child?” China Daily 05/27/2006 page 3 (downloaded from internet)<br />
CP83 48
TWO CANADIAN STUDIES<br />
ONTARIO HEALTH SURVEY 83% IN CHILDHOOD<br />
R<strong>AND</strong>OM SAMPLE OF<br />
PERSONS AGE 15-44<br />
R<strong>AND</strong>OM SAMPLE OF TORONTO 75% IN PAST YEAR<br />
MO<strong>THE</strong>RS WITH CHILD<br />
AGE 3 TO 17 AT HOME<br />
Lenton, Rhonda L. 1990. “Techniques of child discipline and abuse by parents.” Canadian<br />
Review of Sociology & Anthropology 27:157-185.<br />
MacMillan, Harriet L., Michael H. Boyle, Maria Y-Y. Wong, Eric K. Duku, Jan E. Fleming, and<br />
Christine A. Walsh. 1999. “Slapping, spanking and lifetime psychiatric disorder in a<br />
community sample of Ontario residents.” Canadian Medical Association Journal<br />
161:805-809.<br />
CP83 49<br />
C:\My Documents\A2\CHARTS\CP\INTERNATIONAL\TWO CANADIAN STUDIES.DOC
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN TRIBAL<br />
SOCIETIES<br />
• 77% USED CP<br />
NTHROPOLOGISTS REPORTS ON 186 SOCIETIES (BARRY,<br />
T AL, 1980)<br />
CP83 50<br />
C:\My Documents\A2\CHARTS\CP\INTERNATIONAL\Tribal Society Rates.doc
HOW MUCH COULD ENDING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT REDUCE<br />
CRIMINAL VICTIMIZATION?<br />
A. JUVENILE VICTIMS<br />
CORPORAL<br />
PUNISHMENT<br />
HIGH NONE CHANGE<br />
REPEATEDLY <strong>AND</strong> SEVERELY ATTACKED <strong>BY</strong> A 40% 18% 55% LESS<br />
SIBLING IN PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS (p.102)<br />
NUMBER OF TIMES HIT <strong>BY</strong> CHILDREN 4.3 2.1 51% LESS<br />
IN SCHOOL IN TWO WEEK PERIOD (MEAN)<br />
(Strasbourg et al 1994)<br />
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY IN PAST 12 MONTHS 15% 3% 80% LESS<br />
(p.108)<br />
B. ADULT VICTIMS<br />
SPOUSES HIT IN PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS 25% 8% 68% LESS<br />
(p.104)<br />
PHYSICALLY ABUSED CHILDREN 24% 8% 67% LESS<br />
12 MONTHS (i.e. went beyond legal<br />
corporal punishment) (p.94)<br />
CONVICTIONF FOR AN INDEX CRIME 33% 14% 58% LESS<br />
Sons of non-criminal fathers. Cambride-Somerville<br />
Youth Study (McCord, 1991)<br />
CP83<br />
C:\MyDocuments\A2\CHARTS\CP\EFFECTS\Crime,Violence\ADDED RISK-CRIME.d oc<br />
51
CP83 52
EFFECTIVENESS OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT<br />
COMPARED TO NON-CORPRAL DISCIPLINE<br />
AVERAGE EFFECTIVNESS<br />
TIME SPAN CORP PUN NON-CP<br />
IMMEDIATE HIGH HIGH<br />
SHORT TERM (HOURS, DAYS) LOW LOW<br />
LONG TERM (MONTHS, YEARS) MAKES HIGH<br />
WORSE<br />
SIDE EFFECTS HARMFUL BENIFICAL<br />
C:\My Documents\A2\CHARTS\CP\EFFECTIV\EFFECTIVE SUMMARY.DOC<br />
CP83 53
The “terrible two’s”<br />
CP83 54
%<br />
PERCENT WHO USED CORPORAL<br />
PUNISHEMNT ON CHILDREN IN PRIVATE <strong>AND</strong><br />
STATE SCHOOLS, CHILE (Vargas et al, 1995)<br />
90<br />
80<br />
70<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
Parent's report Child's report<br />
Private State<br />
CP83 55
NATION<br />
& REF.<br />
CANADA<br />
MACMILLAN ET AL,<br />
1999<br />
CANADA<br />
LENTON, 1990<br />
ENGL<strong>AND</strong><br />
NEWSON &<br />
NEWSON, 1963<br />
ENGL<strong>AND</strong><br />
NOBES & SMITH,<br />
1997<br />
SWEDEN<br />
STATTIN ET ALL,<br />
1995<br />
B. SOME O<strong>THE</strong>R COUNTRIES<br />
SAMPLE<br />
CHILD %<br />
& N<br />
AGE HIT TIME<br />
ONTARIO<br />
RECALL OF 84% EVER<br />
R<strong>AND</strong>OM SAMPLE CHILDHOOD<br />
TORONTO<br />
R<strong>AND</strong>OM<br />
SAMPLE<br />
NOTTINGHAM<br />
R<strong>AND</strong>OM SAMPLE<br />
N=709<br />
Age 3 - 17 75% YEAR<br />
INFANTS<br />
Age 4<br />
N=99 Age 1 – 11<br />
STOCKHOLM<br />
BIRTH COHORT<br />
1955-58<br />
Age 4<br />
Age 3<br />
62%<br />
97%<br />
80%<br />
52%<br />
94%<br />
YEAR<br />
YEAR<br />
YEAR<br />
WEEK<br />
YEAR<br />
MEAN<br />
TIMES<br />
CP83 56<br />
C:\My Documents\A2\CHARTS\CP\INTERNATIONAL\INTERNATIONAL RATES 2.doc<br />
--<br />
--<br />
75% AT<br />
LEAST<br />
ONCE A<br />
WEEK<br />
33% AT<br />
LEAST<br />
DAILY
WHY LONG TERM EFFECTIVENESS IS LOW<br />
* NOT AS EFFECTIVE IN DEVELOPING CONSCIENCE (NEXT SLIDE)<br />
Need to be good if mommy or daddy are watching or will know, not on<br />
basis of what is right and wrong<br />
* UNDERCUTS BOND TO PARENT (NEXT SLIDE)<br />
* FROM SCHOOL AGE ON -- OUT OF SIGHT MOST OF <strong>THE</strong> TIME<br />
* CHILDREN GET "TOO BIG" <strong>THE</strong>N WHAT?<br />
* LESS OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN HOW TO GET NEEDS FILLED <strong>BY</strong><br />
EXPLAINING<br />
NEGOTIATING<br />
CREATIVE ALTERNATIVES<br />
COMPROMISE<br />
C:\My Documents\A2\CHARTS\CP\EFFECTIV\EFFECTIV 2D.doc<br />
CP83 57
Question 4. IS CP SOMETIMES NECESSARY TO HAVE WELL-<br />
BEHAVED CHILDREN?<br />
ANSWER DEPENDS ON HOW EFFECTIVE CP IS IN<br />
CORRECTING MISBEHAVIOR<br />
CP83 C:\My Documents\A2\CHARTS\CP\EFFECTIV\EFFECTIV 2A.doc<br />
58