The Science and Statistics Behind Spanking Suggests that

More documents

Recommendations

Info

11-FULLER_FINAL_AFTERPROOF.DOC 2/17/2009 8:50 AM 312 AKRON LAW REVIEW [42:243 explanations of why his behavior is good or bad. 376 Dr. Baumrind calls these firm and loving families “authoritative” families. 377 Firm guidance appears to be especially important during the first six years of a child’s life. 378 It encourages children to develop life skills when they do not naturally push themselves to assume responsibility. 379 For example, making a child share increases the likelihood that he will continue to share, even when not required to. 380 Such high maturity demands stimulate children to become self-motivated and engage in difficult tasks. 381 This helps explain why children in authoritative families were the most achievement oriented and the most competent. 382 In Dr. Baumrind’s study, every authoritative family maintained firm guidance by spanking at least occasionally. 383 Even when those 376. See, e.g., Baumrind, Discipline Controversy, supra note 157, at 412 (saying the families with the optimum outcome “remain receptive to the child’s views but take responsibility for firmly guiding the child’s actions, emphasizing reasoning, communication, and rational discussion in interactions that are friendly as well as tutorial and disciplinary”); id. (reporting that these families “endorse the judicious use of aversive consequences, which may include spanking, but in the context of a warm, engaged rational parent-child relationship.”). 377. See, e.g., Baumrind, Causally Relevant Research, supra note 21, at 7 (saying the most beneficial child outcomes were linked to Authoritative families); see id. at 14 (finding that Authoritative parents have a “deep and abiding commitment to the parenting role, intimate knowledge of children’s developmental needs; respect for a particular child’s individuality and desires; provision of structure and regimen appropriate to the child’s developmental level; readiness to establish, and disciplinary strategies to enforce, behavioral guidelines; and cognitive stimulation, effective communication, and use of reasoning to ensure children’s understanding of parents’ goals and disciplinary strategies.”). 378. See, e.g., supra note 376 and accompanying text; Baumrind, Not Warranted, supra note 292, at 829 (opposing a spanking ban because, in part, “[t]he imposition of authority, even against the child’s will, is useful to the child during the first 6 years. . . . [P]ower-assertive disciplinary methods are generally required . . . .”). 379. See, e.g., Baumrind, Rejoinder, supra note 355, at 135 (“Young children frequently require external incentives to put forth the effort required to test their limits . . . . [F]irm control, should therefore contribute to task mastery.”). 380. Cf., e.g., id., at 141 (“An explicit, forceful expression of a directive to share has been shown to increase rather than decrease the likelihood that young children will continue to share after instructions are discontinued.”) (citation omitted). 381. See, e.g., Baumrind, Discipline Controversy, supra note 157, at 409 (“Provided that parents are also responsive and intellectually stimulating, firm parental control and high maturity demands promote rather than undermine self-efficacy and intrinsically motivated engagement in difficult tasks.”). 382. See, e.g., supra note 362 and accompanying text. 383. See, e.g., Baumrind, Letter, supra note 185 (“Although I do not claim that [corporal punishment] is a necessary element in the Authoritative pattern we do not know whether the outcomes would be as successful—not only in producing compliance, but in generating agentic, prosocial behaviors”—because all Authoritative parents used corporal punishment.). Because they all used corporal punishment, there was no opportunity to test whether it was necessary. All Dr.
11-FULLER_FINAL_AFTERPROOF.DOC 2/17/2009 8:50 AM 2009] THE SCIENCE AND STATISTICS BEHIND SPANKING 313 families spanked often, the positive outcomes remained the same. 384 (Likewise, in families with the worst results—“rejecting-neglecting” families—frequent spanking did not make their bad results any worse). 385 Authoritative families tended to spank often when their children were young; but they also quit disciplining sooner than most other families. 386 Having laid a firm foundation, authoritative families had less and less reason to discipline as their children grew. 387 Accordingly, the strength of authoritative families was not just the high demands they placed on their children, or just their love for them; it was the balance of the two. 388 Children appear to thrive just as much on responsibility as they do on love. 389 Baumrind really can determine is that corporal punishment is not inherently detrimental and that it is used in each of the Authoritative families. See also supra note 217 and accompanying text. 384. See, e.g., Baumrind, Causally Relevant Research, supra note 21, at 10 (“Unexpectedly, even the presence of above-average frequency of normative physical punishment represented by the Orange zone did not attenuate at all the positive outcomes associated with Authoritative or Democratic parenting.”). 385. See, e.g., id., at 15 n.5 (saying “Orange zone [which indicated above-average, but still normative spanking] membership did not increase the detrimental outcomes associated with Rejecting-Neglecting parenting or decrease the effectiveness of Authoritative or Democratic parenting. Generally speaking, within parent type, children of Orange zone parents were not less competent or more maladjusted than other children, although we hypothesized that this would be the case especially for children of Rejecting/Neglecting parents.”). 386. See, e.g., id. at 9 (saying “both absolute and relative spanking frequency of Authoritative couples decreased rapidly after [four years old] with only 40% at or above the mean at [nine years old], compared to 58% of all other parents, and by [fourteen years old] with only 17% at or above the mean, compared to 42% of all other parents”). 387. See, e.g., id. (“[B]y early adolescence, when we in common with other specialists believe physical punishment to be developmentally inappropriate, [Authoritative parents] were significantly less likely than other parents to use physical punishment. Perhaps their firm enforcement policies throughout childhood were successful in achieving a desirable level of behavioral compliance by adolescence.”). 388. See, e.g., Baumrind, Discipline Controversy, supra note 157, at 412 (“Authoritative parents endorse the judicious use of aversive consequences, which may include spanking, but in the context of a warm, engaged rational parent-child relationship.”); DIANA BAUMRIND, CHILD MALTREATMENT AND OPTIMAL CAREGIVING IN SOCIAL CONTEXTS 69-70 (1995) [BAUMRIND, OPTIMAL CAREGIVING] (saying that for preadolescent children in her middle-class population, “[p]arents who were both demanding and responsive (the engaged pattern and the authoritative prototype) compared to those who were neither, or one but not the other, were likely to produce children who were socially responsible and socially agentic.”). 389. See, e.g., Baumrind, Discipline Controversy, supra note 157, at 406 (“But we now recognize that few children are as easily traumatized as psychoanalysts imagine; most thrive on challenges and are motivated by a drive for competence.”); id. at 410 (“Affective warmth and empathy in parents motivate children to participate in cooperative strategies and are associated with the development in children of an internalized moral orientation.”).
Page 1 and 2:
11-FULLER_FINAL_AFTERPROOF.DOC 2/18
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20: 11-FULLER_FINAL_AFTERPROOF.DOC 2/17
Page 69: 11-FULLER_FINAL_AFTERPROOF.DOC 2/17
Page 75: 11-FULLER_FINAL_AFTERPROOF.DOC 2/17
show all

The Science and Statistics Behind Spanking Suggests that

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?