 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Spanking / September 2005Baumrind bogus 2. And went unpublished.
Baumrind, if you don't recall, was the "researcher" that presented, orally, to an annual APA conference her conclusions that spanking presented no problems and in fact had a positive effect on children's behaviors. A glaring fallacy as any examination of her study methodology would show. Interestingly, as this author in response says, she not only didn't have it published, it would have likely been turned down by any reputable organization in social research FOR publication. Robert Fathman's letter to Diana Baumrind August 29, 2001 29 August 2001 Diana Baumrind, Ph.D. Research Psychologist Institute of Human Development University of California Berkeley Fax: 1-510-642-7969 Dear Dr. Baumrind: I am writing to express my concern about the paper you presented last week at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association. I am a psychologist myself, but was unable to attend APA this year. I e-mailed your office a week ago requesting a copy of the study you presented, by e-mail or snail mail, and have received no reply. But I have spoken to a psychologist in your audience who received the handout and took notes, and of course no one in America could escape reading about your study in various newspapers or hearing about it on news shows. So, I have not had the opportunity to yet read the full study and examine your statistical methods in detail, but I believe I have a fairly good read on the research design, and would be happy to have you correct me if I have any misconceptions. And I still await receiving a copy of the study. I write in hopes that you will immediately issue press releases recanting the conclusions you have been quoted as reaching. You are quoted as saying that mild to moderate spanking is not harmful. Yet your research was based on case studies of only 3 children who had non-spanking parents, and 79 whose parents spanked in the degree you considered mild or moderate. To have only 3 subjects in one of your principal variable groups does not constitute research, does it? I was taught that such an incredibly small number would just constitute an anecdotal report, an observation, not science. If in even my first year of graduate school I had written up a research design with such a small number of subjects, I would surely have received an "F" on the paper, and the quality of my undergrad education would have been in question. As you surely understand, when the number in one group is so tiny as this, huge differences in behavior or cognition would have been necessary to report any significant differences. [And even the spanked kids were grouped into statistical cells of only 6 to 8 children, correct?] In other words, using only 3 non-spanked kids had the effect of building into the conclusions an impossibility of finding any differences with spanked kids -- right? Don't you agree? I think you would find it impossible yourself to have any professional journal in our field accept such inadequate research for publication. And to state conclusions that have such far reaching effects on the health and safety of children based on a "study" that would not pass peer review is not responsible. Again, if I am incorrect because I have not received the requested paper, please let me know. You can gain back the professional respect you have lost among your colleagues if you will immediately notify the news media in strong, clear, unambiguous language that the conclusions drawn were incorrect for such limited data, that you erred and wish to have the mistake corrected. I would be happy to assist you in making this correction and apology widely known and respectfully received. Looking forward to your response, Robert E. Fathman, Ph.D. ............. Taken from http://www.politically incorrect.me.uk/latest.htm The Government has caved in to Labour rebels demanding new penalties for parents who smack their children. A deal of some sort is expected to be struck (no pun intended) as Tony Blair is said to think that an outright ban would not be acceptable to most parents. It seems likely that there will be a ban in all but a handful of extreme situations. A leading Labour MP, Shaun Woodward (who admits smacking - so he is human after all) writing in the Mail On Sunday, thinks that smacking should be banned as it can easily lead to abuse. He asks who can judge whether the smacking was reasonable chastisement? He points to our football hooligans and asks what role smacking has had in their upbringing? PI comment: I can answer all those questions for you Shaun. Q) Does smacking leads to abuse? A) Being a politician can easily lead to corruption - should we ban politicians? Driving a car can easily lead to speeding - should we ban cars or drivers? There is an existing law to cover the above and an existing law to cover child abuse - USE THEM. Q) Who can judge whether the smacking was reasonable chastisement? A) A jury of twelve of your peers Shaun, that's who. They are far more likely to come to the correct decision than a wagonload of politically correct MP's! Q) What role has smacking had in the upbringing of football hooligans? A) All too little I fear Shaun, that's why they are hooligans. They were never taught discipline or respect for other people. Why do the PC Brigade always turn reality on it's head? We banned corporal punishment in schools years ago and behaviour there has gone from bad to worse. Why don't they learn from the evidence of their previous mistakes? > Taken from http://www.politically incorrect.me.uk/latest.htm What an interesting unbiased source. > The Government has caved in to Labour rebels demanding new penalties for > parents who smack their children. Ah, immediately name calling. That's bound to be a thoughtful and unbiased report. > A deal of some sort is expected to be > struck (no pun intended) as Tony Blair is said to think that an outright > ban would not be acceptable to most parents. Doesn't matter. A lot of folks would like to speed in their autos without restraint as well. > It seems likely that there > will be a ban in all but a handful of extreme situations. Dear me, England finally becoming civilized? I notice that countries that have a ban on spanking tend to have less football (soccer) hooliganism than england with it's history of smacking kids. Odd eh? England was were this hooliganism got started. And dispite improvements, they are still carrying it to Europe these days. > A leading Labour > MP, Shaun Woodward (who admits smacking - so he is human after all) > writing in the Mail On Sunday, thinks that smacking should be banned as it > can easily lead to abuse. And data historically, and currently available shows that parents that do physically abuse started, and believed even up to the point of CPS intervention, that they were just "disciplining" their children. > He asks who can judge whether the smacking was > reasonable chastisement? "Reasonable chastisement?" Is this what we call hitting children now? What other euphonism will the compulsives think up next? What would be a reasonable chastisement for a husband by his wife? Hitting? > He points to our football hooligans and asks what > role smacking has had in their upbringing? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > A) Being a politician can easily lead to corruption - should we ban > politicians? Ha ha ha! He was spanked enough his logic development was disabled. No, just banning of corruption. No one is trying to ban politicians, parents, or children, just spanking, and corruption. > Driving a car can easily lead to speeding - should we ban > cars or drivers? Ha ha ha! No, not cars, just speeding in them. No one is trying to ban cars, parents, or children, just spanking, and speeding. So much for "logic." > There is an existing law to cover the above and an > existing law to cover child abuse - USE THEM. No, there isn't as long as spanking is allowed. Spanking is simply legalized assault. Children are made into a special class of hittable people by it. Tell us again about logic. R R R R R R > Q) Who can judge whether the smacking was reasonable chastisement? > > A) A jury of twelve of your peers Shaun, that's who. They are far more > likely to come to the correct decision than a wagonload of politically > correct MP's! How is the child to get a jury of twelve peers? How is a parent going to get, from a society that routinely hits children legally, a group of jurors that would not be biased in the parent's favor? Now in a country that bans spanking, such as Sweden, one might just be able to get a jury of unbiased peers. Who's to say? > Q) What role has smacking had in the upbringing of football hooligans? > > A) All too little I fear Shaun, that's why they are hooligans. They were > never taught discipline or respect for other people. Unprovable. The usual retreat of the spanking compulsives. Go the impossible and use it as a claim. If he could produce proof that they were unspanked and that that indeed led to their lack of discipline and respect for other people he might have something. I don't see it offered. Odd to as if their rate of spanking is anything like the US it's highly likely they were in fact spanked plenty. In england, where it's legal, as in the US, children are spanked rather often. But then no proof is being offered for the silly statement above about a lack of spanking producing a lack of discipline. Spanking doesn't and never has taught discipline or respect for others or self. It's done quite the opposite. Check a prison for unspanked inmates. What does produce discipline and respect for others? Adult self discipline as an example, and respect for the child and others by the adult as an example, and an experience for the child. > Why do the PC Brigade always turn reality on it's head? Which reality would that be? That spanking is not assault only because it's done to children, a class of people made hittable to discipline, by law? What other people are so classified? None, as far as I know. Not in England, and not here in the US. You can't even hit a violent criminal to "discipline" him, only in self defense or to defend others. > We banned corporal > punishment in schools years ago and behaviour there has gone from bad to > worse. No proof offered, and in fact it's not true in this country and I doubt there either. The problems have nothing to do with spanking, but with social injustices. And since children are still spanked at home it's quite possible, probable in fact, that they carry the effects into the classroom. Was behavior actually better when paddling was common in english schools, or has there been an influx of migration of other cultures, most of which use corporal punishment on their children? In fact overall crime in England is going down at an even greater rate than in the US, an historical fact. And all the while, no paddling in schools. That should have produced a huge rate of crime increase, according to some. http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/statistics28.htm#Trends People tend to believe all kinds of things that are not true: " * Over one-third of the public (38%) believed that crime had risen 'a lot', and a further 35 per cent felt that crime had risen 'a little' over the previous two years. This despite the total number of crimes reported to the BCS falling by 17 per cent since 1999. * Readers of the national tabloid papers are much more likely to consider the national crime rate to have increased a lot over this period, compared to broadsheet readers (43% versus 26%). * Levels of public confidence in most aspects of the Criminal Justice System have tended to decline from 2001/02 levels, except for confidence in the CJS respecting the rights of people accused of committing crimes, which has increased. * The percentage of respondents perceiving a high level of disorder in their local area increased slightly between the 2001/02 and 2002/03. There were small but significant rises in proportions considering teenagers hanging around, rubbish or litter lying around, and people being drunk or rowdy in public places, a problem. However, there has been a significant decrease in the proportion considering racial attacks and racial harassment a problem in their local area. * Worry about burglary has remained generally level since the last survey year; however, worry about car crime and violent crime have decreased during this period." The facts: "# The BCS estimate for the number of violent incidents experienced by adults in England and Wales (2.8 million) is unchanged from 2001/02. # BCS violence has fallen by 19 per cent since 1999 and by 24 per cent since 1997, both statistically significant, due to reductions in domestic and acquaintance violence rather than stranger assaults. # The risk of becoming a victim of violent crime for those interviewed by the BCS in 2002/03 was 4.1 per cent. Young men aged 16 to 24 were most at risk, with 15.1 per cent experiencing a violent crime of some sort in the year. # [[[ In the US children, including youth, are more at risk from attacks by adults than by each other. I don't doubt that is likely in england as well. ]]] In the police statistics, violent crime was one of the crime types most affected by the new crime recording standard. There were just under one million violent crimes recorded by the police in 2002/03, an increase of two per cent since 2001/02, after adjusting for changes in police recording practice. " With a growing population they are still holding down the crime rate. Is it spanking or the lack of spanking you'd like to blame for one or the other? Youth crime has been going down for years in the US, and especially where spanking is banned in schools. And in the US where paddling prevails the behavior is WORSE, and grades lower. > Why don't they learn from the evidence of their previous mistakes? We have, that's why the urgency of the ban on spanking interest. The data and research shows clearly that such bans create better results overall. In schools better behavior and better grades. The child death rate by parents is down in Sweden, and after the initial high reports of abuse that followed naturally after this issue was given attention by the ban there, abuse has gone down as well. Child abuse based on population is so low it's uncountable for statistical purposes. (Child abuse wasn't being reported much before the law went into effect, naturally. That's no proof it ws not there. There is no way to know, except by the admission of the swedish authorities that violent punishments were the norm in swedish culture, prior to the ban...they just didn't call it abuse...you had to near kill a child back then for it to be reported as "abuse," and who would report it when it was the norm?) No facts, no logic offered in the arguments. Just the usual response of the compulsives. "We know it's right because, well ... because we do, that's why." R R R R R R People behave better when spanked. People behave better when threatened with spanking. Right? Why aren't we still doing it to adults then? Prisons would empty quickly if we believed that it worked on adults. I notice there isn't really much shortage of crime in countries that use "spanking" and other forms of physical punishment on adults. Singapore comes to mind. They have, despite the use of adult punishment by caning, a rising youth crime rate. Tsk. Many countries that we see in the news that are dispicable holes of human rights violations routinely cane their children and worse. And spanking just a little bit is like reducing arsenic to such small doses its effects aren't visible. Children are poisoned, rapidly, or slowly, but poisoned nonetheless, by physical punishment. Consider yourself lucky I responded to an hysterical chattering monkey. R R R R R The rest of your nonsense is on a par with this bit of dreck. Thanks for the great examples of the how the mind of the compulsives processes. 0:-> > > Taken from http://www.politically incorrect.me.uk/latest.htm > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > No, just banning of corruption. No one is trying to ban politicians, > parents, or children, just spanking, and corruption. How about just banning child-abuse? ;-) > > Driving a car can easily lead to speeding - should we ban > > cars or drivers? > > Ha ha ha! No, not cars, just speeding in them. No one is trying to ban > cars, parents, or children, just spanking, and speeding. How about just banning child-abuse? ;-) > So much for "logic." Hard for anti-spanking zealotS, I know. ;-) > > There is an existing law to cover the above and an > > existing law to cover child abuse - USE THEM. > > No, there isn't as long as spanking is allowed. Spanking is simply > legalized assault. Children are made into a special class of hittable > people by it. There is no law against child-abuse??? > Tell us again about logic. R R R R R R I'll be glad to. Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutually exclusive? :-( Doan Yada,yada,yada.....all this space being wasted so someone can tell us how to raise our children. Spanking in excess is bad, however, when done with responsible restraint, it serves a purpose. Most children will run all over their parents,teachers, grandparents,ect. Taking away personal items really doesn't work. They need the pain and humiliation of a pants down spanking and corner standing. As long as you don't beat the child up with bruises, and broken bones, it will teach the child to think about his or her actions. charles <html><body bgcolor="black" text="white"></html> > Yada,yada,yada.....all this space being wasted so someone can tell us > how to > raise our children. No one is telling anyone how to raise their children, only urging you to stop assualting them and calling it spanking. > Spanking in excess is bad, however, when done with responsible > restraint, it serves a purpose. Would you allow someone to spank you with "responsible restraint" to teach you something? Say your boss, or your wife, or your bowling buddies? Would you in fact allow you parent to spank you now? > Most children will run all over their > parents,teachers, grandparents,ect. Yes, that's very true of spanked and punished children. Unspanked, unpunished children raised with support and encouragement to correct their errors, misconceptions, and ignorance seem very well adjusted to NOT running all over anyone, as they are sure they will get their need for information, support and encouragement met without the barrier of fear of their teacher. They don't need to run over anyone hence they don't. > Taking away personal items really doesn't work. You are correct. Punishment systems don't work well with children. They often don't work all that well with adults either, you might have noted. It might be smart for humans to look to other means of socializing children into responsible adults. > They need the pain and > humiliation of a pants down spanking and corner standing. What is it about children, and not adults, that "They need the pain and humiliation of pants down spanking and corner standing?" Might not proper instruction work instead? Proceeded by questions and observations so the behavior observed (often called, "misbehavior") is decoded into what ever it is they actually need? > As long as you > don't beat the child up with bruises, and broken bones, it will teach > the child to think about his or her actions. No, it will teach the child to think about YOUR actions when they needed your support and help in figuring out what it was they wanted and needed that children aren't equipped to figure out for themselves. > charles Haven't learned a thing, have yah, Charles. Not a thing. This all is too deep for you. Beyond your comprehension. Outside your experience and models. You know how to spank because you were spanked. It takes a very special kind of person to judge without bias, and with a modicum objectivity, to stop the abuse of assault called "spanking" and leave the force and controlling behind and learn to be a teacher and supporter. Those of us that have done it, or come from famlies that did not punish, have the most wonderful and enriching experience with our children, and the fun of raising them. You should try it. Unless of course you prefer kids that "run all over you" so you have to beat them off of you and frighten them ... while of course leaving a major portion of their education and human development out of their lives, and portions to others wiser than you. Basically you are a coward. What you cannot do, and are afraid to do to an adult, you can do and advocate being done to chidlren, where you and other compulsives will be safe doing it, as long as their is no law against and a law supporting it. But then, laws do change, 0:->, don't they now? Countries where children are protected by law from all corporal punishment: Sweden (1979) Finland (1983) Norway (1987) Austria (1989) Cyprus (1994) Italy (1996) Denmark (1997) Latvia (1998) Croatia (1999) Bulgaria (2000) Germany (2000) Israel (2000) Iceland (2003) Ukraine (2004) Romania (2004) Hungary (2005) Portugal (2004) Last updated July 2005 Kane, A follow-up in case Charles is still reading. My 22 year old graduated from Northwestern and has moved home. She is looking for a job. She's never been arrested, never stolen, and is a wonderful young woman. We spent last week camping with our dogs and it was fantastic. One night we were talking about raising children and she thanked me for never hitting her. She was a strong willed child that had probably the loudest and longest tantrums in the world. I didn't hit her. I am so thankful. LaVonne >>Yada,yada,yada.....all this space being wasted so someone can tell us >>how to [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > Portugal (2004) > Last updated July 2005 > Yada,yada,yada.....all this space being wasted so someone can tell us > how to > raise our children. You are already told how to raise your kids to an inadequate degree. Cross the line that your state determines to be neglect or abuse, and you will experience the consequences. > Spanking in excess is bad, however, when done with responsible > restraint, it serves a purpose. Whose purpose? The parent who needs revenge? The parent who cannot figure out other more appropriate methods? It certainly serves no purpose for children. Most children will run all over their > parents,teachers, grandparents,ect. You must associate with spanked children. This certainly hasn't been my experience. However, research does show that spanked children are less likely to behave respectfully than children that have been raised without spanking and with alternative disciplinary methods. > Taking away personal items really doesn't work. They need the pain and > humiliation of a pants down spanking and corner standing. As long as you > don't beat the child up with bruises, and broken bones, it will teach > the child to think about his or her actions. Charles, the reason that you feel children run all over others is because you see little children as the enemy. Children are not the enemy here. Children need to be taught, not punished and hurt. There are many more ways to discipline other than hitting, humiliating and taking away privileges. Try to move from punishment to teaching. I teach child development and early education/special education at a major university. I know the research. I also raised two children. I know it works. LaVonne > charles > > <html><body bgcolor="black" > > text="white"></html> They need the pain and > humiliation of a pants down spanking and corner standing. Respect breeds and teaches respect. If you parent with respect, your children will respect you. If you parent as you suggest above, how could you possibly imagine that you deserve any respect from your children? LaVonne > They need the pain and > > humiliation of a pants down spanking and corner standing. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > LaVonne So I take it that you don't respect your parents??? Doan Kane, What is so interesting about this unpublished study is that it is in totally conflict with all of her earlier research. Dr. Baumrind is taught in child development classes at most colleges/universities. She can be credited with the research on permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative parenting, with authoritative parenting showing the most positive results. Suddenly she came out with this "study" that was never published, and she also suddenly no longer advocates what she previously called "authoritative parenting." Public pressure, publicity, politics, who knows? Her most recent "study" had so many flaws that it would never have been published. LaVonne > Baumrind, if you don't recall, was the "researcher" that presented, > orally, to an annual APA conference her conclusions that spanking [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > Robert E. Fathman, Ph.D. > ............. LOL! This is from someone who saw no problem in a study with a sample size of less than 20!!! ;-) BTW, even Straus had to admit that Baumrind & Owens study is the BEST methodology wise! Doan > Kane, > [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > > Robert E. Fathman, Ph.D. > > ............. Come on, LaVonne, STOP THE LIES! Here are the quotes from her paper: (Question 6): We then asked does physical punishment act as a moderator of there lations between child outcomes and parenting type? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 10 As you can see from Table 7, at all time periods, children from Authoritative, and to a lesser extent Democratic, homes were competent and well-adjusted (Baumrind, 1971,1991). In a preliminary analysis we asked, Do these competent parents use the least physical punishment? The answer is clearly NO with their preschool children. Ninety percent(9 of 10) of Authoritative couples at T1 had scores at or above the mean on the physical punishment scale, and Authoritative or Democratic parents were not disproportionately classified in the Green zone. Thus, the higher competence and lesser maladjustment of the preschool children of the most effective parents was not due to their being spanked infrequently. Parent types did differ, however, by the likelihood that members would resort to overly severe physical punishment. Thus families classified in the Red zone were disproportionately either Authoritarian-Directive or Rejecting/Neglecting (90% at T1,75% at T2, 83% at T3), and no Authoritative parent at any time period fell into the Redzone, although one Democratic parent did. Furthermore , both absolute and relative spanking frequency of Authoritative couples decreased rapidly after Time 1 with only 40% at or above the mean at T2, compared to 58% of all other parents, and by T3 with only 17% at or above the mean, compared to 42% of all other parents. Thus by early adolescence, when we in common with other specialists believe physical punishment tobe developmentally inappropriate, Authoritative and Democratic parents were significantly less likely than other parents to use physical punishment. Does that sound like she "no longer advocates" Authoritatvie Parenting??? Doan > Kane, > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > LaVonne |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.