|
Post by Random Acts 0f Kindness on Jan 21, 2007 1:57:00 GMT -5
Your reply has shed some light on your position and I can now say: You are not understanding the objectivity and irreproachable scientific method I am looking for in a study of such importance and far-reaching implications.So you are looking for social research with 100% accuracy. What a Quixotic quest! No, you have less realistic expectations than I. You voiced what you felt was the problems with the one study I cited and your objections were shown to be inaccurate. Now you are falling back on the general "The study isn't up to my expectations to I will reject everything they say even though I cannot point to any specific problem I have with their methods." No you don't. Because there is no way you could be 100% certain of how I feel and without that absolute certainty, you could not accept the premise that you know how I feel. I suspect it is a dodge that many people accept without question. It is the man who never takes his wife out because there is no place perfect enough for her.
|
|
|
Post by people watcher on Jan 21, 2007 2:11:26 GMT -5
[quote Well, we're waiting. [/quote][/quote] Now you're not.
|
|
Quite simple really
Guest
|
Post by Quite simple really on Jan 21, 2007 2:11:56 GMT -5
Oops. Getting a bit frantic are we? So you are looking for social research with 100% accuracy. What a Quixotic quest! I never said that. Only as you see it. I'm falling back on nothing. I'm sticking with my principles. Yes I do, but I wouldn't expect you to accept it. Your behavior has revealed more about you than you intended. Interesting theory but it doesn't wash. Here's mine: You don't like it when someone fails to bow down to your way of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by Random Acts 0f Kindness on Jan 21, 2007 2:27:55 GMT -5
Oops. Getting a bit frantic are we? Nope. Not directly but this is your excuse for rejecting the studies that relate spanking to difficulties in later life. This is a non-answer. You said that spanking was not defined. I pointed to the section where it was defined for the study. Addressed the exact complaint you had. Your response was " ". And, from what you have said, they are to reject any study that is not set up exactly as you dictate. Not on your word alone without any backup. I am sure it has. But when I see you voicing complaints and then changing tact when the complaint is shown to be unfounded it says a lot about you and your principles. I'll be honest. I don't like it when a person points to some deficiency in a study and fails to admit they were mistaken when it is shown that the deficiency was only in their mind. But then, that is just me.
|
|
|
Post by Look harder on Jan 21, 2007 8:45:23 GMT -5
Didn't Jesus teach kindness over hitting other people? Not in my bible. Which one are you using?
|
|
|
Post by Calm down on Jan 21, 2007 9:08:05 GMT -5
Random, You can keep telling yourself whatever you want to explain in your mind why I reject the studies in which you place your trust. I've got thick skin, and your justifications for condemning my beliefs have no basis in reality. I have my reasons and you don't believe me but that is fine. Your disbelief does not make me a liar, ignorant, uneducated, brainwashed, stubborn, closed-minded, or any other description you'd care to attach to me. (Just as my criticism and skepticism of your studies, though you've obviously taken it personally, does not invalidate your trust in them.) We just disagree and I'm fine with this. No. My excuse, as you say, is that the studies are not based on sound science. This is my analysis and my conclusion. Not yours. As shocking as this may be to you, some of us demand more than just "a definition". I want a detailed, unambiguous definition which describes in detail what the various terms used in the study mean. The definitions provided obviously meet your criteria. They do not meet mine. Exactly? No. Within a tightly defined set of parameters? Yes. If you are expecting the name and address of my employer along with the name and a personality profile of each of my co-workers, I'll have to relent on this one and let you have it your way. First, the complaint was not "shown to be unfounded"; It was "judged unfounded" by you. Second, I explained my position and offered clarification on a statement I'd made, and you called it "changing tact". Wow! Oh well, if it makes you feel better. I don't like it when someone makes a point and then assumes that the other party is to accept the point as irrefutable then immediately admit that they were mistaken. Are we having a discussion here or are you the judge and I the gagged defendant?
|
|
|
Post by Random Acts 0f Kindness on Jan 21, 2007 11:24:52 GMT -5
Perhaps we can address a single point and see if there is any common ground.
You stated that: They define spanking too broadly; hitting a child in the head with a fist and hitting a child with an open palm on a clothed but are two different things to most spanking parents, but to the administrators in charge of putting these studies together, they are one and the same.
This was one of your complaints.
Yet spanking was well defined within the study. You claim the administrators would put hitting a child with an open hand in the same category as hitting the child in the head with a fist but it was clearly stated this was not the case.
Yet you continue to say the study was flawed because of this.
How do you reconcile your claim with the contents of the study?
|
|
|
Post by Oh good on Jan 21, 2007 12:25:20 GMT -5
Perhaps we can address a single point and see if there is any common ground. Great idea, but I'm not in the mood for surprises, so before I continue, I just want to be clear that we are still talking about Straus & Gelles, 1986. Is this correct? I only ask because of this quote:
|
|
|
Post by Random Acts 0f Kindness on Jan 21, 2007 15:32:43 GMT -5
Perhaps we can address a single point and see if there is any common ground. Great idea, but I'm not in the mood for surprises, so before I continue, I just want to be clear that we are still talking about Straus & Gelles, 1986. Is this correct? I only ask because of this quote: It is the reference I posted in reply 317 in support of the couple of paragraphs I posted and the one you referenced in your reply 343. It is the study that you were responding to when you listed its short comings. Just to repost the reference: pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP3.pdfThis is the study.
|
|
|
Post by Trying1 on Jan 21, 2007 17:01:40 GMT -5
It is the reference I posted in reply 317 in support of the couple of paragraphs I posted and the one you referenced in your reply 343. It is the study that you were responding to when you listed its short comings. Just to repost the reference: pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP3.pdfThis is the study. Great! I'm glad we're on the same page. I will do everything I can to ensure that we stay there. Corporal punishment of children and adult depression and suicidal idiation is based on data from another study, The 1985 National Family Violence Survey (Straus & Gelles, 1986, 1990). Since a study cannot be better than its data, I want to examine the data's source. I am looking at the 34 page telephone survey worksheet used to gather data from each telephone respondent. Question 29: Thinking about when you yourself were a teenager, about how often would you say your mother or stepmother used physical punishment, like slapping or hitting you? Think about the year in which this happened the most.Question 30: How about your father or stepfather? Again, thinking of the year in which it happened the most, how often would you say he used physical punishment in the course of a year?(Acceptable answers for each question were: Never, Once, Twice, 3-5 times, 6-10 times, 11-20 times, More than 20 times, Did not live with [this parent/stepparent] (vol.), Don't know, or Refused) The first question loosely defines "physical punishment" as "slapping or hitting" but "slapping" and "hitting" are never defined, so interpretation is up to the respondent. Joe thinks to himself "Well, every time I did anything wrong, dad would scream at me and hit me in the face to give me a bloody nose or a black eye." So Joe would answer "6-10 times". Bob thinks to himself "Well, every time I shoplifted, snuck a smoke, or skipped school, dad would explain why I was being punished and then hit me twice with the palm of his hand on my clothed rear-end." So Bob would answer "6-10 times". Joe and Bob were not treated equally during childhood. Joe was abused and Bob was spanked yet they both responded with the same answer because of the way the questions were authored. After all, they were both "hit". The questions should have been authored in a manner that would have put Joe and Bob in separate categories. These questions are the linchpins to this study and they are flawed. Flawed questions give us flawed answers, flawed answers give us flawed data, and flawed data gives us a flawed study. What's worse is every study that takes flawed data from a flawed study is itself flawed. It boils down to this: This study lacks the resolution or discernment to properly isolate incidents of "spanking" from incidents of "abuse" and characterize the effects of each independently. Therefore, I do not think the data gathered in this study is even valid for other "spanking" studies to use. Now I need to make a clarification. I do not have a problem with The 1985 National Family Violence Survey (Straus & Gelles, 1986, 1990). On its own, I think it to be a fairly decent study on violence. The problem I do have though, is the way it is so often improperly applied, and this is key. This study is a study on violence, not spanking. This can get a bit confusing because for some reason, some people seem incapable of discerning the difference between violence and spanking. Some people see a clear line between the two while others see it all as violence/abuse. Is it a matter of upbringing? My experience says yes. Maybe abused children who never see a good example of spanking associate all physical contact involving pain as violence. These people then, as adults, author, conduct, reference, or read "spanking" studies without ever seeing the difference that is right in front of their very own eyes. I don't know what else I can say here. I hope I've been clear. I hope this covers the points you made in reply 371. If I've missed something, it wasn't deliberate, please let me know.
|
|
|
Post by Random Acts 0f Kindness on Jan 21, 2007 19:15:04 GMT -5
I don't know what else I can say here. I hope I've been clear. I hope this covers the points you made in reply 371. If I've missed something, it wasn't deliberate, please let me know. You explained yourself very well and I understand what you are saying. There was an attempt made in the study to exclude cases of abuse. It is mentioned that hitting with objects were not counted even though this does not constitute abuse in most states. The reason I support the study more than you do is two fold: 1) this is the way people actually use spanking in taking care of their children. This gives a much better view of the way things are rather than the way they should be. 2) the reports are from the children's point of view. The parents reasons for hitting are not taken into account. The study looks at when the children felt and then what the outcome was. There may have been a child that was spanked in a completely appropriate manner but remembers it as a severe beating. If that is the memory then it should be recorded because, at the end of the day, it is the memory of the event that determines the reaction. Thanks for your time and for responding.
|
|
|
Post by butting in on Jan 21, 2007 20:00:39 GMT -5
1) this is the way people actually use spanking in taking care of their children. This gives a much better view of the way things are rather than the way they should be.
sorry to but in but is this your opinion or a proven fact
|
|
|
Post by Random Acts 0f Kindness on Jan 22, 2007 1:56:23 GMT -5
1) this is the way people actually use spanking in taking care of their children. This gives a much better view of the way things are rather than the way they should be.sorry to but in but is this your opinion or a proven fact It is the response that people gave in a random questionnaire that was administered. The people were asked about how they were raised and whether their parents spanked them and how often it happened. So your guess is as good as mine. Is it facts? It is how people viewed their upbringing. As with any memory the accuracy can be faulty.
|
|
|
Post by simple points on Jan 22, 2007 10:39:08 GMT -5
There was an attempt made in the study to exclude cases of abuse. Because of the way this study was authored, abuse cases were mixed in with the original data. Excluding this data once it had been mixed in would have been impossible. Maybe I missed it. When were the respondents instructed to exclude being hit with objects from their responses with regard to the "hitting" questions? 1 - I think this is not true in the vast majority of cases. I could be wrong though. I cannot recall any reliable studies done on the subject. At this point, all I have to go on is my gut. 2 - I hope this is not true. If it is true, then I agree with you; it needs to be stopped. Truly abusing children is wrong and calling it spanking does harm to those doing spanking in a non-abuse way. This technique is far from perfect but its about the best practical method we have.
|
|
|
Post by Random Acts 0f Kindness on Jan 22, 2007 15:44:14 GMT -5
Maybe I missed it. When were the respondents instructed to exclude being hit with objects from their responses with regard to the "hitting" questions? Page 17 of the PDF.
|
|
|
Post by Trying again on Jan 22, 2007 16:00:06 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but it's not there. My question again: When were the respondents instructed to exclude being hit with objects from their responses with regard to the "hitting" questions?I see where the definition of "corporal punishment" and "physical punishment" is discussed, but there is no indication of that level of discrimination being mentioned to the study respondents, who were being asked to determine and indicate the occurrence of "physical punishment". The researchers were relying on data already gathered by use of questions which did not include the level of detail (or anywhere close) described on page 17 of the pdf.
|
|
|
Post by Random Acts 0f Kindness on Jan 23, 2007 1:46:14 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but it's not there. My question again: When were the respondents instructed to exclude being hit with objects from their responses with regard to the "hitting" questions?I see where the definition of "corporal punishment" and "physical punishment" is discussed, but there is no indication of that level of discrimination being mentioned to the study respondents, who were being asked to determine and indicate the occurrence of "physical punishment". The researchers were relying on data already gathered by use of questions which did not include the level of detail (or anywhere close) described on page 17 of the pdf. The data was collected using the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS), among others, for a longitudinal study. The questions asked would make it easy to exclude responders who stated that they were hit with objects. There is a sample of the variables collected via the CTS at: www.pubpol.duke.edu/centers/child/fasttrack/techrept/c/cft/cft2tech.pdfOf course, the CTS also has problems: pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CTS4.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Trying 4 on Jan 23, 2007 11:52:57 GMT -5
With all due respect, this is picking and choosing data. The original data was polluted. This study lost all credibility at STEP 1. You can't remove a blended egg from the batter after the cake is baked.
|
|
|
Post by Random Acts 0f Kindness on Jan 23, 2007 12:13:37 GMT -5
With all due respect, this is picking and choosing data. The original data was polluted. This study lost all credibility at STEP 1. You can't remove a blended egg from the batter after the cake is baked. I believe the data was taken from the longitudinal study that had been collected using the CTS methodology. That would have been the existing data. It would have been trivial to exclude any data where the response to questions you want to exclude was non-zero. For example: P2E1SP2 - Spanked child with something P2E1PA4 - Beat up your child P2E1PA2 - Hit or tried to hit child I am not sure how you feel the data was corrupt. There was a diferentiation between spanking and hitting the child. There was diferentistion between spanking and spanking with an object. There were also variables regarding verbal communication. True, it might not have the granularity we would like but, again, we are dealing with humans and human behavior and not lab rats that can be kept in a controlled environment for year after year to study.
|
|
|
Post by Trying 5 on Jan 23, 2007 13:01:54 GMT -5
I believe the data was taken from the longitudinal study that had been collected using the CTS methodology. That would have been the existing data. It would have been trivial to exclude any data where the response to questions you want to exclude was non-zero. For example: P2E1SP2 - Spanked child with something P2E1PA4 - Beat up your child P2E1PA2 - Hit or tried to hit child I am not sure how you feel the data was corrupt. There was a diferentiation between spanking and hitting the child. There was diferentistion between spanking and spanking with an object. There were also variables regarding verbal communication. True, it might not have the granularity we would like but, again, we are dealing with humans and human behavior and not lab rats that can be kept in a controlled environment for year after year to study. Quote: ...A unique aspect of this study is that it is based on a large and nationally representative sample of U.S. couples interviewed for the 1985 National Family Violence Survey (Straus & Gelles, 1986, 1990). Interviews with the 6,002 respondents were conducted by telephone in the summer of 1985...Your spanking data is actually violence data.
|
|
|
Post by Random Acts 0f Kindness on Jan 23, 2007 15:47:13 GMT -5
Quote: ...A unique aspect of this study is that it is based on a large and nationally representative sample of U.S. couples interviewed for the 1985 National Family Violence Survey (Straus & Gelles, 1986, 1990). Interviews with the 6,002 respondents were conducted by telephone in the summer of 1985...Your spanking data is actually violence data. The data was obtained from people for the mentioned study. Because of the granularity of the data, it is possible to separate out the respondents who relied on more than spanking. This means that the person who says they hit their child will not be included in with those who say they spank their child. Also excluded were those who said they spanked using an object.\ Like many longitudinal studies (the Framingham Heart Study, for example) the data is used in many ways other than just for the purpose of the original study. The CTS framework makes this possible.
|
|
|
Post by Trying 6 on Jan 23, 2007 17:26:47 GMT -5
The data was obtained from people for the mentioned study. Because of the granularity of the data, it is possible to separate out the respondents who relied on more than spanking. What granularity? What study questions are responsible for this? You'll have to show me, because I just don't see it.
|
|
|
Post by Random Acts 0f Kindness on Jan 23, 2007 19:01:40 GMT -5
The data was obtained from people for the mentioned study. Because of the granularity of the data, it is possible to separate out the respondents who relied on more than spanking. What granularity? What study questions are responsible for this? You'll have to show me, because I just don't see it. The National Family Survey was conducted by Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire. It focused on the conflict/resolution and violence in the family. It was a national cross-sectional survey which can be compared to a similar study conducted by the investigators in 1975 (AFDA Data Set No. 31). The Survey was designed to show that physical violence between family members is more frequent than believed. One objective of the 1985 survey was to generate comparisons of the incidence of intra-family physical violence by race and ethnicity. Another objective was to generate state-by-state estimates of family violence. There are a total of 6,002 cases and 567 variables included in the study. Topics in the study include: demographics (household characteristics/composition, race, income, religion, education, etc.); marital/divorce history; marital behavior (conflict/violence and resolution); employment (history, status); and satisfaction/attitudes about various aspects of life. The data is available so people can use it for additional studies without having to repeat the survey. The 567 variables in the survey allowed the researchers to determine, for example, exactly what the responders considered 'spanking' to be. The link I posted earlier is for ongoing surveys and shows what the variables are. In the study we are talking about you could, for example, separate out people who spank with the hand vs.people who spank with an object. In fact, on the description it was stated that respondents who used an object when spanking were excluded from the analysis.
|
|
|
Post by Summery on Jan 23, 2007 19:21:00 GMT -5
Hi all, I couldn't help but respond to this topic because this is one I did a thorough, non-biased study on a few years back in University. (I could not contribute my point of view whatsoever).
All the material I have on Spanking is very significant, but I don't want to take up too much space here. I will just post a few items.
"When parents hit their children, the children tend to become hitters themselves. Extensive research is now available to support a direct correlation between corporal punishment in childhood and aggressive or violent behavior in the teenage and adult years. Virtually, all of the most dangerous criminals were regularly beaten and punished in childhood (Hunt, 1997). It is well known that the child who displays inappropriate behavior such as hitting, most likely learned it by observation or example."
Here are some question and answer examples (Riak, 1999).
Question: What do juvenile delinquents all have in common? Answer: They have all been raised by spankers.
Question: What was a common feature of the childhood of Hitler, Stalin, Pot Pot, Saddam Hussein and Charles Manson? Answer: Each one was relentlessly, severely, physically punished as a child.
Question: What do prisoners on death row all have in common? Answer: Plenty of spanking in childhood.
Question: What do rapists, arsonists, terrorists, torturers, serial killers, mass murderers, sex murderers, serial bombers, kidnappers, snipers, assassins, muggers, product tamperers, vandals, wife beaters, child abusers and stalkers have in common? Answer: A violent upbringing
Question: Which child is destined never to join the company of felons? Answer: The one who is nurtured, not spanked.
Question: To turn a friendly puppy into a vicious guard dog, what must you do to it? Answer: Restrict its movement and beat it often.
|
|
|
Post by Trying 7 on Jan 23, 2007 19:46:46 GMT -5
The National Family Survey was conducted by Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire. It focused on the conflict/resolution and violence in the family. It was a national cross-sectional survey which can be compared to a similar study conducted by the investigators in 1975 (AFDA Data Set No. 31). The Survey was designed to show that physical violence between family members is more frequent than believed. One objective of the 1985 survey was to generate comparisons of the incidence of intra-family physical violence by race and ethnicity. Another objective was to generate state-by-state estimates of family violence. There are a total of 6,002 cases and 567 variables included in the study. Topics in the study include: demographics (household characteristics/composition, race, income, religion, education, etc.); marital/divorce history; marital behavior (conflict/violence and resolution); employment (history, status); and satisfaction/attitudes about various aspects of life. The data is available so people can use it for additional studies without having to repeat the survey. The 567 variables in the survey allowed the researchers to determine, for example, exactly what the responders considered 'spanking' to be. The link I posted earlier is for ongoing surveys and shows what the variables are. In the study we are talking about you could, for example, separate out people who spank with the hand vs.people who spank with an object. In fact, on the description it was stated that respondents who used an object when spanking were excluded from the analysis. I understand. Your point was no mystery to me when you posted it earlier. You still didn't answer my question though. What granularity? What study questions are responsible for this?
You'll have to show me, because I just don't see it.
|
|
|
Post by To Summery on Jan 23, 2007 20:20:28 GMT -5
Posts like "Summery" (or was it Wintery?), made up and loaded with sweeping generalizations, hardly deserve the time it takes to respond, but I'm sitting here waiting for paint to dry (literally) so just for fun... I couldn't help but respond to this topic because this is one I did a thorough Aren't they all? Aren't they all? *Chuckle* Well of course. No one ever does. I can only imagine. *Chuckle* Oh good. Yes. "Extensive research"? What are your 6 favorite studies, and what do you like about each? Virtually, the above has been proven false, and completely made up (Parker, 1999) Yes. Children do tend to learn and then repeat behavior. I can hardly wait. Wrong. I have a cousin who's parents never spanked/hit/abused him in any physical way. He robbed a gas station at gunpoint when he was 17 years old. They also drank water. Does drinking water create monsters? Wow. Someone interviewed all death-row inmates. How incredible. Please post the link. Wrong. Again, my cousin. Wrong. Again, my cousin This could be true. I'm not a dog trainer. I'll give you this one just so you don't go away completely empty handed. I'm curious. What is your degree in, where did you get it, what is your current profession, and when you did all this research, what grade did you get? Thanks for the levity. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Random Acts 0f Kindness on Jan 23, 2007 20:53:05 GMT -5
The National Family Survey was conducted by Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire. It focused on the conflict/resolution and violence in the family. It was a national cross-sectional survey which can be compared to a similar study conducted by the investigators in 1975 (AFDA Data Set No. 31). The Survey was designed to show that physical violence between family members is more frequent than believed. One objective of the 1985 survey was to generate comparisons of the incidence of intra-family physical violence by race and ethnicity. Another objective was to generate state-by-state estimates of family violence. There are a total of 6,002 cases and 567 variables included in the study. Topics in the study include: demographics (household characteristics/composition, race, income, religion, education, etc.); marital/divorce history; marital behavior (conflict/violence and resolution); employment (history, status); and satisfaction/attitudes about various aspects of life. The data is available so people can use it for additional studies without having to repeat the survey. The 567 variables in the survey allowed the researchers to determine, for example, exactly what the responders considered 'spanking' to be. The link I posted earlier is for ongoing surveys and shows what the variables are. In the study we are talking about you could, for example, separate out people who spank with the hand vs.people who spank with an object. In fact, on the description it was stated that respondents who used an object when spanking were excluded from the analysis. I understand. Your point was no mystery to me when you posted it earlier. You still didn't answer my question though. What granularity? What study questions are responsible for this?
You'll have to show me, because I just don't see it.I am not sure what the problem is here. Perhaps it is the terminology. I am not that well educated and could be misusing the words. granularity - The extent to which a system contains separate components. The more components in a system -- or the greater the granularity -- the more flexible it is. In the study there was not a single question regarding parental correction of children like "Did your parents hit you?" but there are a number of questions, as you suggested earlier that there should be, to get at the same information. The parents who spanked their children with a paddle could be separated from those who spanked their children with their hand. The Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) alone as 80 variables. I listed a few of them above as an example of the depth of the questions asked to complete the survey. Some variables concerned with parent's interaction with their children are: P2E1SP2 - Spanked child P2E1SP2 - Spanked child with something P2E1PA4 - Beat up your child P2E1PA2 - Hit or tried to hit child In the study in question people who answered anything other than 0 (never) to the last 3 example variables would be excluded from the study. The second (P2E1SP2) because it was decided to not include this group into the study because it could easily be on the edge of abuse. The last two (P2E1PA4, P2E1PA2) were excluded because they were outside of the definition of spanking being considered.
|
|
|
Post by Random Acts 0f Kindness on Jan 23, 2007 20:57:45 GMT -5
Hi all, I couldn't help but respond to this topic because this is one I did a thorough, non-biased study on a few years back in University. (I could not contribute my point of view whatsoever). All the material I have on Spanking is very significant, but I don't want to take up too much space here. I will just post a few items. Here are some question and answer examples (Riak, 1999). <snip> Question: What was a common feature of the childhood of Hitler, Stalin, Pot Pot, Saddam Hussein and Charles Manson? Answer: Each one was relentlessly, severely, physically punished as a child. <snip> Question: What do rapists, arsonists, terrorists, torturers, serial killers, mass murderers, sex murderers, serial bombers, kidnappers, snipers, assassins, muggers, product tamperers, vandals, wife beaters, child abusers and stalkers have in common? Answer: A violent upbringing Spanking was the subject. These examples make no sense in this context.
|
|