Soc 695 Family Violence Research In World Perspective Murray A. Straus

SPANKING BY PARENTS: THE PRIMORDIAL VIOLENCE AND ITS EFFECTS ON CHILDREN

SIX QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED

WHAT IS CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (CP)? HOW PREVALENT IS CP BY PARENTS IN AROUND THE WORLD? ARE CHILDREN WHO ARE SPANKED REALLY HARMED? IS CP SOMETIMES NECESSARY TO HAVE WELL-BEHAVED CHILDREN? WHAT ARE THE TRENDS IN USE OF CP? WHAT WOULD A WORLD WITHOUT CP BE LIKE?

Question 1: WHAT IS CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (CP)? A. USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE B. WITH THE INTENTION OF CAUSING BODILY PAIN C. BUT NOT INJURY D. FOR PURPOSES OF CORRECTION OR CONTROLEXAMPLESSPANK, SMACKSLAP HANDSHAKE, SHOVE, JERKGRAB OR SQUEEZE HARDTWIST EARetc.

IF C AND D ARE PRESENT: A LEGALLY PERMITTED TYPE OF PHYSICAL ATTACK

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT HAS BEEN THE NORMFOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, AND STILL ISANCIENT ISRAEL: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son; but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes Proverbs 13:24"This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard. Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. Deuteronomy 22;12

18th CENTURY ENGLAND: "When they turned a year old..., they were taught to fear the rod and to cry softly...." (Susanna Wesley to her son John, the founder of the Methodist Church, cited in Miller and Swanson 1958:10)

2001-2006 Next Slide

In rank order of national context total (VS01_1)`

PERCENT WHO AGREE A GOOD HARD SPANKING IS SOMETIMES NECESSARYALL NATIONS MEDIAN: Total = 52 % Males = 56% Females = 51% High Half Of NationsLow Half Of NationsTotal MaleFemaleTotalMaleFemaleTaiwan74.380.771.6Australia53.257.752.1Tanzania71.171.668.4Canada51.755.250.2South Africa67.661.067.2Hungary51.645.654.3Mexico66.770.865.7Iran51.657.150.0Singapore65.568.264.2Greece50.367.343.2United States60.868.956.7Lithuania48.857.644.2Germany60.163.858.5Switzerland45.252.641.6Hong Kong60.165.457.9Romania42.056.740.4South Korea59.063.556.4Japan35.145.025.4Russia58.865.354.0Guatemala33.440.024.8China58.464.754.9Malta33.345.928.8India56.359.154.8Venezuela28.340.919.3Great Britain55.062.353.6Belgium23.027.821.5New Zealand54.451.355.4Israel23.023.822.7Australia53.257.752.1Portugal20.827.716.9Canada51.755.250.2Brazil19.325.016.4

Question 2: How prevalent is CP

WORLD VISION STUDY OFCHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT IN 5 COUNTRIESSAMPLE 971 household with a child at home in Romania, Kenya, Ghana, Thailand, and BrazilStratified random sample. Mostly female respondents

From: World Vision (2001) Crying Out: Children And Communities Speak on Abuse and Neglect, Appendix B.%

Percent In Past Year

Romania

Kenya

Ghana

Thailand

Brazil

Iasi

Cj

CT

M

S

BS

P

Hit your child with your hand

70

74

58

64

64

66

27

21

72

Hit your child with a stick or belt

42

53

22

70

82

84

70

75

41

Document in CP83 Primordial victimization, Brazil Sept 05.ppt

TIME \@ "d-MMM-yy" 5-Feb-07, Page 1

US national survey, 1,000 children, Straus & Stewart, 1999Over 90% hit toddlers

More thana thirdhit infants

One out of four are still hitting at age 16THE PRIMORDIAL VIOLENCE

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT OF CHILDREN AGE 7-9, SAO PAULO, BRAZIL, 1999 (N=271)AVEZEDO1LOW SES PARENTS HIT MORE, BUT NOT MUCH MORE

Chart1

0.39850.3217

0.15130.1181

0.40130.3616

0.40050.3764

0.07890.0775

&CAzevedo1

MARIA AMELIA AZEVEDO AND VIVIANNE NORGUIRA DE AZEVEDO GUERRA, 2001 HITTING MANIA. SAO PAULO: IGLU EDITORIA

LOW HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX AREA

HIGH HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX AREA

Sheet1

LOW HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX AREAHIGH HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX AREA

SPANK, SLAP39.85%32.17%

SHOVE, KICK15.13%11.81%

PULL EAR, HAIR40.13%36.16%

BELT, BRUSH40.05%37.64%

PUNCH, SOCK7.89%7.75%

Sheet2

Sheet3

RATES FROM INTERVIEWING A NATIONAL SAMPLE OF CHILDREN, 2007** Harris Internet Youth Survey

SOME OTHER CORPORAL PUNISHMENT RATES

Chile 85.7% children in public schools

54.1% children in private school

(Vargas, Lopez, Perez, Zuniga, Toro & Ciocca, 1995)

Egypt 72.9% children over 10, past year (Youssef, Attia & Kamel, 1998b)

Italy 76.8%(Bardi & Borgognini-Tarli, 2001)

India 76.4%(Hunter, Jain, Sadowski & Sanhueza, 2000)

Mexico74.9%(Frias-Armenta & McCloskey, 1998)

Jamaica *79% of mothers beat their two to five year olds with an implement

* 87% children age 11-12 ever

* 70% in the previous four weeks (N=1,172, Samms-Vaugham et al 2004)

(Sample of 75 economically deprived families, Landman, Grantham-McGregor & Desai, 1983)

In rank order of national context total (VS01_1)32 Nations In the International Dating Violence Study

CONCLUSION:CHILDREN IN MOST OF THE WORLD, ARE BROUGHT UP MORE VIOLENTLYTHAN IS GENERALLY REALIZED MORE PREVALENT 94% of toddlers spanked (USA & UK) MORE CHRONIC 3+ Times a week for toddlers MORE SEVERE28% Used a paddle, belt, etc. LONGER DURATION13 years for a third of US Children 17 years for 14% of US children

Question 3: ARE CHILDREN WHO ARE SPANKEDREALLY HARMED?

THE RESEARCH SHOWS THAT CP: * Lowers the chances of many things all parents want for their children * Increases the risk of many serious and life-long problems

PARENTS CANT SEE WHAT THE RESEARCH SHOWS BECAUSE * They have no way to know what the child will be like in the future* Research can find this out because based on following children for years* Therefore: Parents have to go on the basis of research which shows the harmful side effects of spanking

LIKE SMOKERS WHO ALSO CAN'T SEE WHAT THE EFFECTS AREBoth smokers and parents can only get information on the benefits of stopping from research

Slows mental developmentReduces academic performance in elementary schoolIncreases anger and aggressivenessIncreases probability of DepressionLowers occupational achievement and incomeIncreases probability of violence against dating and marital partnersIncreases probability of physical abuse of a child

RESULTS FROM SOME OF THE STUDIES SHOWING THESE EFFECTS

WHAT THE RESEARCH SHOWSABOUT THE EFFECTS OF SPANKING

GROWTH IN COGNITIVE ABILITY OF CHILDRENTWO YEARS LATER

* Not spanked: increased faster than average

CP41CHART 3 COGNITIVEAVERAGEData from the National Longitudinal Survey Of Youth. 1,510 children

Chart1

5.51.8

2.9-0.3

1-1.6

0-0.8

&LCP51R1 May 00

AGE 2-4

AGE 5-9

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN TWO SAMPLE WEEKS

CHANGE IN SCORE 1986-90

F

Sheet1

NONEONCETWICE3+

AGE 2-45.52.910

AGE 5-91.8-0.3-1.6-0.8

Sheet2

Sheet3

* ADJUSTED FOR TIME-1 ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR, COGNITIVE STIMULATION AND EMOTIONAL SUPPORT BY THE MOTHER, CHILD GENDER, AND SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS. CP67-1 ANTISOCIALCHANGEIN ANTI-SOCIALBEHAVIORSPANKEDThe more spanking the more antisocial behavior two years later

NOT SPANKEDAntisocial behavior measured two years later decreased

Chart1

-3.69-3.73

0.295.71

2.337.43

15.8611.78

EURO-AMER.

MINORITY

TIMES SPANKED IN PREVIOUS WEEK

*

FIGURE 1. CHANGE IN ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR FROM 1988 TO 1990 BY SPANKING IN 1988(CHILDREN 6-9) )

Sheet1

NONEONCETWICETHREE +

EURO-AMER.-3.690.292.3315.86

MINORITY-3.735.717.4311.78

Sheet2

Sheet3

CHILDREN IN SIX DIVERSE NATIONS

THE MORE CORPORAL PUNISHMENTTHE MORE:

MORE AGGRESSION

MORE ANXIETY

Lansford, J. E. et al (2005). Physical Discipline and Childrens Adjustment: Cultural Normativeness as a Moderator. Child Development.

THE MORE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT, THE GREATER THE PROBABILITY OF PHYSICALLY ABUSING A CHILDOF PARENTBY PARENT

THESE ARE ALL RISK FACTORS,NOT ONE-TO-ONE LINKS A CONDITION WHICH INCREASES THE PROBABILITY OF A DISEASE OR PROBLEM

EXAMPLES:

SMOKING AND DEATH FROM SMOKING RELATED DISEASE (33% chance of death from a smoking related disease which means that 64% do not) FREQUENT SPANKING AND DELINQUENCY(24% chance - 5 fold increase, but 76% do not become delinquent) BINGE DRINKING AND WIFE BEATING(19% chance - 3 fold increase, but 81% of binge drinkers do not beat their wives)

HOURSTOREPET-ITIONSHORT RUN EFFECTIVE-NESS:CP WORKS BUT NO BETTER THAN OTHER METHODS Question 4.IS CP NECESSARY TO HAVE WELL-BEHAVED CHILDREN?

Chart1

5.45

5.78

5.92

4.3

6.44

9.5

2,853 INSTANCES OF DISOBEDIANCE, 785 INSTANCES OF FIGHTINGCP67-3 LARZELERE (FROM LARZELERE & MIRANDA, TABLES 2 & 3)

FIGHTS AGAIN

TYPE OF DISCIPLINE

FIGURE 3. HOURS TO REPITITON OF MISBEHAVIOR BY 40 CHILDREN AGE 2-3

Sheet1

CORPORAL PUNISH ONLYCORPORAL PUNISH + REASONINGNON-CORPORAL PUNISHREASONING ONLYREASONING + FORCED COMPLINACEREASONING + NON-CORPORAL PUNISH

DISOBEYS AGAIN2.893.072.492.282.392.99

FIGHTS AGAIN5.455.785.924.36.449.5

Sheet2

Sheet3

LONG-RUN EFFECTIVENESS:CP BOOMERANGS

* ADJUSTED FOR TIME-1 ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR, COGNITIVE STIMULATION AND EMOTIONAL SUPPORT BY THE MOTHER, CHILD GENDER, AND SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS. CP67-1 ANTISOCIALCHANGEIN ANTISOCIALBEHAVIORNOT SPANKED: BEHAVIOR IMPROVEDSPANKED: BEHAVIOR GOT WORSE

Chart1

-3.69-3.73

0.295.71

2.337.43

15.8611.78

EURO-AMER.

MINORITY

TIMES SPANKED IN PREVIOUS WEEK

*

FIGURE 1. CHANGE IN ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR FROM 1988 TO 1990 BY SPANKING IN 1988(CHILDREN 6-9) )

Sheet1

NONEONCETWICETHREE +

EURO-AMER.-3.690.292.3315.86

MINORITY-3.735.717.4311.78

Sheet2

Sheet3

TWO REASONS WHY CP MAKES THINGS WORSE IN THE LONG RUN

1. LESS WELL DEVELOPED CONSCIENCE

2. WEAKENS BOND TO PARENTNONE6 +

FIG A. CLOSENESS OF CHILD TO MOTHERBY CORPORAL PUNISHMENT(713 CHILDREN AGE 5-18 IN TWO MINNESTA CITIES)

*ADJUSTED FOR AGE, GENDER OF CHILD, AND SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS, CP40A

C:\My Documents\A2\CHARTS\CP\EFFECTIV\EFFECTIV 2D.doc SOME OTHER REASONS LONG TERM EFFECTIVENESS OF CP IS LOW

* FROM SCHOOL AGE ON -- OUT OF SIGHT MOST OF THE TIME

* CHILDREN GET "TOO BIG" THEN WHAT?

* LESS OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN HOW TO GET NEEDS FILLED BY

EXPLAINING

NEGOTIATING

CREATIVE ALTERNATIVES

COMPROMISE

C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\~WRO0000.doc

(USA)Question 5: WHAT ARE THE TRENDS IN USE OF CP?

THE MOST CHANGE HAS BEEN IN SWEDEN

UNITED NATIONSSECOND WORLD SUMMIT ON CHILDREN

All countries to adopt legislation, policies and programmes to protect children from all forms of violence, whether at home, in school or in the community: and protect children from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, including corporal punishment.

HITTING CHILDREN BANNED IN THESE COUNTRIESAs of 2006 15 BY STATUTE AustriaBulgariaCroatia Cyprus Denmark Finland Germany Hungary Iceland Israel Latvia Norway Romania Sweden UkraineBY HIGH COURT RULING: Israel, Italy

Steps to implement vary from almost none to very extensive

QUESTION 6: WHAT THE WORLD MIGHT BE LIKE IF ADULTS STOPPED SPANKING? THE EXAMPLE OF SWEDEN(Durrant, 1998) CP in schools banned in 1928; CP by parents banned in 1979 (but no criminal penalties)

VIOLENCE AGAINST CHILDREN SINCE 1979 BANPublic approval of CP declined to near zeroUse of CP declined sharply but continuesChild physical abuse has not increased (Child abuse deaths remain lowest in the world)Reports of CP increased as a result of intervention effortYOUTH CRIME AND PROBLEMS SINCE 1979 BAN:Crime rates decreasedAlcohol and drug use decreasedSuicide decreasedReports of assault by youth increased reflects redefinition of bullying as assault and zero tolerance

THESE ARE ALL RISK FACTORS,NOT ONE-TO-ONE LINKS A CONDITION WHICH INCREASES THE PROBABILITY OF A DISEASE OR PROBLEM

EXAMPLES:

SMOKING AND DEATH FROM SMOKING RELATED DISEASE (33% chance of death from a smoking related disease which means that 64% do not) FREQUENT SPANKING AND DELINQUENCY(24% chance - 5 fold increase, but 76% do not become delinquent) BINGE DRINKING AND WIFE BEATING(19% chance - 3 fold increase, but 81% of binge drinkers do not beat their wives)

Chart 5-4.1 Comparison of the Effect of Corporal PunishmentWith Effects From Other Domains* Partial correlation. See Appendix 5 for explanation, Other effect sizes are from Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Media violence and the American public: Scientific facts versus media misinformation. American Psychologist, 56(6/7), 477-489.

WHY ENDING CP CAN BE A MAJOR BENEFIT FOR CHILDREN AND SOCIETY

QUESTION 6 AGAIN: WHAT WOULD THE WORLD BE LIKE IF ADULTS STOPPED SPANKING?

FOR PARENTS * LESS HASSLE * LESS BETTER BEHAVED CHILDREN

FOR CHILDREN* LESS RISK OF PHYSICAL ABUSE* LESS DELINQUENCY

FOR THE NEXT GENERATION* LESS STREET VIOLENCE* LESS DEPRESSION AND SUICIDE* LESS WIFE BEATING* HIGHER ECONOMIC ACHIEVMENT

A LESS VIOLENT, HEALTHIER, WEALTHIER, AND WISER WORLD* ENHANCED MENTAL ABILITY AND SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT

END

A FEW REFERENCES

Giles-Sims, J., Straus, M. A., & Sugarman, D. B. (1995). Child, maternal and family characteristics associated with spanking. Family Relations, 44(2), 170-176.

Greven, P. (1990). Spare the child: The religious roots of punishment and the psychological impact of physical abuse. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 539-579.

Simons, R. L., Lin, K.-H., & Gordon, L. C. (1998). Socialization in the Family of origin and male dating violence: A prospective study. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60(2), 467-478.

Straus, M. A. (1995). Corporal punishment of children and depression and suicide in adulthood. In J. McCord (Ed.), Coercion and Punishment in Long Term Perspective. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Straus, M. A. (2005). Children should never, ever, be spanked no matter what the circumstances. In R. J. Gelles & D. R. Loseke (Eds.), Current Controversies about Family Violence (2nd ed., pp. chapter 9). Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.

Straus, M. A. (2007 in press). The primordial violence: Corporal punishment by parents, cognitive development, and crime. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.

Straus, M. A., Sugarman, D. B., & Giles-Sims, J. (1997). Spanking by parents and subsequent antisocial behavior of children. Archives of pediatric and adolescent medicine, 151(August), 761-767.

FOR EVIDENCE ON ALL THESE POINTS AND MANY OTHERS see* This book* Papers on my website (1st slide)* References on last slide

* ALSO Forthcoming book

I. SPANKING -- THE VIRTUOUS VIOLENCE 1. The Conspiracy of Silence 2. Everyone Does It, But Less Now 3. Hitting Adolescents 4. Who Spanks the Most?II. THE PRICE OF VIRTUE 5. Depression and Suicide 6. Physical Abuse 7. Violence and Crime 8. The Fusion of Sex and Violence 9. Alienation and Reduced IncomeIll. THE FUTURE 10. Ten Myths that Perpetuate Corporal Punishment I I. Social Evolution and Corporal Punishment 12. The Benefits of Never Spanking: New and More Definitive Evidence

Transaction Publishers 390 Campus Drive Somerset, NJ 08873 Toll free-US only 888-999-6778 or 732-445-1245 Fax. 732-748-9801 www.transactionpub.com

In UK and Europe: Transaction Publishers (UK) C/O EDS 3 Henrietta Street Covent Garden London WC2E 8LU Tel. +44 (0)20 7 240 0856 Fax. +44 (0)20 7 379 0609

2nd Edition, 2001

Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, In Press 2007. www.altamirapress.com

THE PRIMORDIAL VIOLENCE:

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT BY PARENTS, COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT,

AND CRIME

Murray A. Straus and Rose A. Medeiros

University of New Hampshire murray.straus@unh.edu

Part I. SOCIAL CAUSES AND CONTEXT

1-1Prevalence, Chronicity, And Severity of Corporal Punishmnt In The USA

1-2 Corporal Punishment In The Lives Of University Students In 16 Countries

1-3 There Was An Old Woman Who Lived In A Shoe What Did She Do?

1-4Violent Attitudes and Cultural Norms Underling Corporal Punishment

Part II. CHILD BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS

2-1Spanking To Control Antisocial Behavior - The Boomerang Effect

2-2The Effects of Impulsive Spanking and Never Spanking

2-3 Corporal Punishment, the Child-To-Mother Bond, And Delinquency

2-4Corporal Punishment And Risky Sex

PART III. HUMAN CAPITAL

3-1Slowing Of Cognitive Development

3-2 Lower Educational Achievement Test Scores

3-3Reduced Chances of College Graduation

ChapterTHE PRIMORDIAL VIOLENCE (CONTINUED)

Part IV. ADULT VIOLENCE AND OTHER CRIME

4-1 Why Corporal Punishment Is Linked To Physically Assaulting A Spouse

4-2 Corporal Punishment and Crime in Ethnic Group Context

4-3Corporal Punishment And Violence Against Dating Partners Worldwide

4-4Spanking and Crime in Adulthood By High Risk Children

Part V. SOCIAL CHANGE AND TRENDS

5-1The Decline in Public Support Of Spanking

5-2 Why Everyone Spanks Toddlers And What To Do About It

5-3 Corporal Punishment And Societal Violence

5-4 A World Without Spanking

WHY PAY ATTENTION TO SPANKING?MOST SPANKING IS DONE BY LOVING PARENTS TO CORRECT AND TRAIN CHILDRENTHE HARMFUL EFFECTS FOR AN INDIVIDUAL CHILD ARE SMALL COMPARED TO THE EFFECTS OF PHYSICAL ABUSEBUTIT VIOLATES THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN AS DEFINED IN THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER ON CHILDRENS RIGHTSA VERY LARGE PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN ARE SPANKEDCHILDREN ARE TYPICALLY HIT FOR MANY YEARS IN THE USA, ON AVERAGE UNTIL THEY ARE ABOUT 12 YEARS OLD, I.E. FOR ABOUT 12 YEARSTHE EFFECT ON THE WELFARE OF CHILDREN IS VERY LARGE GREATER THAN THE HARMFUL EFFECT OF PHYSICAL ABUSE

Giles-Sims, Jean., Murray A. Straus, and David B. Sugarman. 1995. "Child, maternal and family characteristics associated with spanking." Family Relations 44:170-176.%2.83.63.33.6RELIGIOUS DIFFERENCES IN SPANKING CHILDREN 3-5Percent Who Spanked in Past WeekAverage Number Of Times per Week

CHINESE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT RATES

Survey by the Guangdong Provincial Women's Federation 54% of university and middle-school students experienced corporal punishment 80% of parents and teachers believe corporal punishment has benefits

Survey by the University of Hong Kong (2003-04) 44% of parents had beaten their children to "straighten" them up.

Joy Lu Spare the rod and spoil the child? China Daily 05/27/2006 page 3 (downloaded from internet)

C:\My Documents\A2\CHARTS\CP\INTERNATIONAL\TWO CANADIAN STUDIES.DOC

TWO CANADIAN STUDIES

ONTARIO HEALTH SURVEY

83% IN CHILDHOOD

RANDOM SAMPLE OF

PERSONS AGE 15-44

RANDOM SAMPLE OF TORONTO

75% IN PAST YEAR

MOTHERS WITH CHILD

AGE 3 TO 17 AT HOME

Lenton, Rhonda L. 1990. Techniques of child discipline and abuse by parents. Canadian Review of Sociology & Anthropology 27:157-185.

MacMillan, Harriet L., Michael H. Boyle, Maria Y-Y. Wong, Eric K. Duku, Jan E. Fleming, and Christine A. Walsh. 1999. Slapping, spanking and lifetime psychiatric disorder in a community sample of Ontario residents. Canadian Medical Association Journal 161:805-809.

C:\My Documents\A2\CHARTS\CP\INTERNATIONAL\Tribal Society Rates.doc

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN TRIBAL SOCIETIES

77% USED CP

ANTHROPOLOGISTS REPORTS ON 186 SOCIETIES (BARRY, ET AL, 1980)

Document in Primordial victimization, Brazil Sept 05.ppt

TIME \@ "d-MMM-yy" 12-Aug-06, Page 1

C:\MyDocuments\A2\CHARTS\CP\EFFECTS\Crime,Violence\ADDED RISK-CRIME.d oc

HOW MUCH COULD ENDING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT REDUCE CRIMINAL VICTIMIZATION?

CORPORAL

PUNISHMENT

HIGHNONECHANGE

A. JUVENILE VICTIMS

REPEATEDLY AND SEVERELY ATTACKED BY A 40%18%55% LESS

SIBLING IN PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS (p.102)

NUMBER OF TIMES HIT BY CHILDREN

4.3

2.151% LESS

IN SCHOOL IN TWO WEEK PERIOD (MEAN)

(Strasbourg et al 1994)

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY IN PAST 12 MONTHS15%3%80% LESS (p.108)

B. ADULT VICTIMS

SPOUSES HIT IN PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS

25%8%68% LESS

(p.104)

PHYSICALLY ABUSED CHILDREN

24%8%67% LESS

12 MONTHS (i.e. went beyond legal

corporal punishment) (p.94)

CONVICTIONF FOR AN INDEX CRIME

33%14%58% LESS

Sons of non-criminal fathers. Cambride-Somerville

Youth Study (McCord, 1991)

NOTE: PAGE REFERENCES ARE TO MURRAY A. STRAUS, BEATING THE DEVIL OUT OF THEM: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN AMERICAN FAMILIES (1994) UNLESS A DIFFERENT AUTHOR IS INDICATED.

CP\CHARTS\EFFECTS\AD-RS-CR.OV

C:\My Documents\A2\CHARTS\CP\EFFECTIV\EFFECTIVE SUMMARY.DOC

EFFECTIVENESS OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

COMPARED TO NON-CORPRAL DISCIPLINE

AVERAGE EFFECTIVNESS

TIME SPAN

CORP PUN

NON-CP

IMMEDIATE

HIGH

HIGH

SHORT TERM (HOURS, DAYS)LOW

LOW

LONG TERM (MONTHS, YEARS)MAKES

HIGH

WORSE

SIDE EFFECTS

HARMFULBENIFICAL

The terrible twos

%

C:\My Documents\A2\CHARTS\CP\INTERNATIONAL\INTERNATIONAL RATES 2.doc

B. SOME OTHER COUNTRIES

NATION

& REF.

SAMPLE

& N

CHILD

AGE

%

HIT

TIME

MEAN

TIMES

CANADA

MACMILLAN ET AL, 1999

ONTARIO

RANDOM SAMPLE

RECALL OF CHILDHOOD

84%

EVER

--

CANADA

LENTON, 1990

TORONTO

RANDOM

SAMPLE

Age 3 - 17

75%

YEAR

--

ENGLAND

NEWSON & NEWSON, 1963

NOTTINGHAM RANDOM SAMPLE

N=709

INFANTS

Age 4

62%

97%

YEAR

YEAR

75% AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK

ENGLAND

NOBES & SMITH,

1997

N=99

Age 1 11

Age 4

80%

52%

YEAR

WEEK

SWEDEN

STATTIN ET ALL, 1995

STOCKHOLM

BIRTH COHORT

1955-58

Age 3

94%

YEAR

33% AT LEAST DAILY

\\Mstraus\c\My Documents\A2\CHARTS\CP\INTERNATIONAL\INTERNATIONAL RATES.doc

TIME \@ "d-MMM-yy" 25-Aug-06, Page 1

C:\My Documents\A2\CHARTS\CP\EFFECTIV\EFFECTIV 2D.doc WHY LONG TERM EFFECTIVENESS IS LOW

* NOT AS EFFECTIVE IN DEVELOPING CONSCIENCE (NEXT SLIDE)

Need to be good if mommy or daddy are watching or will know, not on basis of what is right and wrong

* UNDERCUTS BOND TO PARENT (NEXT SLIDE)

* FROM SCHOOL AGE ON -- OUT OF SIGHT MOST OF THE TIME

* CHILDREN GET "TOO BIG" THEN WHAT?

* LESS OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN HOW TO GET NEEDS FILLED BY

EXPLAINING

NEGOTIATING

CREATIVE ALTERNATIVES

COMPROMISE

C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\~WRO0000.doc

C:\My Documents\A2\CHARTS\CP\EFFECTIV\EFFECTIV 2A.doc Question 4. IS CP SOMETIMES NECESSARY TO HAVE WELL-BEHAVED CHILDREN?

ANSWER DEPENDS ON HOW EFFECTIVE CP IS IN CORRECTING MISBEHAVIOR