dlgn wrote:...you do realize that every single one of those articles and studies was published previously to the ones I cited? That means that the meta-analyses are completely useless (since they can't possibly have taken into account studies that were written after them).
I would like to point out that you did not cite a study about spanking. You cited a news article about a piece in a journal that was a cross between a review article and an editorial. It did not perform any studies to contribute new data. It did not perform a meta-analysis to analyze data in any different manner. Additionally, many of the articles it cites to make its case are older, some going back to 1986. In fact, the bulk of its citations predate the ones I cited. Do not blindly dismiss arguments based on year of publication, especially when the year of publication is recent. If I were to cite articles from the 50's, you might be justified. However, science moves slowly at the best of times, so dismissing more recent articles is wrong.
dlgn wrote:the other studies can be disregarded due to the continuous evolution and improvement of data collection techniques
Unfortunately, the flaws that were pointed out are ones of basic experimental design and statistical analysis, which I assure you, have not gone through a new renaissance in the past decade. The flaws pointed out 10 years ago are just as valid now.
Another flaw in the studies that Gershoff cites that still exists is that they rely on self-reporting both usage of corporal punishment and the end results.
This recent article (published in the last month, so by your standards it must be unquestionable) placed recorders around children, and compared the actual occurrences with the self reported occurrences. It found that corporal punishment (and note, they are looking at all forms of corporal punishment and not just milder forms such as spanking) were used frequently in contradiction to the current advice on proper usage. Additionally, the self reported data only correlated with the actual data 81% of the time. This is a tremendous flaw in the methodology commonly used.
The oldest study I cited, from 1997, is still the only longitudinal study on spanking that does not rely on self reporting, so it is still the most valid study that can be cited. It is not one that can be dismissed due to newer studies surpassing it, because there are no newer studies of its kind.
The person you cited, Gershoff, still has the same problems with lumping together spanking with all forms of child abuse, and still has the same problems with jumping to unwarranted conclusions.
I would also like to point out that one of the articles I cited was in fact a recent article, so it can't even be dismissed by your spurious methodology.
However, seeing as I know you like more modern articles, have this
more recent one that examines trends in Sweden's records of assaults since they implemented a spanking ban. You might notice that contrary to the drastic decrease in aggression and violence by those covered by the ban, there has actually been a drastic increase in assaults and rapes. It is clear that banning spanking is not the panacea that you and Gershoff seem to believe that it is.
dlgn wrote:Hell, I'd think that no decent person would go around hitting their kids
There have been four randomized clinical trials investigating the effectiveness of spanking on enforcing behavioral changes in defiant 2-6 year olds. All four of these studies found that spanking is the most effective method . This effectiveness combined with the lack of any solid evidence of the detrimental effects of spanking would serve to provide a fairly decent reason as to why it is done. A larger review of some of these issues can
be found here
I would like to request that you actually attempt to address the shortcomings in the studies you cite, rather than merely dismissing them, and making a fallacious statement that "The majority of modern psychology is in consensus about this subject" when no such consensus exists.
