Spanking lowers IQ

[violetyoshi]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/boos...anking-iq.html
Spanking has been shown to lower IQ, in this study.

So, now you'll have a fearful child, who believes might is right, who's also dumb if you spank them.

Still think spanking is a good idea?

[Giggle Goose]

I saw this earlier and I found it pretty interesting.

Developing PTSD from constant corporal punishment and abuse makes sense, but I highly doubt a kid that's been spanked once or twice in his/her life has PTSD. I fall into the latter category, and I sure as hell didn't want to get spanked again, so I stopped acting bratty. I graduated from college, I'm starting grad school (hopefully) in the near future, and I'm gainfully employed. But perhaps if I kept acting up and spanking wasn't effective, then it obviously wasn't working. Since my parents actually had common sense, they would have figured out something else.


The thing about research is that you can NEVER cover all of the factors that might lead to such an event. Right now I can think of income levels, the parents' education, rural v urban, what determined the "prevalance" of spanking, etc.

I do think this is a great start and warrants further research, but it seems a little extreme to say spanking makes a kid dumb. I also have a lot to say about the claim that spanking making kids violent and aggressive, but I won't derail because I think it's been done to death around here.

[Pedersen]

I'll go ahead and reply, even though I shouldn't. Obvious potential flaws in the study that spring to mind:

First Potential Flaw: Did the researchers control for the statistical variations in intelligence that are normal? From the article:

Children in the United States who were spanked had lower IQs -- by 2.8 to 5 points -- than those who were not spanked, Straus found.

From wikipedia:

Although the term "IQ" is still in common use, the scoring of modern IQ tests such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale is now based on a projection of the subject's measured rank on the Gaussian bell curve with a center value (average IQ) of 100, and a standard deviation of 15, although different tests may have different standard deviations.

One standard deviation is 15 points, and these researchers measured a difference of 2.8 to 5 points. At most, 1/3 of 1 standard deviation. The difference, therefore, is negligible, and could even be attributed to simply having different environmental factors at test taking time.

Second Potential Flaw: Did the researchers take a valid cross-section of the population?

If the researchers skewed their sample (in either direction), then their results are also skewed. For instance, if they focused on the redneck families that fit the stereotype of rednecks/hillbillies/etc, then it's a reasonable assumption that the subjects in question would have a lower base IQ, and could have harder problems improving their intellect, or even maintaining the same levels.

Third Potential Flaw: Did the researchers take the education system of the subjects into consideration?

If the researchers didn't look into the quality of the educational system for their subjects, then they could well have missed that the subjects, going through the same system, got the same bad teachers, who then proceeded to dumb down their students (note: I'm saying that in some school systems, they have significantly worse education standards than others, not criticizing teachers).

Fourth Potential Flaw: How did they measure the quantity of spanking?

Did they ask the subjects? The parents of the subjects? Video each incident? What was their error factor? How did they account for the fact that some subjects (and parents) will lie about the amount of spanking that occurred?

Fifth Potential Flaw: Spanking? Or Hitting?

One of the graphs they present says "Percent Spanked or Hit A Lot As A Teenager". Hitting is not the same as spanking. How do they quantify which behavior they are focusing on? How do they correct for the fact that spanking, in and of itself, is different from hitting?

Sixth Potential Flaw: Who paid?

Frequently, such studies are done to prove a point, and the conclusion of the study is in line with the will of the organization that paid for the study. I see that, in part, this was paid for by the National Institute of Mental Health. Who else? What are those groups positions and agendas on spanking?

Summary: Without even trying, I've managed to find significant potential flaws in this study. Unless the study itself can be shown to be sound (and, based on the questions I have above, I'm not sure it can), quoting it as a definitive proof of the detrimental effects of spanking on intelligence is going to be disingenuous, at best.

[AdminAssistant]

I was spanked.

Recently found my IQ tests - 135.

Yeahhhhhh.

And Pedersen has already ripped apart the mechanics of the 'study'.

[Giggle Goose]

I think a better study would be to see if coddled "special snowflake" kids are more prone to EW-ism...

But I'm sure the majority of us don't need a study to come to that conclusion.

[Nyoibo]

Hmm, funny, I was spanked as a child, IQ at 5 years of age: 139, IQ at 13 years of age 147, IQ now: I don't know, I don't have the money for a psychologist administeres one, but I average about 160-180 on self tests.

[BroomJockey]

Still think spanking is a good idea?

Hey, here's a study that says the opposite, and it was published back in May!

http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin5.htm

It says the lower IQs aren't from spanking, but from parents who don't spank having to use greater reasoning, thus raising the IQ of those kids. Thus, spanked have average, not spanked have raised. So, even if every single one of Pedersen's issues were addressed, we still have the issue of "is it really lower, or are others just raised?"

[Boozy]

...but I average about 160-180 on self tests.

A good a reason as any to not put any stock into those self tests. IQ scores above 150 are considered supra-genius. Even Nobel Prize winners do not usually measure above 160.

[Nyoibo]

Yeah, mostly why I don't bother anymore, but I still have the one from 13 years ago that says 147, that's good enough for me.

[Greenday]

Ok, maybe spanking has a correlation to a person's IQ, but that doesn't mean because a child was spanked, they will have a low IQ. I was spanked, but no often, when I was young. Last time I took an IQ test, I scored in the upper 140s.

[Pedersen]

Ok, maybe spanking has a correlation to a person's IQ, but that doesn't mean because a child was spanked, they will have a low IQ.

Oh, potential flaw number seven, and the most glaringly obvious flaw and I can't believe I missed it:

Correlation does not equal causation.

For instance, 100% of the people who ate pickles in 1850 are now deceased. One correlation that comes from that statement is that pickles will kill you, given sufficient time.

Obviously, that is false (well, unless you're allergic to pickles).

So, I have to wonder how they managed to show that spanking causes a lower IQ? All they've done is shown the correlation without identifying the root cause.

[Rapscallion]

Perhaps a child with lower IQ doesn't have the intelligence to correlate between their actions and another spanking, and thus isn't clever enough to avoid doing the things that garner extra reinforcement of what's right and proper?

Rapscallion

[Savannah]

While I don't think spanking is a good idea, this study doesn't really show it, at least from what I can see. As Pedersen said, correlation does not imply causation. So many things are correlated with higher IQ that I'm not too surprised that spanking is. (Breast feeding can show up to an 11 point difference,* much higher than spanking showed.)

Statistically, spanking increases the risk of aggression and only reduces misbehavior temporarily,** so while it can be useful for some children it is not generally a good idea.

Interesting point, Rapscallion. Generally, any punishment has to be immediate to have an affect, but perhaps smarter kids have a longer period in which they can understand why they are being punished?

*From my cognitive psychology professor.
**From two studies cited in my developmental psychology textbook. If I have time, I will try to find and read them, because I'm curious how good their methodology was.

[Rapscallion]

Interesting point, Rapscallion. Generally, any punishment has to be immediate to have an affect, but perhaps smarter kids have a longer period in which they can understand why they are being punished?

You said it better than I did. I'm just putting forward a different explanation to others given for the same end result.

Rapscallion

[MaggieTheCat]

Perhaps a child with lower IQ doesn't have the intelligence to correlate between their actions and another spanking, and thus isn't clever enough to avoid doing the things that garner extra reinforcement of what's right and proper?

Rapscallion

That's pretty much what I was thinking.

I'm in with the crowd that was spanked as a child (not every day, but I do remember more than just one or two occurrences of it), and so were both of my brothers, and while I don't have exact IQs for any of us, none of us believe "might is right" and none of us are "dumb," as the OP would have you believe.