Spanking lowers IQ

[violetyoshi]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/09/spanking-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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient):


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. :rolleyes:

[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. :p

[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.

[DesignFox]

I ws spanked as a child and I graduated 7th out of 300+ students in my HS. And I graduated college with a 4.0.

Guess I'm pretty dumb, eh? :rolleyes:

[Fashion Lad!]

I was spanked as a child. And probably beat compared to most people's standards today...

Last time I had an IQ test was last year part of "Getting to know your leaders" at work. It was a professionally administered test, I scored 135.

I don't hold much stock in the IQ test, nor do I hold much stock in this study.

[gremcint]

I've never taken an actual iq test and all of the ones I've seen online are bullshit. Every single IQ test I've seen online has questions like: who is the current president, or who was the first president, these are not iq tests they are trivia tests. I can sit in a dark room and never follow current events and still have a high iq. Knowledge does not equal Intelligence.

[BroomJockey]

I can sit in a dark room and never follow current events and still have a high iq. Knowledge does not equal Intelligence.

I think you have a flawed understanding of the term "IQ" then. IQ stands for "Intelligence Quotient," which is your "mental age" divided by your "physical age." Your mental age is determined by how old you'd supposedly have to be to have the rank of knowledge you possess, and your physical age determines the kind of knowledge you'd normally have. If you don't have knowledge, you don't have a high IQ. It's not possible by the very definition of the term. I will grant they've altered the measure, but it's still the same basic concept. If you don't know things, you don't have the IQ.

You did get one thing right, knowledge != intelligence. And intelligence != IQ. Knowledge, however, helps IQ.

[Kalli]

I wasn't spanked as a child at all, and I'm a dumbass.

[Gravekeeper]

The other study it mentions also links increased rates of spanking to poor economic status. So there's yet another factor to consider. Although the study was funded by the National Institute for Mental Health so doesn't sound like it'd be intentionally biased. Flawed mayhaps, but at least not biased.

Though I'd say the biggest argument against IQ tests is the fact everyone in this thread is apparently a super genius. ^^

[Nyoibo]

Nah, not super geniuses, but a few would probably qualify for MENSA, I know I do.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I think the problem is differentuating between smacking and beating. In my family, smacking was only given out as a last resort in most cases, or in the case of life threatening behaviour, such as playing with matches. I wasn't smacked very often, as it didn't take me long to realise the difference between right and wrong. Once we were old enough to reason, my parents introduced other punishments instead.

A smack accross the legs or butt is in no way compariable to beating a child accross the head or body like a lot of anti smacking groups seem to believe. Beating a child, especially striking the head, might lower IQ.

[Boozy]

I wasn't spanked as a child at all, and I'm a dumbass.

Thanks for making me spray coffee all over my monitor. :D

[Akasa]

I was beat as a child and could get accepted into MENSA if I wanted to.

[Flyndaran]

I was spanked and have severe anxiety and social phobia...
Oh wait, all us smart people should know that anecdotes are not scientifically valid data.

Those that don't believe spanking hurts kids won't believe any study. And the rest of us don't need studies to show what seem obvious.
Hitting people is bad.

[Rapscallion]

Hmm, if I pay to be spanked, will that raise or lower my IQ?

Rapscallion

[violetyoshi]

I was spanked and have severe anxiety and social phobia...
Oh wait, all us smart people should know that anecdotes are not scientifically valid data.

Those that don't believe spanking hurts kids won't believe any study. And the rest of us don't need studies to show what seem obvious.
Hitting people is bad.

This is why I posted the article. Cause I think people must be lacking in intelligence somewhere, if they fail to understand that hurting a child is unexcusable.

[Rapscallion]

This is why I posted the article. Cause I think people must be lacking in intelligence somewhere, if they fail to understand that hurting a child is unexcusable.

My thoughts in this order:

Insulting people you're trying to convince isn't going to work.

We've got to the heart of your argument. You're clutching at any straw to validate your personal feelings. The argument you presented was pretty weak and I managed to find an alternative explanation for their findings quite easily.

Can we keep to the article in question? I'm sure there are several spanking threads on here already.

Rapscallion

[Ree]

I was spanked as a child, as were my siblings.
We're all a pretty intelligent bunch, actually.

There are too many other factors (genetics or diet, for example) affecting intelligence to say that spanking lowers IQ.

I don't believe in beating a child, and I'm not fond of spanking, but I really fail to see how it lowers IQ.

Anybody can do a study and skew the results to prove their point.

[Boozy]

This is why I posted the article. Cause I think people must be lacking in intelligence somewhere, if they fail to understand that hurting a child is unexcusable.

MOD NOTE:

This topic is a tricky one. One needs to be careful not to insult the intelligence of members who disagree with them, while still being able to debate their points.

To clarify: Discussing the link (or lack thereof) between intelligence and childhood corporal punishment in general terms, within the context of the article presented in the OP is fair game.

Discussing the link between spanking and the intelligence of members posting on this forum is out of bounds.

This means that people who believe that spanking lowers intelligence cannot imply that people arguing against them are not bright. Conversely, it might be helpful if those who disagree with the article stopped offering up their own intelligence as evidence against the results of this study. If we don't want this to get personal, it has to go both ways.

Play ball, and watch the fouls.

[guywithashovel]

One major thing to look out for when interpreting results of studies is the correlation vs causation thing. When I took Research Methods in college, this was one of the things that my professor kept repeating over and over again in class. Basically, what this means is that just because two things occur simultaneously doesn't mean that one thing caused the other thing to happen.

For example, if you find an aggressive person who was spanked as a child, you shouldn't jump to the conclusion that the spanking caused the person to be aggressive. I was spanked as a child (not very often), and most people would scoff at you if you called me aggressive in any way.

One day in my Research Methods class, my professor told us about a study that found that the number of rapes tends to go up when sno-cone sales rise. However, when the situation was examined more closely, they realized that sno-cone sales go up in the summer, which is when more people leave their windows and doors open and men can sustain erections longer.

Now, I don't have this study handy and to be honest, I don't feel like looking for it. But I think it illustrates my point well.

[MergedLoki]

There's a large gaping chasm between 'spanking' and 'abuse' (and yea penderson basically pointed out how questiionable parts of this 'study' are so im just giving my 2 cents.)

I was spanked as a kid... hmm I think not even 10 times. (and it was probably closer to 5 or 6 times).

and i didn't turn out to be a teenage drug addict, or a runaway, or suffering years of therapy because i got my ass swatted a few times by a hand.

Sorry parents. 'time outs' dont work with every damn kid.

there's a reason i dont like kids. parents (in general) today SUCK at being parents.

You can't always REASON with a toddler sometimes the reason 'because i'm YOUR parent' IS a good enough reason for them.

blah im going off on a rant and i'm gonna stop now.

long and short of it. spanking is not the end of the world and it's not gonna turn your kid into some social misfit.

[blas87]

I think it's another old wive's tale.

Supposedly, babies who weren't breast fed grow up to be dumb.

Now kids that were spanked are stupid.

Wow.....I'm really SOL here.

[suchislife2]

so can I now blame my "stupidity" on being spanked?

[Savannah]

so can I now blame my "stupidity" on being spanked?

No, it is only correlated, not caused.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I think it's another old wive's tale.

Supposedly, babies who weren't breast fed grow up to be dumb.



Over here, they say that bottle fed babies catch infections. Strange; that would explain why as a baby, neither myself or my three bottle fed brothers caught any bad infections... but a friend of my mother's was always worrying about her son cuz he kept getting ear infections... and was breast fed. :rolleyes: It's just a means of making women who physically can't breast feed feel upset and bad about themselves.

As far as spanking goes, I think as I stated before, that the problem is with the researchers who fail to notice the difference between a light swat on the butt and a full scale beating. Also, here's something from the other side, to balance things out:

Children don't learn violence, they unlearn it. (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/4841873/Children_dont_learn_violence_they_unlearn_it/)

[Ree]

Over here, they say that bottle fed babies catch infections. Strange; that would explain why as a baby, neither myself or my three bottle fed brothers caught any bad infections... but a friend of my mother's was always worrying about her son cuz he kept getting ear infections... and was breast fed. Actually, that's very unusual.
Bottle fed babies do get more ear infections. It's because of the different sucking motions and different muscles a breast fed baby uses compared to bottle fed. The babies who breast feed use muscles that help keep the eustachian tube clear.

Sometimes, there really is science to back up a theory.

But this thread isn't about bottle feeding vs. breast feeding, so...back on topic...

[unholypet]

Random in and out again post.

I was spanked as a child, just enough to burn and I wasn't a huge problem kid. I only got popped twice hard enough I couldn't sit down.

Am I stupid? No, I graduated top of my class every year.

Do I lack common sense? No, I am no educated idiot.

Do I think more kids were spanked than not? Yes.

Does it seem like people are idiots, spanked or no? Yes XD

[Savannah]

Also, here's something from the other side, to balance things out:

Children don't learn violence, they unlearn it. (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/4841873/Children_dont_learn_violence_they_unlearn_it/)

Um...That looks like one person's opinion (and not any kind of psychologist), not a study. Am I missing something? At least the study in the OP is an actual study, although probably mis-represented.

[Lace Neil Singer]

It might be a study, but a study can be skewed by one person's opinion; in this case, anti-spanking. In any case, the blog is correct; you only have to watch small children at play to realise that they already are violent; they don't need to be taught it by being spanked, just untaught it. No-one is advocating beating children, any more than the other side advocates no disclipine.

I didn't have time to dig up a study on the matter, as I had to go to catsit, but I'm sure such a study exists online. I could only find evidence in books, and they can't really be transfered into the internet, sadly.

[BroomJockey]

MOD NOTE:
Conversely, it might be helpful if those who disagree with the article stopped offering up their own intelligence as evidence against the results of this study.

Reiterating this point, since it seems to have been summarily ignored.

[Lace Neil Singer]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/nature-not-nurture-is-to-blame-for-aggressive-children-394842.html

http://www.drkutner.com/parenting/articles/aggressive.html

Here be scientific studies.

[Savannah]

Here be response. (http://www.fratching.com/showpost.php?p=34602&postcount=15)

(Didn't know quite which thread to put it in, sorry. :p)