Tuesday, February 12, 2008
A different angle on the anti-smacking debate
I was interested to read this article on stuff this evening. What interests me the most is the attitude of the study's authors (or perhaps more accurately, the journalists take on their attitude - I haven't read the study myself). To quote: "Infants subjected to Supernanny-style parenting end up behaving just as badly at two years old as other children, Australian researchers say". After reading the article, I think I would prefer it if the byline had more of this sort of focus: "Children subjected to harsh discipline and verbal abuse are no more well-behaved than children who have a warm and sensitive relationship with their parents".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Wow. I really could write an essay. But I will restrain myself - mainly because I'm a tad pressed for time at the moment. But also because it's your blog not mine :)
I said on the phone that I was, based on my (anecdotal only) experience, rather surprised by the finding. Not surprised anymore, having read the article. Never mind that the control group were to raise their children "as they thought best" - which may well have encompassed quite a spectrum of parenting styles. The others were supposedly "taught how best to develop a "warm and sensitive relationship" with their toddler". Were they really? If they were taught Supernanny-style parenting (which it sounds like from the article), then the basic premise of the research is flawed, to my mind. On what are they basing the assertion that Supernanny parenting is "positive"?? Last I watched it (which was only a few weeks ago ... and I'm still not sure why, as it always leaves me feeling sick and/or in tears) she's still busily at it promoting control-crying, punishment by love-withdrawal (aka timeout), and lavishings of praise and rewards - the negative effects of which there is much research to demonstrate.
"Advice included abandoning smacking and yelling in favour of ignoring or distracting a misbehaving child, and praising children when they did something right rather than punishing for wrongdoing.". Yes, of course the former are worse than the latter, but that doesn't make the latter "positive".
Could've been a meaningful study had they thought a little more deeply about what they construed as "positive", and then looked at not only children's behaviour and maternal mental health, but, hey, radical notion, why not children's mental health too!
You might be interested in this article: http://www.naturalchild.com/robin_grille/rewards_praise.html
And the articles "Atrocious Advice from "Supernanny"" and "Five Reasons to Stop Saying 'Good Job!'" here: http://www.alfiekohn.org/articles.htm#null
Happy baby making :) (enjoy it whilst Mel has the energy Phil LOL).
PS Totally agree with you re the warped perspective that "positive" parenting results in "just as bad" behaviour at age 2 as harsh and overtly punitive approaches (subtext seemingly being "so there's no point wasting your time with that "positive" stuff").
PPS And then I'll go away. A quote I like: "Misbehavior is an adult description of what is more accurately perfect behavior given the conditions of the child's existence." - Joseph Zornado
Post a Comment