Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Final psychpowerpoint (1)
Final psychpowerpoint (1)
Final psychpowerpoint (1)
Final psychpowerpoint (1)
Final psychpowerpoint (1)
Final psychpowerpoint (1)
Final psychpowerpoint (1)
Final psychpowerpoint (1)
Final psychpowerpoint (1)
Final psychpowerpoint (1)
Final psychpowerpoint (1)
Final psychpowerpoint (1)
Final psychpowerpoint (1)
Final psychpowerpoint (1)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Final psychpowerpoint (1)

1,787

Published on

See http://psychsocvalues.wordpress.com/

See http://psychsocvalues.wordpress.com/

Published in: Technology, Health & Medicine
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,787
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Firstly to begin this presentation one must identify a coherent definition of the term corporal punishment.The term ‘corporal punishment’ can often be miss-interpreted and therefore the following explanation of the term ‘corporal punishment’ will be utilised for this presentation:“Corporal punishment is the use of physical force causing pain, but not wounds, as a means of discipline” (UNICEF, 2012) The use of corporal punishment as a form of aversive to “bad” behaviour in children is strongly rooted in many societies throughout the world. Similarly to many other traditions, such as religious belief, corporal punishment is often inherited from generation to generation often accompanied by the argument, “it never did me any harm”.
  • As illustrated from the above images, I would like you to guess which of these has been banned throughout the United States of America due to creating an unsafe learning environment for students?If you guessed corporal punishment, you guessed incorrectly. It is the peanut that is banned throughout all states, while corporal punishment within the education system is legally allowed within 20 states with the United States of America (Ecko, 2011).
  • They were all victims of corporal punishment throughout their childhood, like so many others. Hillary’s father, Hugh Rodham would often expect a spanking from her father if she had misbehaved in any way at school. He would frequently state, “if you get in trouble at school, you get in trouble at home” (WhoGot, 2012). Furthermore, Cindy Crawford recalled during an interview on ABC’s Good Morning America, that she was often smacked by her mother;"The thing about spanking for us, again, she didn't do it in the moment. She would say go to your room, you're going to get a spanking. And that 15 minutes of waiting for the spanking, that's when you really thought -- it was totally humiliating. It wasn't so much -- she didn't beat us. But it was like that humiliation and the waiting for the punishment.”(WhoGot, 2012).Similarly Dolly Parton was also often spanked by her father with a belt; “My father, when he did whip us he whipped us a little too hard”(WhoGot,2012).
  • Many conservative religious groups of people are in support of corporal punishment.(Ellison,1996) writes “children reared without proper discipline will be will be unable and unwilling to submit themselves to the will of God and, hence, will fail to enjoy the fruits of spiritual salvation.”In other parts of the world corporal punishment is viewed as a normal way of life. In South Korea the use of corporal punishment is widely supported. “The Korean Protection Agency has reported that all but 3% of the Korean children it surveyed have experienced corporal punishment” (Beckham, 1997).Many physician and pediatricians support corporal punishment. McCormick (1992) writes,“Some pediatricians offer guidance on discipline more often than family physicians. Most family physicians and pediatricians agree that children should be spanked if they misbehave”.Others such as Dobson (1970) asks the question of “How can we teach constructive attitudes to a generation of young people which is no longer listening to our advice?” He goes on to write that teachers should be allowed to use corporal punishment occasionally in the class room to maintain their control.
  • Brenner (1998) found evidence to show that corporal punishment is not good healthy for children. Brenner writes, "parents who use frequent punishment have more behavior problems with their children, whereas using less discipline is related to having fewer behavior problems”.Others like Romeo (1996) focus on the emotional damage a child will have because of corporal punishment. Romeo “feels that while we need to give serious weight to the physical harm children may receive form corporal punishment, should not underestimate the emotional and psychological consequences of corporal punishment to the child”(Andero, 2002). Romeo really stresses that corporal punishment can really invoke strong feelings of “humiliation and anger” (Andero, 2002)“Some physicians and social scientists recently suggested that reducing or banning parental use of non-abusive physical punishment such as spanking would reduce violent and other societal problems”(Andero 2002).Others such as Larzelere (1996) believe that the effects of physical and non-physical punishment “probably depend on when and how parents implement it, its role in their overall approach to parental discipline, and the overall parent-child relationship (Andero 2002).“Ramsburg (1997) examines the effectiveness of spanking. While spanking may relieve a parent’s frustration and stop misbehavior briefly, according to the American Academy of pediatrics, researchers suggest that spanking may be the least effective discipline method. Spanking may be ineffective because it does not teach an alternative behavior. In fact, children usually feel resentful, humiliated, and helpless after being spanked. The primary lesson they learn appears to be that they should try harder not to get caught”(Andero 2002).
  • According to Vockell (1991) corporal punishment in an educational setting is a form of punishment that children will find unpleasant. Although corporal punishment (CP) does not appear advantageous, it is a form of punishment that will discourage children from bad behaviour to avoid receiving CP. Vockell (1991) argues that “punishments such as going to the principal's office often do not deter a child from bad behaviour, whereas the knowledge he will receive a painful punishment will”. Furthermore Vockell (1991) argues that “corporal punishment will limit the amount of time the student is taken away from his lessons”. Gershoff’s (2002) meta-analysis study found that CP is associated with only a single desirable behaviour, that of “increased immediate compliance”. Although immediate compliance is a desirable behaviour, CP is associated with short term compliance. Immediate compliance can be crucial when children are in danger, however socialization necessitates that children internalize moral norms and social rules (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994 as cited in Gershoff, 2002 ) but immediate compliance does not imply internalization (Hoffman, 1983; Lepper, 1983). According to Gershoff (1991) “two of the five individual studies found corporal punishment to be linked with decreased compliance”. Vigilance must be exercised in accepting that “corporal punishment and immediate compliance are favourably associated”. More research is warranted to address the discrepancy regarding the research findings.
  • Gershoff’s (2002) meta-analytic study combined 60 years of research on the subject of corporal punishment (CP). Gershoff found that CP is associated with an abundance of negative outcomes. According to Gershoff (2002) ten of the 11 meta-analyses indicate parental corporal punishment is associated with “decreased moral internalization, increased child aggression, increased child delinquent and antisocial behaviour, decreased quality of relationship between parent and child, decreased child mental health, increased risk of being a victim of physical abuse, increased adult aggression, increased adult criminal and antisocial behaviour, decreased adult mental health, and increased risk of abusing own child or spouse”. Aucoin, Frick & Bodin (2006) found a causal connection between corporal punishment and problems in bothemotional and behavioral adjustment. Not only does physical punishment not achieve parents intended objective, it also puts children in a position of risk for other unfavourable outcomes. Research has found that children who are subjected to physically punishment have an increased risk of developing mental health problems, such as anxiety and depression, alcohol and drug problems and general psychological maladjustment. These children also are more likely to have poorer relationships with their parents, and they are more likely to report hitting a dating partner or spouse than children who have not been physically punished (Gershoff, 2008; Parke, 1977;Azrin & Holz, 1966).Furthermore, if children observe punishment and are rewarded in the form of their own compliance, then they learn that aggressive behaviour is an effective method of getting “others to behave as they want and will be disposed to imitate it” (Bandura, 1973; Caldwell, 1977; N. D. Feshbach, 1975; Goode, 1971; Guerra, Nucci, & Huesmann, 1994; Parke & Slaby, 1983; Patterson, 1982; J. Ritchie & Ritchie, 1981; Simons et al., 1998; Straus, 1994b; White & Straus, 1981 as cited in Gershoff, 2002).
  • One of the major strengths of Gershoff’s (2002) meta-analytic study was the substantial amount of research. Gershoff (2002) collected 88 studies from the past four decades, which looked at the effects of corporal punishment on children. There is a vast quantity of empirical research regarding the subject of corporal punishment. Many studies regarding corporal punishment take into account ethnicity, race and socio-economic background (Gershoff, 2002; Aucoin, Frick & Bodin, 2006). However, there are also weaknesses regarding the research of corporal punishment. None of the studies in Gershoff’s (2002) meta-analysis “asked parents what they meant by corporal punishment but rather provided parents a definition with which to decide whether their behaviours fit”. Furthermore, the method of assessing corporal punishment is a weakness. Using procedures to observe parental use of corporal punishment is ethically questionable. Reports from both children and parents’ were taken in studies, however this measure relies on the parents' and children's willingness to report on the use of corporal punishment.
  • Our group wanted to be consistent with research findings. After reading over the research that has been conducted about corporal punishment, the evidence overwhelmingly shows that corporal punishment does not benefit children. Our group is against corporal punishment in the classroom and in the home.
  • According to Vockell (1991) there are only a couple of benefits of corporal punishment. These would be that it is a clear punishment and it can be over with quickly. The majority of the articles we have found go into the negative effects of CP, which has influenced our opinions. Gershoffs (2002), for example, presents the emotional and behavior problems that corporal punishment can cause. In the classroom this kind of punishment is not only painful but can be very humiliating if it done infront of other students. This could increase the child’s anitsocial behavior, making school more difficult. Gershoff’s (2002) also goes into the long term effects that corporal punishment can cause. Children who were punished this way have an increased risk of being a victum in a abusive relation, be the abuser in a abusive relationship, have increased aggression as an adult, and are more likely to be antisocial as an adult. Our research findings have showed that there are far more negative effects of corporal punishment than positive effects and so we believe that it should be outlawed in the classroom and closely monitored in the home.
  • Transcript

    • 1. What to do about corporal punishment of children: How research should (or should not) affect our principles. Presentation Group: Páraic Ó Súilleabháin, Katherine Semas, Elaine Gallagher, Lara Estes, Joshua Cuddy, Sommer Mc Whirter.
    • 2. Which of these, are banned in public schools throughout the United States of America? Peanuts Corporal Punishment
    • 3. What do these people have in common?
    • 4. Principled Arguments in Support of Corporal Punishment• Conservative Religious Groups• In South Korea the use of corporal punishment is widely supported• Many physician and pediatricians support corporal punishment.
    • 5. Principled Arguments Against Corporal Punishment• Brenner (1998) found evidence to show that corporal punishment is not good healthy for children• Others like Romeo (1996) focus on the emotional damage a child will have because of corporal punishment.• Others such as Larzelere (1996) believe that the effects of physical and non-physical punishment “probably depend on when and how parents implement it, its role in their overall approach to parental discipline, and the overall parent-child relationship (Andero 2002).
    • 6. Research in Support of Corporal Punishment of Children•There islittle research evidence that demonstrates the effectiveness ofcorporal punishment of children, however a number of studies havesuggested that there are a few advantages of corporal punishment. Vockell (1991) indicates three potential advantages:1.It is perceived by the recipient as unpleasant.2.It can be administered quickly and be over with quickly.3.It is a very clear, specific, and obvious consequence.•A meta-analysis(Gershoff, 2002) study indicated that corporalpunishment has only one desirable effect.Gershoff (2002) revealed that corporal punishment is associated withincreased immediate compliance.
    • 7. Research Against Corporal Punishment of Children• There is a huge body of empirical research that does not support the use of corporal punishment (CP) of children. Corporal punishment of children is associated with:1. Increased aggression2. Increased anti-social behaviours3. Decreased quality of the parent-child relationship4. Decreased mental health outcomes5. Increased adult abusive behaviour6. CP decreases internalization of moral rules
    • 8. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Research Strengths  Weaknesses Lack of Substantial understanding amount of in the empirical definition of research CP. Diverse Method of populations assessing used in corporal studies punishment
    • 9. Specific Proposition- Against According to research findings, our group is against corporal punishment in the classroom and in the home
    • 10. Reasoning◦ There is very little evidence that demonstrates that CP benefits children◦ The majority of research shows there is a negative impact of CP:  Humiliation for student  Possibility of increased aggression  Long term psychological effects
    • 11. Final Recommendations In the School Empirical research shows Corporal Punishment has no place in the school environment In school’s cp has shown to instigate: Long Term psychological and physical damage. Humiliation. Increased aggression and defiance towards learning (Dupper & Montgomery, 2008)
    • 12. In the Home Despite its practice by 50-65% of parents (Tharps, 2003), corporal punishment slowly needs to outlawed in the home. The following steps need to be taken in order to curb the practice of cp:1. Recognition that CP is a violation of Internal Human Rights Law (Gershoff & Bitensky, 2007)2. Government programs to raise awareness of the negative outcomes3. Raised awareness of a clear, legal definition of what CP means4. Over time assessment of the practice and long term movement to ban practice
    • 13. References Andero, A. (2002). Issue of Corporal Punishment: Re-Examined. Journal Of Instructional Psychology, 29(2), 90. Aucoin, K. J., Frink, P. J., & Bodin, S. D. (2006). Corporal punishment and child adjustment. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26 (4), 527–541. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2006.08.001 Beckham, G., & Ellinger,T. (1997). South Korea: Placing education on top of the family agenda. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(8), 624. Brenner,V., & Fox, R. (1998). Parental discipline and behavior problems in young children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 159(2), 251. Combs-Orme, T., & Cain, D. S. (2008). Predictors of mothers’ use of spanking with their infants. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32(6), 649-657. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.08.006. Dupper, D. R., & Montgomery Dingus, A. E. (2008). Corporal Punishment in U.S. Public Schools: A Continuing Challenge for School Social Workers. Children & Schools, 30(4), 243-250. Dobson, J. (1970). Dare to Discipline. Toronto: Bantam Books. Ellison, C. (1996). Conservative Protestantism and the corporal punishment of children: Clarifying the issues. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 35(1), 1.
    • 14. •Gershoff, E. T., & Bitensky, S. H. (2007). The case against corporal punishmentof children. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 13(4), 231-272. Retrieved fromhttp://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/1076-8971.13.4.231•Larzelere, R. (1996).A review of the outcomes of parental use of non-abusive orcustomary physical punishment. Pediatrics, 99(6), 904.•McCormick, K. (1992).Attitudes of primary care physicians toward corporalpunishment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 267(23), 3161.•Ramsburg, D. (1997).The debate over spanking. Urbanna, IL: ERICClearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED405139).•Romeo, F. (1996). Corporal punishment is wrong! Hands are not for hitting!Journal of Instructional Psychology, 23(3), 228.•Tharps, L. L. (2003). The Truth About Spanking. Essence (Time Inc.), 34(1),260.•Vockell, E. L. (1991). Corporal punishment: the pros and cons. The ClearingHouse, 64(4) 278-283. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30188613

    ×