Hyman I A
National Center for the Study of Corporal Punishment and Alternatives, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Pediatrics. 1996 Oct;98(4 Pt 2):818-21.
In the past 20 years, over half of the states have abolished corporal punishment in schools. Without the use of ethically questionable, experimental studies in which students were randomly assigned to paddlings, advocacy researchers were able to integrate the literature and experimental research on reward, punishment, and motivation, and conduct enough studies to provide sufficient data for policy changes. Further, every popular school discipline training program promotes well-proven positive and preventive techniques and punishments that do not inflict physical pain. Research on alternatives, naturalistic evidence from schools that eliminated corporal punishment, and survey research prove that schools do not need to use corporal punishment. The movement to eliminate parental spanking is at a stage similar to the beginning of the school corporal punishment debate in 1976. Even though some studies may show that moderate parental spanking may do no short-term harm, there is little scientific evidence that it is necessary. There are no data to indicate that schools which eliminated corporal punishment became any worse. The same demographic factors and political polarizations that have kept about half of American school children from the protections against paddling afforded students in almost all other Western democracies also impede the movement to eliminate parental spanking. Since we know that corporal punishment too often leads to excesses, and since we have a multitude of effective positive approaches, what is the worst thing that would happen if all Americans stopped hitting children in any setting? The same children who are hit for misbehavior would continue that misbehavior and other ineffective punishments would be used. Most parents and teachers would discover what behavioral scientists already know. A combination of reward, positive motivational techniques and appropriate, nonphysical punishments would prevent most misbehavior. Other factors being equal, in the next generation, rates of childhood aggression and child abuse would drop dramatically, since corporal punishment would not be considered a viable and automatic reaction to misbehavior. Not a bad result for giving up something that has never been supported by the majority of those who study discipline in homes and schools. This is the message researchers and practitioners should actively convey to parents, policy makers and the media.
在过去20年里,超过半数的州已废除学校体罚。由于没有进行伦理上有问题的实验研究(在这类研究中,学生被随机分配接受体罚),倡导研究的人员得以整合关于奖励、惩罚和动机的文献及实验研究,并开展足够多的研究以提供充分的数据来推动政策变革。此外,每一个广受欢迎的学校纪律训练项目都推广经过充分验证的积极和预防性技巧以及不会造成身体疼痛的惩罚方式。对替代方法的研究、已废除体罚的学校的自然主义证据以及调查研究都证明学校无需使用体罚。消除父母打孩子行为的运动正处于类似于1976年学校体罚辩论开始时的阶段。尽管一些研究可能表明适度的父母打孩子行为可能不会造成短期伤害,但几乎没有科学证据表明这是必要的。没有数据表明废除体罚的学校变得更糟糕。那些使近半数美国学童无法获得几乎所有其他西方民主国家学生所享有的免受体罚保护的人口统计学因素和政治两极分化,也阻碍了消除父母打孩子行为的运动。既然我们知道体罚常常会导致过度行为,而且我们有众多有效的积极方法,那么如果所有美国人在任何情况下都不再打孩子,最糟糕的情况会是什么呢?因行为不端而被打的孩子会继续其不良行为,并且会采用其他无效的惩罚方式。大多数家长和教师会发现行为科学家早已知晓的情况。奖励、积极的激励技巧和适当的非身体惩罚相结合能够预防大多数不良行为。在其他因素相同的情况下,到了下一代,儿童攻击行为和虐待儿童的发生率将会大幅下降,因为体罚将不再被视为对不良行为可行且自动的反应。放弃一种从未得到多数在家和学校研究纪律问题的人支持的行为,能有这样的结果可不坏。这就是研究人员和从业者应积极向家长、政策制定者和媒体传达的信息。