Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health

[Paidiske]

Yes it is. They are stipulating the male and female roles and all that entails such as the need for a fathers influence rather than any other possible alternative to fill that role such as a Trans male or a female playing the role.

I don't really think it's that profound. They object to same-sex relationships, they don't want to affirm them, they won't place kids with those couples. There's nothing really profound there about roles or gender differences in parenting.

But why does it matter,

You raised it, and I'm saying it's not really relevant to the thread, which is about the physical abuse of children.

its an obvious controlling of parental and marriage roles which relates to the same inequality, oppression and what many say is abuse of non cis and orientated people according to the Woke. So its abusive of certain people according to them which is one of the requirements similar to denting the autonomy and gender of a women by males controlling what they can and can't do.

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that it's abusive, but perhaps I might say oppressive.

Put it this way Georgia has something near 50% of parents admitting using physical punichment and with 82% admitting to physical violence being an issue in Georgia.

And a bit over 50% of Australian parents use corporal punishment. So why is that not relevant?

Given that psychological distress is well associated with a child who has been abused don't you think that they will grow up with distress and are more likely to abuse as the data says.

I think that when abused kids grow up to abuse, it's because the beliefs which underpin abuse have been normalised for them. They, too, accept violence, hierarchy, power and control, rigid roles... it's all they've known.

Well informed doesn't mean its correct.

No, but it also means I'm not coming from a place of ignorance of the field.

I suggest with the behaviour it produces and we certainly know what is positive or negative behaviour.

Again, subjective value judgement. What's positive in one setting is wildly inappropriate in another.

What, I linked evidence which contradicted your claim that aggression cannot become out of control and that some people are more prone to aggression than others.

I didn't say that. I didn't say aggression "cannot" become out of control. I said that out of control aggression is not present in many instances of abuse and is not the cause of abuse.

Heres another unreal claim you make. "Aggression is not a feeling, it's a personality trait".

That's not an unreal claim at all. Here's the APA definition of aggression: a tendency toward social dominance, threatening behavior, and hostility. It may occur sporadically or be a characteristic trait of an individual.

So tell me is there any difference in ability to control aggression between a person with 'trait aggressiveness' and one without. Do you think they have to work harder to control their aggression. Do you think that those who may be psychologically distressed meaning they are not good at spotting and dealing with stuff who have 'trait aggressiveness' may lose controlof their aggression sometimes compared to someone who does not have 'trait aggressiveness' or someone is has emotional intelligence and insight to control themselves.

I think that none of this is what causes abuse.

But this doesn't negate the fact that there are parents who have not learnt that and abuse.

And there are parents who don't have those struggles at all, and abuse. It's not about aggression.

Your forgeting that even smacking below the line is an act of aggression.

No, I'm not interested, for the purposes of this thread, in smacking that doesn't amount to abuse.

Thats because the law says nothing about peoples mental state full stop when it comes to crossing the line. They may hear mitigating circumstances and even reduce sentences but the law itself doesn't include peoples mental state. Its just if you cross the line its illegal or unreasonable.

So it's not saying that someone using "unreasonable" force is not rational, which was your rather strange claim.

They are when it comes to abuse or violence against others.

No, they really aren't. You can be controlled and yet unreasonable. You can be reasonable and yet uncontrolled. These are not interchangeable terms.

If you go over that line you have not controlled your behaviour to stay under.

And yet you may have gone over that line in quite a deliberate and controlled way.

I don't think so. You are seperating feelings, emotions, cognition and beliefs and saying somehow they are irrelevant when they are always mixed and influencing each other. You want to isolate beliefs like they are the cause of everything when to believe means involving emotions and cognitions and our experience which we base beliefs on. Thats just a fundemental mistake in how humans and reality works.

Of course we always experience these things in a complex way. But we know from the research that it's not the feelings, emotions, or cognitive function of people which separates abusers from non-abusers.

How can that be when the basic principles about how humans come to believe in something involves a persons positive and negative experiences.

Yes, our beliefs are formed by our experiences. Our beliefs are not formed by psychological and emotional problems, absent other influences. Abusers don't come to form the beliefs which underpin abuse simply because of psychological and emotional problems.

Then what did your link mean when it said "mental illness that is adequately treated would not be expected to lead to increased violence risk". That implies mental illness not treated is a risk factor.

It might imply that, but the more important point is that treated mental illness is not.

How do you explain this evidence
Children of parents with depression or schizophrenia are 2 times more likely to experience abuse than children of parents without mental illness;

Maternal mental illness and the safety and stability of maltreated children

Children of mothers with mental illness are at risk for multiple untoward outcomes, including child maltreatment and foster care placement. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the association between maternal mental illness and children’s ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

This is another one of those studies looking at "child maltreatment" and bundling together neglect and different forms of abuse. I am making no claims about what does or does not cause neglect; that is not my area of expertise. But given that the significant majority of households in this study were impacted by neglect rather than other forms of abuse, my explanation for this result would be that it is likely not about physical abuse.

Given that they are measuring abuse by reports, I'd also be curious about whether abusive parents with mental illnesses are more likely to have reports made about them than abusive parents without mental illness (are parents with mental illness more exposed)?

In light of the evidence above this is obviously not correct. So either you are reading that into it or the article itself is wrong.

Or it simply found different results than other studies.

 

[Paidiske]

Your more or less saying that someone changing the belief of someone with psychological distress which causes the belief in the first place with miracously dispell the psychological distress as well.

No, I'm not saying that at all.

If their psychological distress is creating the distorted perceptions of the world for which the beliefs are based on then you have to change the basis for why they believe in such things.

But the beliefs which underpin abuse aren't caused by "distorted perceptions of the world." We live in a culture which glorifies violence. We live in a culture which rewards dominance. You don't need distorted perceptions to take those ideas on board.

I question that. If people have negative beliefs they are going to have some negative things happen whether thats abuse and violence or substance abuse, anti social behaviour, relation conflict ect. Its like the saying you are what you eat or your are what you believe.

There are many people who manage their psychological problems without ever resorting to abuse, violence, or the like. I'm not saying it doesn't take a toll somewhere, but the idea that everyone with "psychological problems" must be acting in harmful ways is not only wrong, it's deeply denigrating of the many people with psychological problems who give their all to manage their conditions without harming themselves or others.

Actually its exactly related to what we have been talking about which you seem to accept as on topic. If you can't rationalise a justification why its irrational for males to believe that oppressing and abusing women is ok then you can't for abusers of children.

What I said was that I could make an argument against a view that men are superior and women inferior. But even in doing so, I would not be saying that it was necessarily an "irrational" view for my interlocutor to take.

Ok so then apply the same logic to abusers of children, that there is no rational way to justify oppressing and controlling others as though its good for their autonomy and wellbeing when its obviously not.

I'm not claiming that. I think many abusers are quite rational, even though I think they are also wrong.

But how can it rest on ethics when there are different subjective ethics.

I'm sorry, but it does. The argument of what one "should" do, of right and wrong, of morality, is a matter of ethics.

Who says that one view of what is ethical is right over another. This would leave a stalemate where all ethical views have equal status. Abuse would be no more wrong than kindness as it would be up to subjective opinions.

That's why we make laws by majority consent.

I suggest that we actually don't use ethics as the basis though ethics are involved. We qualify what is right or wrong, good or bad by the facts of the matter. We know that abuse damages humans and their potential. We at least know that human life is valuable as we experience it. So damaging humans for no good reason is wrong on a number of levels scientifically such as psychological, physical, to families and society.

Your last statement is an ethical statement, though, not a factual one.

Yes so behaving like one sex is inferior is the practical result we can measure as a consequence of that belief. Then it becomes an objective reality we can measure.

And that's why we have things like anti-discrimination laws.

Yes they have a degree of control with their delusional world. They can maintain control when cooking, working ect but lose control in certain situations. They can even control their passive aggressive torment and routine on a child like its happy families. But this is all a form of not being in control psychologically and emotionally.

They are not always 100% out of control and being out of control isn't 100% loss of control. Even Schitzophrenics can have relatively good routine and control but then will lose it at certain points usually when things build up.

You might call that "not being in control," but they are not "out of control" in the sense of not making choices about their behaviours. They choose to commit physical abuse. Which is really the only part of that, that I care about. It's a choice. It's not involuntary.

Ok did they seek to clarify where the line was. What the law and facts said.

They knew full well. I know they did, because I have discussed it with them.

Did chilly in the mouth actually stop swearing. Did a belting leaving welts actually make for a better behaved child and well adjusted or a more misbehaved one with mental issues.

I was an exceptionally well behaved child; I lived in terror of the results of not being so. Do I have mental issues? I live with PTSD. But that's besides the point I'm making.

If they were truely dilegent when making such a claim they would have sought the facts like any rational person would to test their personal claims. They would have also done some reflection into themselves.

I think you're setting a very high bar there, for what "any rational person" would do. In my experience, very few people submit their attitudes and values and beliefs to such rigour.

Yes I thought I already did here

Many studies have purported to find an elevated risk of child abuse perpetration among parents who have mental illnesses. However, discrepancies have been found in the very definitions of mental illness and of abuse (1). Some studies include not only serious mental illness (that is, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and recurrent major depression) but also substance use disorders, self-reported (and unverified) depressive symptoms, personality disorders, and anxiety in a larger vague category. However, substance use disorders and personality disorders are usually considered to be distinct violence risk factors, separate from serious mental illness.

They're not even talking about their own study there, but about the complexity of the existing literature.

All parents. Maybe not but the vast majority.

Still not a claim I would accept with precisely zero evidence.

Then you will have to explain why the evidence says different.
Children of parents with depression or schizophrenia are 2 times more likely to experience abuse than children of parents without mental illness; and The risk of child maltreatment was 5 to 5.6 times higher if mental illness.

That's still not saying the majority of people with those diagnoses abuse. It's saying the incidence is higher. But even a significant percentage increase over a relatively small incidence in the first place is not a majority.

Let me go back to quoting the study: "Mental illness of a parent is often considered to be a major risk factor for child abuse. However, most parents with mental illness are not abusive, and most abusive parents are not mentally ill."

I have plenty of times. For example all the articles that speak about the abusers having a certain Mindset of MInd Filter that percieves hostility and thinks in controlling terms. That is a mind primed to believe in control.

You can't just claim it; you have to demonstrate it. Find the study which shows the causative relationship between the alleged "priming" and the belief formation.

If aggression is intending to harm others

Not a definition I (or the APA) would use.

No aggression towards another is intent to harm or do damage even when its more positive.

Not necessarily. I have given you the definition (again) in my previous post.

Do you think everyones free will is the same in the same situation.

No. But as long as an abuser could choose not to abuse, and doesn't, then the nuances are really irrelevant.

Then why do the authors state that they are the core beliefs relating to irrational beliefs and control, aggression and violence.

Quote and link, please (specifically for control and violence). I'm not going back through the thread to find it. Even so that would only create a partial overlap between what is being measured as "irrational beliefs" and the specific beliefs which underpin abuse.

 

[stevevw]

I don't really think it's that profound. They object to same-sex relationships, they don't want to affirm them, they won't place kids with those couples. There's nothing really profound there about roles or gender differences in parenting.

Like I said either way they are denying autonomy of a certain group which is treating them unequal and oppressing them. Its still what progressives say is tantimount to promoting inequality and denying certain people just like males may do to women in different ways.

Gender equality is the basis for women to stop the oppression and abuse by males so the same principle applies to other genders who are oppressed and denied. I mean Gay and legal groups are calling it descrimination.

So who is right. How can we allow inequality and descrimination against minorities like we did with women if we are to stop abuse. Its one of those examples where beliefs clash as to what is the right belief that is best for society. If we allow oppression for some how can we promote equality and autonomy for all.

You raised it, and I'm saying it's not really relevant to the thread, which is about the physical abuse of children.

No thats why I said "why does it matter" when it comes to preventing abuse and violence they say the key prevention is equality, is giving people autonomy and equal say and status. Even you linked a DV article as having a similar basis for preventing child abuse. They have similar core beliefs about controlling people as autonomous beings with equal rights.

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that it's abusive, but perhaps I might say oppressive.

But your the one saying the patriarchy or rigid roles are abusive and yet no abuse has been commited physically. That its the thinking and beliefs behind the abuse. That prevention is about equaling society, uplifting women and children which should include everyone.

And a bit over 50% of Australian parents use corporal punishment. So why is that not relevant?

Because they all don't abuse and CP is a legal way to disicipline kids. Thats different to abusive and controlling beliefs or norms. So if Georgia has a 50% abuse rate then they are stuck in a time warp and havn't moved into the 21st century lol. Just like some of those US towns where they still have religious snake dancers and the like. They believe in some whacky stuff around that area.

I think that when abused kids grow up to abuse, it's because the beliefs which underpin abuse have been normalised for them. They, too, accept violence, hierarchy, power and control, rigid roles... it's all they've known.

But there are others who don't grow up to abuse. So what was the difference. What was the telling factor/s that caused some to believe and others not to. Their disposition, their experiences where some just took on the abuse and became it and others worked it out and didn't fall for the delusion.

Chronic childhood adversity is a fertile breeding ground for negative beliefs. They can start early and become so ingrained we don't realize they're even there! Not only do they control our thinking and perspectives, but can actually change the structure of the brain itself! But usually, something happens that provokes a negative emotion to which a negative belief is attached.
Break the Cycle of Negative Beliefs without Strife, Struggle, or Stress. | CPTSDfoundation.org!

Note the sentence that usually something happens that provokes a negative emotion to which a negative belief is attached. So this is the priming, Some negative has happened or at least the person percieves it as negative and stirs us negative emotions. This brings the unreal thinking which beliefs are based on.

Again, subjective value judgement. What's positive in one setting is wildly inappropriate in another.

No its not. The resulting damage done by the behaviour can be measured objectively through psychology and medicine. We can tell what abuse does to young development minds and bodies. Theres no suchjective value in that. Broken bodies are broken bodies and broken bodies deminish life quality. Not to mention the family and community costs.

I didn't say that. I didn't say aggression "cannot" become out of control. I said that out of control aggression is not present in many instances of abuse and is not the cause of abuse.

I'm not saying its the cause but rather a result of other factors that work together to cause abuse. But its often connected because like DV and other abuses it involves aggression to be able to hurt someone. As the majority of people abused are hurt or damaged then this involves aggression, at least a rising aggression.

Aggression is acting on your feelings of anger with intensity. As even mild discipline is associated with anger its easy to see how it often crosses the line into abuse because of a lack of control of the feeling of anger to begin with. Even a slight rising of anger into aggression is still aggression as opposed to anger.

That's not an unreal claim at all. Here's the APA definition of aggression: a tendency toward social dominance, threatening behavior, and hostility. It may occur sporadically or be a characteristic trait of an individual.

And what is hostility if not a feeling of hostility. How else do you experience hostility but as a feeling. I am feeling hostile as opposed to calm. I'm asking what the feeling is that is associated with aggression. Is it a happy one or a tense one, an irritated or hostile one or a calm and tranquil one. Think about it how you would feel when aggressive and hostile.

I think that none of this is what causes abuse.

You keep making the strawman again by conflating these single aspects of why people abuse as not being single causes. That is true but that doesn't mean they are not contributing aspects that cause abuse to happen. There is no single cause but rather a combination of factors including parents inability to control their emotions and aggression.

A very common reason that maltreatment occurs in the home, whether towards a child (child abuse/maltreatment) or a partner (intimate partner violence) is that there is a deficit in emotion regulation skills. Based on this study, parents who are more likely to maltreat their children have these traits in common: difficulties controlling impulsive behaviors when distressed (having a hard time restraining behaviors like yelling, hitting, and throwing when they are upset)
Understanding the Risk Factors of Parental Child Maltreatment: Exploring Emotion Regulation — Curious Neuron

Research has further found that parents with a history of abuse, especially those who physically abuse their children, have poor control over their aggressive impulses (Seng & Prinz, 2008). Therefore, equipping parents with ways of regulating their impulses, emotions and behaviours can help disrupt the cycle of child abuse.
Using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) to Characterise Parenting Interventions to Prevent Intergenerational Child Abuse - International Journal on Child Maltreatment: Research, Policy and Practice

Emotions such as anger, hate, and disgust can serve as activating motivational forces for violent behavior.
Irrational Beliefs and Personality Traits as Psychological Mechanisms Underlying the Adolescents' Extremist Mind-Set

Parents who use coercive disciplinary strategies, such as physical punishment, tend to be over-sensitive to their children’s emotions. They can be overreactive even when the child has not yet been defiant or resistant.
Why Do Parents Physically Abuse Their Children

As child abuse is clearly a form of aggression, researchers have looked to existing models of aggression which highlight empathy as an important factor to understand the processes involved in abuse.

https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/321630/researchnotes_parental_empathy.pdf

Child abuse experts agree that the single factor ultimately responsible for child maltreatment is the inability of parents to control their aggressive impulses.

APA PsycNet

psycnet.apa.org

I mean article after article is placing a lack of emotional control especially with anger and aggression as central to abuse and violence.

 

[stevevw]

And there are parents who don't have those struggles at all, and abuse. It's not about aggression.

So what are you saying that the struggles that those parents have that do abuse have not contributed. It doesn't follow. And I doubt that those parents did not have any risk factors Just not the same ones or the same mix. But nonetheless there are always risk factors with abuse. Even if thats the propensity to believe in control and abuse because that shows some dysfunctional thinking going on and in the home.

No, I'm not interested, for the purposes of this thread, in smacking that doesn't amount to abuse.

Didn't you just bring up that smacking below the line can be controlled without using aggression.

So it's not saying that someone using "unreasonable" force is not rational, which was your rather strange claim.

No the law itself doesn't go into that. Its just to protect children and has a legal definition. But its the basis for why the law was brought in to begin with that measures whather the act is justified, rational or irrational according to the thinking behind it. Such as the psychology of why people abuse. What is their thinking, why do they form such perceptions and beliefs of the world.

No, they really aren't. You can be controlled and yet unreasonable. You can be reasonable and yet uncontrolled. These are not interchangeable terms.

Fair enough. Maybe abuse is a combination of being unreasonable and uncontrolled.

And yet you may have gone over that line in quite a deliberate and controlled way.

But just because a person goes over that line in a controlled and deliberate way doesn't mean they are in control and deliberating in any rational way. Darmer was very controlled, deliberate and methological in murdering his victims and got away with it for some time. But in reality he was not in control of himself.

You can be a cold and controlled abuser who deliberately torments your child and maintain what would appear a composed and orderly home. Yet not be in control because of the cold and deliberate control being unreal in itself.

Of course we always experience these things in a complex way. But we know from the research that it's not the feelings, emotions, or cognitive function of people which separates abusers from non-abusers.

Why all the articles I link say it is. I would rather believe them than a single claim without any evidence. Show me evidence that states that the emotional and psychological dysfunction is not involved and is the difference between abusers and non abusers. Or at the least elevated emotional and psychological dysfunction.

Yes, our beliefs are formed by our experiences. Our beliefs are not formed by psychological and emotional problems, absent other influences. Abusers don't come to form the beliefs which underpin abuse simply because of psychological and emotional problems.

What are these other influences then. Its a basic psychological fact that beliefs are formed by out positive and negative experiences. If beliefs are formed by our experiences positive or negative then it stands to reason that negative experiences which include psychological distress (the bad experiences) will reflect negative beliefs.

It might imply that, but the more important point is that treated mental illness is not.

No the more important point to my original point is that treated mental illness is not a risk because its been treated.

This is another one of those studies looking at "child maltreatment" and bundling together neglect and different forms of abuse.

You mean the one article you claimed was combining PA with neglect until I pointed out they had a seperate measure for PA. There have been no others.

I am making no claims about what does or does not cause neglect; that is not my area of expertise. But given that the significant majority of households in this study were impacted by neglect rather than other forms of abuse, my explanation for this result would be that it is likely not about physical abuse.

If you read the link they were talking about it wasn't about neglect but physical and sexual abuse and they attributed each the same.

Parents were interviewed about psychiatric history and completed a self-report measure of childhood physical and sexual abuse.
Respondents reporting a parental history of depression, mania, or schizophrenia had a two to threefold increase in the rates of physical, sexual, or any abuse.

The relationship between parental psychiatric disorder and child physical and sexual abuse: findings from the Ontario Health Supplement - PubMed

The elevated risk for physical and sexual abuse among respondents reporting a parental history of psychiatric illness highlights the need to examine the mechanism for this association. Such information is important in developing approaches to assist families where the risk of child maltreatment...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Given that they are measuring abuse by reports, I'd also be curious about whether abusive parents with mental illnesses are more likely to have reports made about them than abusive parents without mental illness (are parents with mental illness more exposed)?

No the study was done by interviews of the patients directly as well as questionaires for the specific section I linked about higher risks for PA. The article itself was based on a number of measures including actual verified reports. Ithink they were actually already linked to Child services and Foster Care as they followed them for years.

Or it simply found different results than other studies.

Usually when one result is contradictory to many others its more likely theres a problem with the interpretation or the study itself. You study if it really claims what you say it does is an outlier and not well supported. If there were a dozen others that said the same thing I would begin to think twice. But the problem is its the other way around where there's a dozen that contradict your interpretation or the article itself.

 

[Paidiske]

Because they all don't abuse and CP is a legal way to disicipline kids.

But the rate is very similar to what was found in Georgia. So it's not really a very different social landscape.

But there are others who don't grow up to abuse. So what was the difference. What was the telling factor/s that caused some to believe and others not to. Their disposition, their experiences where some just took on the abuse and became it and others worked it out and didn't fall for the delusion.

I think there's no one answer to that. It would be different for every person.

Note the sentence that usually something happens that provokes a negative emotion to which a negative belief is attached. So this is the priming, Some negative has happened or at least the person percieves it as negative and stirs us negative emotions.

But he's not talking about the beliefs which drive abuse.

No its not.

Of course it is. Behaviour that's appropriate in the boxing ring isn't appropriate in parenting, for example.

I'm not saying its the cause but rather a result of other factors that work together to cause abuse.

But it's still not present in many instances of abuse. It's not part of the causative chain.

Aggression is acting on your feelings of anger with intensity.

No, it's not. It's a personality trait.

And what is hostility if not a feeling of hostility. How else do you experience hostility but as a feeling.

What it is not, is any particular type of action or behaviour (or abuse).

You keep making the strawman again by conflating these single aspects of why people abuse as not being single causes. That is true but that doesn't mean they are not contributing aspects that cause abuse to happen.

Again, if you can't demonstrate the causative contribution of each of them, that claim is unsubstantiated.

There is no single cause but rather a combination of factors including parents inability to control their emotions and aggression.

There's one single factor abusers have that non-abusers don't. Beliefs which justify their abuse.

So what are you saying that the struggles that those parents have that do abuse have not contributed.

While various personal struggles might influence abusers in their abuse, it's not why they abuse.

Didn't you just bring up that smacking below the line can be controlled without using aggression.

I am pointing out that this is also true of physical abuse.

But its the basis for why the law was brought in to begin with that measures whather the act is justified, rational or irrational according to the thinking behind it.

No, that's not why we make laws against harmful behaviour.

Fair enough. Maybe abuse is a combination of being unreasonable and uncontrolled.

I'd argue it's not necessarily either.

But just because a person goes over that line in a controlled and deliberate way doesn't mean they are in control and deliberating in any rational way.

That's irrelevant. The issue is not whether someone is "rational" in their thinking. The issue is whether they are in control of their behaviour, and choosing to abuse.

Why all the articles I link say it is.

I don't think they do. They might demonstrate statistical correlation of particular emotional or cognitive states or the like, but they are not showing that these are what causes abuse, or what differentiates abusers from non-abusers.

Show me evidence that states that the emotional and psychological dysfunction is not involved and is the difference between abusers and non abusers.

I don't have a lot of time now, but try this for a start: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213419304594 Even though it acknowledges that "Caregiver, child, familial, and environmental factors, as well as child maltreatment, may be important in determining parenting attitudes," it puts the emphasis on "Identification of the drivers of parenting attitudes may aid identification and intervention efforts with high-risk samples of caregivers to help improve parenting outcomes" (emphasis mine).

The whole introduction is worth a read, but it also says: "Parental behaviors and attitudes towards parenting are strongly linked- parenting attitudes drive parental behavior, and a sizable literature has documented support for this association (Azar, Nix, & Makin-Byrd, 2005; Babcock Fenerci, Chu, & DePrince, 2016; Easterbrooks, Bureau, & Lyons-Ruth, 2012; Kim & Cicchetti, 2004). Further, parental attitudes correspond with abuse potential and physical abuse (Azar, Lauretti, & Loding, 1998; Rodriguez & Tucker, 2015), as well as children’s adjustment (Costa, Weems, Pellerin, & Dalton, 2006; Easterbrooks et al., 2012; Shaw, Gilliom, Ingoldsby, & Nagin, 2003). Understanding parental attitudes is consequently paramount. It is important to note that parenting attitudes are multidimensional in nature (Thompson et al., 2014) and can include expectations regarding children’s development, behavior, and roles within the family, ability to understand children’s perspectives and level of empathy toward children, and beliefs regarding discipline (Azar et al., 1998; Sigel & McGillicuddy-De Lisi, 2002)." (Again, emphasis mine).

What are these other influences then.

Family of origin; community, social and cultural norms; experiences in all sorts of settings. Not just our psychological or emotional problems.

You mean the one article you claimed was combining PA with neglect until I pointed out they had a seperate measure for PA. There have been no others.

You mean the one article you claimed was combining PA with neglect until I pointed out they had a seperate measure for PA. There have been no others.

No, I mean the one you just linked that I was responding to.

 

[stevevw]

But the rate is very similar to what was found in Georgia. So it's not really a very different social landscape.

No I think their rate is much higher. Around 76% admitted beating and shaking kids, Many believe kids are property similar to their ancestor slave owners and only 4-6% said that authorities should get involved if abuse coours. Much of the study was done in smaller villages where some of the old beliefs still have a strong hold. I guess thats why they were chosen for the study.

I think there's no one answer to that. It would be different for every person.

Therefore if its different then it takes more than just messages and seeing bad examples of behaviour but also priming. Each person has a different experience as you say and some experiences cause people to relate more to negative behaviour and be inclined to believe.

Just like every other social issue. Its the volnurable and easily led kids who fall into crime and drugs and most have had a poor upbringing and have psychological issues and emotional immaturity.

But he's not talking about the beliefs which drive abuse.

He's talking about all beliefs, how beliefs generally develop. They don't suddenly form in a different way when it comes to abuse. Its the same mechanism for all belief development.

As with crime and drug abuse the child is primed by their experiences to believe in negative ideas and behaviour. Even going back to their attachments with their care giver which all effect emotional development and psychological states.

Of course it is. Behaviour that's appropriate in the boxing ring isn't appropriate in parenting, for example.

Your talking about the ethical aspect which is subjective. I am saying that we can measure the behaviour and harm done in the context as to whether it positive or negative aggression by science. So the subjective is qualified by an objective basis which is based on some scientific an experiential facts. We do this for all social issues.

But it's still not present in many instances of abuse. It's not part of the causative chain.

It has to be present in all abuse because whether its a light slap or a severe beating it takes aggression to abuse whether that aggression is subdued, passive or rage.

There are feelings associated with abuse and these are negative and these negative feelings come from negative thinging and perceptions about the world. Thats the causative chain of thinking and emotions involved. Its the same process for all social issues. I provided the evidence not only for abuse but generally which explained exactly the same causative interaction

No, it's not. It's a personality trait.

I asked you what is it like to feel aggressive. Is there a feeling attached.

What it is not, is any particular type of action or behaviour (or abuse).

Good avoidence of the actual point I was making. I was talking about the feeling that would be associated with aggression. What is it. Is it a happy feeling or a sad one or a relaxed one or a tense and seething one.

Again, if you can't demonstrate the causative contribution of each of them, that claim is unsubstantiated.

I did, I linked plenty of evidence that negative feelings like anger, aggression, fear (anxiety) and threat are central. I then linked evdience how abusers have problems with regulating and controlling their emotions. I linked how these distorted feelings warp perceptions of the world (make things worse than they are and unreal threat) which form the basis for unreal beliefs about the world.

There's one single factor abusers have that non-abusers don't. Beliefs which justify their abuse.

No they also have feelings, emotions, cognitions and perceptions of the world through experience. Belief is one aspect of a multi dimensional process where beliefs don't act alone. Emotions, feelings, cognitions and beliefs go hand in hand and effect each other. In fact belief is the last aspect that comes into play. You end up with a belief based on your experiences.

While various personal struggles might influence abusers in their abuse, it's not why they abuse.

If its an important influencing factor then its actually part of why they abuse. Its the same for all behaviour where various experiences and struggles influence people to say abuse their own bodies with drugs or take unhealthy and dangerous risks.

I notice you give short rebuttals without any explaination why. Its like saying 'the earth is flat" as a rebuttal and leaving the claim hanging with no arguement. If you think this is not a big part and part of the reasons why people abuse or do anything then explain this with some hard evidence.

No, that's not why we make laws against harmful behaviour.

Then why.

I'd argue it's not necessarily either.

So abuse is controlled and reasonable behaviour for parents.

That's irrelevant. The issue is not whether someone is "rational" in their thinking. The issue is whether they are in control of their behaviour, and choosing to abuse.

The issue is very much whether they are rational in their thinking because the evidence shows that abusers and violent people have unrealistic expectations and perceptions that they base their beliefs about abusing on. Without those unreal cognitions (cognitive errors) in thinking they would have no reason to abuse. Thats whats driving their need to abuse because their unrealistic expectations tell them so.

I don't think they do. They might demonstrate statistical correlation of particular emotional or cognitive states or the like, but they are not showing that these are what causes abuse, or what differentiates abusers from non-abusers.

Yes they are. I not only linked the stats but also the mechanisms that show how parents and people generally develop the particular kind of thinking and beliefs that go into abusing and violence. So this makes gho evidence as I have not only shown the high % of abusers who have these unreal cognitions, perceptions and beliefs I have linked scientific explanations that show how these unreal states develop in humans. Thats good science.

Its like linking the stats that show certain adaptive behaviours in evolution are more prevelent say predatory behaviour and then linking the science behind predatory behaviour. Each aspect supports each other in the evidence. I even linked no abusive examples where the same mechanisms are at play for other behaviours showing its actually a universal way humans think and behave when it comes to dysfunction.

For example people who develop dysfunctional behaviour with substance abuse and crime. Its traced back to their experiences as a child and how some develop emotional and cognitive distortions about relationships, behaviour, attitudes and beliefs from those experiences. WE all acknowledge that its the dysfunction experiences that are behind beliefs for substance abuse and anti social behaviour. So why is abusing others and violence immune from the same processes.

 

[Paidiske]

No I think their rate is much higher.

My memory is that the report mentioned about 50% of parents using corporal punishment, but I'm not going back to check just now. If you find a quote saying different, pull it out.

Therefore if its different then it takes more than just messages and seeing bad examples of behaviour but also priming.

Don't just claim it, find the evidence.

He's talking about all beliefs, how beliefs generally develop.

Your earlier comment, to which I was responding, was about "negative" beliefs and emotions. But that's just subjective value judgements.

Your talking about the ethical aspect which is subjective. I am saying that we can measure the behaviour and harm done in the context as to whether it positive or negative aggression by science.

You can measure behaviour, and you can measure outcomes, but "positive" and "negative" is not a scientific fact; it is a value judgement.

It has to be present in all abuse because whether its a light slap or a severe beating it takes aggression to abuse whether that aggression is subdued, passive or rage.

Well, you've not demonstrated this. I don't agree. Not all abuse is an expression of aggression.

There are feelings associated with abuse and these are negative and these negative feelings come from negative thinging and perceptions about the world.

I'm not sure it's anywhere near that simple, particularly boiling it down to a matter of "feelings." I would expect that the emotional range of abusers would be significantly more complex than what you are presenting.

I asked you what is it like to feel aggressive. Is there a feeling attached.

I don't think it's the same for everyone. Some people might feel anger, or fear. Some relish a fight, a contest in which they can establish dominance. And so on.

No they also have feelings, emotions, cognitions and perceptions of the world through experience.

But not in a way which differs consistently between abusers and non-abusers.

If its an important influencing factor then its actually part of why they abuse.

Not when you see other people with exactly the same struggles who don't abuse.

I notice you give short rebuttals without any explaination why.

It's holy week, the busiest week of my year, and I am disinclined to be drawn into wasting my time repeating arguments we have already had at length.

Then why.

Because of the harm. Not because of the rationality (or otherwise) of the perpetrator.

So abuse is controlled and reasonable behaviour for parents.

Reasoned, at least, yes. For many parents.

The issue is very much whether they are rational in their thinking because the evidence shows that abusers and violent people have unrealistic expectations and perceptions that they base their beliefs about abusing on. Without those unreal cognitions (cognitive errors) in thinking they would have no reason to abuse. Thats whats driving their need to abuse because their unrealistic expectations tell them so.

I don't think you can claim that every abuser is experiencing cognitive error to such an extent that their decision making is significantly impaired. Differing value judgements are not necessarily "cognitive errors."

I not only linked the stats but also the mechanisms that show how parents and people generally develop the particular kind of thinking and beliefs that go into abusing and violence. So this makes gho evidence as I have not only shown the high % of abusers who have these unreal cognitions, perceptions and beliefs I have linked scientific explanations that show how these unreal states develop in humans. Thats good science.

No, you have not shown that there is a consistent process by which people develop the beliefs which underpin abuse, and that that process is driven by "unreal states." You have not even addressed all of the beliefs which do underpin abuse (and, for example, where you have addressed belief in hierarchy you've mostly defended it as harmless).

 

[stevevw]

I don't have a lot of time now, but try this for a start: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213419304594 Even though it acknowledges that "Caregiver, child, familial, and environmental factors, as well as child maltreatment, may be important in determining parenting attitudes," it puts the emphasis on "Identification of the drivers of parenting attitudesmay aid identification and intervention efforts with high-risk samples of caregivers to help improve parenting outcomes" (emphasis mine).

The whole introduction is worth a read, but it also says: "Parental behaviors and attitudes towards parenting are strongly linked- parenting attitudes drive parental behavior, and a sizable literature has documented support for this association (Azar, Nix, & Makin-Byrd, 2005; Babcock Fenerci, Chu, & DePrince, 2016; Easterbrooks, Bureau, & Lyons-Ruth, 2012; Kim & Cicchetti, 2004). Further, parental attitudes correspond with abuse potential and physical abuse (Azar, Lauretti, & Loding, 1998; Rodriguez & Tucker, 2015), as well as children’s adjustment (Costa, Weems, Pellerin, & Dalton, 2006; Easterbrooks et al., 2012; Shaw, Gilliom, Ingoldsby, & Nagin, 2003). Understanding parental attitudes is consequently paramount. It is important to note that parenting attitudes are multidimensional in nature (Thompson et al., 2014) and can include expectations regarding children’s development, behavior, and roles within the family, ability to understand children’s perspectives and level of empathy toward children, and beliefs regarding discipline (Azar et al., 1998; Sigel & McGillicuddy-De Lisi, 2002)." (Again, emphasis mine).

Actually If I was to choose an article to support what I have been saying this article would be ideal. It's not actually about beliefs being the driver of abuse but looking at the drivers of those beliefs and attitudes or the determinents of beliefs and attitudes. What causes parents to take on those beliefs and attitudes and its mentioning all the issues I have mentioned.

It uses Belsky's ecological model which takes a multilevel view as I mentioned with three major conceptual domains: (a) the developmental-psychological, (b) immediate, and (c) broader domain.

Belsky (1984) put forth a commonly used framework for understanding the determinants of parenting that included three domains of parenting: parents own personal and psychological resources such as their own prior family experiences and functioning, child characteristics including temperament and behavior, and contextual sources of stress and support such as quality of their social relationships and degree of outside stressors. Parental attitudes are thought to be the by-product of these factors,

Belsky’s model, as well as proposed novel factors such as parental stress (Abidin, 1992), caregiver victimization (Meyers & Battistoni, 2003), and family income (Luster & Okagaki, 1993).

These frameworks collectively indicate the need to account for a multitude of factors that shape parenting across several levels

Of note Parental attitudes are thought to be the by-product of these factors. So its looking at the personal psychological developmental and dysfunction, the immediate domain (family relations and environment) and the wider domain (societal influences). This actually aligns with what I was saying that we cannot understand child abuse without a multilevel view that includes the individual psychology, family dynamics and relationships and the broader community as they all play a role.

Yes parental attitudes drive behaviour but as I have been trying to point out abusers need to be primed to believe in abuse and violence. As your article points out its the psychological and emotional issues that drive the formation of those attitudes and beliefs. Parental beliefs and attitudes are the by-product of these factors. For example

There are a multitude of factors that shape parental attitudes including caregiver, child, family, and neighborhood factors.

Symptoms of depression have been linked with more negative parenting attitudes

Family or caregiver stress is another important family-level factor (Abidin, 1992). Parental stress has been correlated with more negative indices of parenting, including higher rates of physical punishment

Families living in dangerous or impoverished neighborhoods experience are more likely to experience greater parenting difficulties, including lower levels of parental warmth and involvement, higher rates of physical punishment, and lower levels of parental well-being.

Dangerous or impoverished neighborhoods may also act as a source of daily stress that can impact parenting, particularly when compiled with other risk factors and sources of stress. Consequently, the environmental context is important to consider as a determinant of parenting attitudes and behavior.

Poverty has a profound negative impact on children, partially through increased risk for parenting difficulties

Family health, including satisfaction and stability, may be particularly important to consider in trauma exposed individuals and families.

Caregiver’s prior childhood traumatic experiences such as physical and sexual abuse and neglect have corresponded with parenting difficulties, including higher abuse potential, increased rates of psychological and physical aggression, higher levels of parental hostility and punitiveness, and lower levels of empathy towards one’s children.

Just as the above factors contribute to priming people to negative beliefs and parental attitudes for abuse the opposite, the Protective Factors prime for positive beliefs and attitudes. For example

Greater perceived family health has been linked to more positive beliefs regarding non-violent discipline.

Numerous factors were consistently related to more positive parenting attitudes (i.e., more appropriate parenting expectations, greater empathy, and valuing non-physical punishment), including caregiver history of child sexual and physical abuse, greater family income, and lower levels of psychological aggression. Lower levels of caregiver depressive symptoms, use of nonviolent discipline, and less severity of stressful life events were tied to more adaptive parenting attitudes.

So promotion and supporting good physical and mental health, family relations, economic stability and reducing other stressors is what prevents parents developing these negative beliefs and attitudes in the fist place. But when they do develop the supporting parents to overcome these risk factors will go a long way to changing beliefs and attitudes and preventing abuse and violence. Especially for High Risk groups as your link mentions.

This is nicely summed up here

The development of a more extensive model of parenting attitudes may help to identify caregivers who may be at risk for more negative and problematic parenting attitudes as well as represent critical intervention targets. Caregivers with lower educational attainment, a prior history of CPA and/or CSA, higher levels of depressive symptoms, and lower levels of social support were expected to exhibit more negative parenting attitudes.

Caregivers with children who were born prematurely and those with higher levels of developmental concerns and internalizing and externalizing problems were anticipated to report more problematic parenting attitudes. Lower levels of family income, more caregiver-child separations, more stressful life events, and poorer family health were hypothesized to correspond with more inappropriate parenting attitudes.

Lower levels of neighborhood satisfaction were expected to be tied to more negative parenting attitudes. Higher rates of child maltreatment, as indicated by both caregivers’ reports and child protection records, were anticipated to be associated with more problematic parenting attitudes.

So I think your link explains things well and helps to understand that abuse is a multifaceted and level problem which needs a multipronged preventative approach.

 

[stevevw]

I know this may be a little off topic but also related but your link got me thinking about beliefs, is there a fundemental inner state we come to the world in that gives us a positive belief about others and more generally about life.

I don't think belief is completely socially constructed. I think we start out with positive beliefs about others as newborns but thise state or sense of empathy towards others gets skewed in all sorts of ways that we end up believing all sorts of strange and wonderful stuff. Unfortunately I think a lot of it is unreal. Even fundemental ideas like looks, fame and money is the key to a fullfilled life.

But so often these ideas and beliefs can be off the planet and I think there's a growing mass delusion happening in modern society and I don't think the growing psychological issues especially with young people is no coincident.

I think if we are to rid ourselves of abuse and violence we have to have to have some fundemental beliefs in common about how we see others and life. If Empathy, the ability to sense empathy is a key factor in positive beliefs about others then we need to get back to those fundemental beliefs about humankind.

Such as 'all humans are made in the image of God'. Some truth we can base how we behave and the attitudes we should have that is beyond the individual or group that we can look to.

We have to see past our differences to a greater source that unites us in spirit, attitude and behaviour rather than dividing ourselves into identity groups pitted against each other which seems to be whats happening now..

 

[Josheb]

*Sources:

• Children who are smacked nearly twice as likely to develop mental health disorders later in life (9news.com.au)
• Childhood corporal punishment linked to lifelong mental health issues - ABC Melbourne
• Calls for Aussie parents to be banned from smacking their children | Daily Mail Online
• Shocking impact childhood smacking has on mental health (3aw.com.au)
• Research | Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children (endcorporalpunishment.org)

OB

It is rarely a good thing to get one's "research" from second-hand or third-hand resources like the news media, especially when they are politically biased sources. I clicked on those links expecting to see links to the original publications - the original studies. 9News, ABC, and Daily Mail are not authoritative in any way and no one should be taking parenting advice from those who deliberately lie.

"Lie"?

Yes. Lie.


A "mistake" is simple error that s minor and innocently unintended. A "falsehood" is a factual error of more substance that, like a mistake, is unintended but results from carelessness. It can be readily corrected when correct information is provided. What distinguishes a lie from a mistake or a falsehood is intent. When a knowing person knowingly, willfully, deliberately presents information they know to be untrue, or withholds information the know makes a difference in the case and conclusion(s) they are presenting then they are lying.

What were the control groups in those studies? What alternative interventions were studied and compared. Where there any mixed-intervention groups? Were frequency, intensity, and duration measured and if so, how?

In other words, every single one of those articles is worthless, and if anyone here wants to know what's what then get a subscription to a journal or a research database where all the information can be found in its original source.




Btw, Post 14 is better, but I wonder how many here would view a government publication from Brunei, Afghanistan, Iran, or Trinidad informative and authoritative. Just because something comes from government social services does not mean it is correct.

 

[Paidiske]

Actually If I was to choose an article to support what I have been saying this article would be ideal. It's not actually about beliefs being the driver of abuse but looking at the drivers of those beliefs and attitudes or the determinents of beliefs and attitudes. What causes parents to take on those beliefs and attitudes and its mentioning all the issues I have mentioned.

But what it does not do, is boil it all down to a simplistic model where "negative" experiences give rise to overwhelming distress, aggression, cognitive impairment, and lead to people being "out of control" and abusing. It acknowledges a far more complex reality than that, and does not posit that people don't choose to abuse, but acknowledges that they choose abusive behaviour in line with their beliefs, values, and attitudes.

Really that's all I'm arguing for. Acknowledgement that people choose to abuse in line with their beliefs, values, and attitudes; and that it's those beliefs, values and attitudes which we need to challenge as a society.

 

[stevevw]

But what it does not do, is boil it all down to a simplistic model where "negative" experiences give rise to overwhelming distress, aggression, cognitive impairment, and lead to people being "out of control" and abusing.

That exactly what your link says the process is for abusers and its not a simplistic model but as your link says but a multi factor and level model. Saying everything comes down to belief is a simplitic model.

They listed the stressors and negative experiences of outside stress, victimisation, depression, prior family experiences and functioning, lower levels of parental well-being directly with what they call the negative, problimatic or inappropriate parental attitudes.

These negative experiences caused by parental distress, are not always overwhelming but make parenting a lot harder compared to others. But at times yes overwhelming because abuse is often a build up of not coping.

But not coping doesn't mean being completely overwhelmed. Compromised is probably a better word as its not always about being overwhelmed hysterically. It can mean being abusive in methodological ways where theres a degree of composure and control.

But its the dysfunction of the methods and thinking that is what is actually 'not in control' and 'being compromised' compared to other parents.

It acknowledges a far more complex reality than that,

But thasts exactly what I have been saying that abuse is a far more complex issue then just beliefs and attitudes.

and does not posit that people don't choose to abuse, but acknowledges that they choose abusive behaviour in line with their beliefs, values, and attitudes.

Yes but as I keep saying the choices made by parents who are psychologically distressed and have created unreal expectations about themselves, their child and the world is what they are basing their choices on.

So their choices are not the same as others being clear headed and rational to be saying they know exactly what they are doing and what the true negative consequences would be for themselves and their child.

Really that's all I'm arguing for. Acknowledgement that people choose to abuse in line with their beliefs, values, and attitudes; and that it's those beliefs, values and attitudes which we need to challenge as a society.

So if people choose with their beliefs, values, and attitudes and those beliefs and attitudes are negative and unreal due to psychological distress and cognitive errors then we need to also be looking at the root cause of the psychological distress that causes the negative beliefs and unreal expectations.

As far as awareness goes I think what we are doing now in unpacking this complex issue is part of understanding the problem which I think is a good thing.

 

[Paidiske]

That exactly what your link says the process is for abusers

I don't read it that way.

and its not a simplistic model

The model you've been arguing for in this thread seems very simplistic to me. And very dismissive of the agency of those who abuse.

But thasts exactly what I have been saying that abuse is a far more complex issue then just beliefs and attitudes.

No; I am saying that belief formation is far more complex than just negative experiences -> stress/distress -> cognitive compromise -> abuse.

Yes but as I keep saying the choices made by parents who are psychologically distressed and have created unreal expectations about themselves, their child and the world is what they are basing their choices on.

The point is, though, that they are choosing; that they are choosing based on their values, attitudes, and beliefs; that those values, attitudes and beliefs are what differentiates abusers from non-abusers; and that this is the appropriate focus of preventative work.

So if people choose with their beliefs, values, and attitudes and those beliefs and attitudes are negative and unreal due to psychological distress and cognitive errors then we need to also be looking at the root cause of the psychological distress that causes the negative beliefs and unreal expectations.

But it doesn't follow. There are people who experience psychological distress who never form these beliefs. There are people who are not particularly distressed who do. The psychological distress is not the root cause, nor can we deal with abuse by ameliorating it.

 

[stevevw]

I don't read it that way.

How can you not read it just as I summarised. Theres no other way to read it unless you are injecting something into it thats not there. I understand plain english. When it says that the study is to establish the drivers of belief, what causes people to believe what they believe positively or negatively and that its the stressors, past abuse, psychological distress that create those beliefs and attitudes I tend to take it as it says.

The model you've been arguing for in this thread seems very simplistic to me. And very dismissive of the agency of those who abuse.

I thought you would be concerned about agency, about people taking responsibility for their behaviour. As I said earlier none of what I am saying or the articles are saying rather excuse a person from taking responsibility for their actions.

We know that addiction for example can become uncontrolled, people become criminals or violent youth through they upbringing and experiences. We heard the sociala justice warriors plead for understanding of the many barriers that some people face as mitigating circumstances. BUt we still don't excuse them from taking responsibility. Though some do gooders do nowadays.

As I also mentioned just because these parents may be comproimised at times doesn't mean they cannot at times glimpse into their deluded thinking and see the unreality. There may be times when they could have or should have taken steps ealier before things got out of hand.

So there is still a limited level of agency there. Its just compronmised sometimes more than others. Sometimes it takes more of a shakeup or rock bottom to wake them up. Sometimes they may need management and medication.

No; I am saying that belief formation is far more complex than just negative experiences -> stress/distress -> cognitive compromise -> abuse.

Yes I agree. Theres a multi-level influence on belief formation on the personal level (temperament and personality), the family level ( relationship dynamics, conflict, presence of family risk factors like mental illness or relationship conflict). Also the relationship directly between the caregiver and child (parents perceptions of the childs behaviour).

Then the wider social influences like you said the norms, acceptable attitudes towards abuse and violence that permeate in the background.

All these levels have an influence in forming or priming people to believe what they believe positive or negative. Then on top of that there are mutifacets interactions between factors within each level like under the family level influences factors like past abuse, relationship conflict, family breakdown, stress on the family or poorly behaved or disabled children.

Each level has its risk factors. Its when they converge and accumulate that they can result in abuse.

The point is, though, that they are choosing; that they are choosing based on their values, attitudes, and beliefs; that those values, attitudes and beliefs are what differentiates abusers from non-abusers; and that this is the appropriate focus of preventative work.

Yes its part of the focus. But naturally when we find people who have these beliefs we also find these risk factors at work. You can't focus on one and not the other as they go hand in hand. If beliefs about abuse are unreal perceptions and expectations of a child then the beliefs that stem from these cognitions are also unreal.

So when we see these unreal beliefs at play we should find the unreal cognitions that are always caused by psychological distress. Just as the articles I linked and your link states.

If you notice even in your article it mentioned that it was putting in place the protective factors such as relieving the distess and stablising family relationships through supports is what changed the beliefs and attitudes into positive ones. You have to change the person (their cognitive distortions and dysfunction) to change the beliefs.

But it doesn't follow. There are people who experience psychological distress who never form these beliefs. There are people who are not particularly distressed who do. The psychological distress is not the root cause, nor can we deal with abuse by ameliorating it.

But its the psychological state of the person through their positive and negative experiences that creates the positive or negative beliefs for anything and not just abuse. This is a fundemental fact in human cognition.

So negative and unreal beliefs have to be caused by negative experiences that lay the foundation for the beliefs.
If we can't deal with abuse by ameliorating those risk factors then why do the articles including yours mention that addressing the psychological distress and other conditions of stress will directly prevent abuse.

 

[Paidiske]

How can you not read it just as I summarised.

Because it acknowledges that belief formation is complex and doesn't boil down to any one source of influence. And certainly not one, one-size-fits-all, pathway from "negative" experiences to abuse.

When it says that the study is to establish the drivers of belief, what causes people to believe what they believe positively or negatively and that its the stressors, past abuse, psychological distress that create those beliefs and attitudes I tend to take it as it says.

Except that's not what it says. It says that those things have some influence, but not always in straightforward or expected ways. (For example, It says that some people who have been abused actually parent better than those who have not). It says that the "understanding of the determinants of parenting attitudes remains limited." It looked at particular aspects but acknowledged other aspects were outside the scope of this study.

The value of this study is that it anchors abusive behaviour firmly in beliefs and attitudes, which is what I've been arguing for, and you've been arguing against, this whole thread.

I thought you would be concerned about agency, about people taking responsibility for their behaviour.

I am. But your "unreal, overwhelmed, out of control" picture diminishes the agency of abusers and insists they can't help it, don't choose it.

All these levels have an influence in forming or priming people to believe what they believe positive or negative.

In which case, you can't argue that it's all about distress, stress, aggression, irrational thinking, and so on. That's reductive and simplistic, and omits far too much of the picture. (And completely mischaracterises too many abusers).

But naturally when we find people who have these beliefs we also find these risk factors at work.

Not necessarily. That's the thing you keep overlooking.

So when we see these unreal beliefs at play we should find the unreal cognitions that are always caused by psychological distress.

Sorry, no. You can't say that these beliefs are "always" caused by anything, let alone psychological distress.

If you notice even in your article it mentioned that it was putting in place the protective factors such as relieving the distess and stablising family relationships through supports is what changed the beliefs and attitudes into positive ones.

Where in the article did it mention changing beliefs at all? I don't see that.

You have to change the person (their cognitive distortions and dysfunction) to change the beliefs.

I wouldn't agree with that. (As someone who's in the business of belief-changing, in my daily work!)

But its the psychological state of the person through their positive and negative experiences that creates the positive or negative beliefs for anything and not just abuse. This is a fundemental fact in human cognition.

This sentence doesn't even hold up to basic scrutiny, because it rests on subjective judgements about "positive" and "negative" experiences and beliefs.

If we can't deal with abuse by ameliorating those risk factors then why do the articles including yours mention that addressing the psychological distress and other conditions of stress will directly prevent abuse.

Again, I don't see that in the article I linked. Direct quote?

 

[stevevw]

It is rarely a good thing to get one's "research" from second-hand or third-hand resources like the news media, especially when they are politically biased sources. I clicked on those links expecting to see links to the original publications - the original studies. 9News, ABC, and Daily Mail are not authoritative in any way and no one should be taking parenting advice from those who deliberately lie.

"Lie"?

Yes. Lie.

A "mistake" is simple error that s minor and innocently unintended. A "falsehood" is a factual error of more substance that, like a mistake, is unintended but results from carelessness. It can be readily corrected when correct information is provided. What distinguishes a lie from a mistake or a falsehood is intent. When a knowing person knowingly, willfully, deliberately presents information they know to be untrue, or withholds information the know makes a difference in the case and conclusion(s) they are presenting then they are lying.

What were the control groups in those studies? What alternative interventions were studied and compared. Where there any mixed-intervention groups? Were frequency, intensity, and duration measured and if so, how?

In other words, every single one of those articles is worthless, and if anyone here wants to know what's what then get a subscription to a journal or a research database where all the information can be found in its original source.

Btw, Post 14 is better, but I wonder how many here would view a government publication from Brunei, Afghanistan, Iran, or Trinidad informative and authoritative. Just because something comes from government social services does not mean it is correct.

I think good science is when a finding can be repeated independently by different sources. The more the better.

 

[stevevw]

Because it acknowledges that belief formation is complex and doesn't boil down to any one source of influence.

Yes but thats exactly what I have been saying. You are the one claiming abuse boils down to one thing belief. Your own link was about the determinants that drive belief, So these come before belief and are what creates the belief.

And certainly not one, one-size-fits-all, pathway from "negative" experiences to abuse.

As I have said many times its not about one factor but rather a combination of factors that build towards distress and cognitive errors in thinking and then negative beliefs.

The simple fact that abuse is negative means that it involves negative experiences for both the abuser, victim and household. It seems strange to me that your now trying equate abuse with positive experiences.

Except that's not what it says. It says that those things have some influence, but not always in straightforward or expected ways. (For example, It says that some people who have been abused actually parent better than those who have not).

Yes but there are reasons why they don't abuse. Its the protective factors. Abuse happens when there is an accumulation of risks and no protective factors. Both aspects need to be present.

What it means by abuse not happening in straight forward ways is that we cannot say that a specific factor or combination of factors will lead to abuse because there are other factors like individual temperament or emotional intelligence, or support present. So its very contextual.

But the fundemental premise of your paper is that some combination of risk factors or what they call determinants are present which drive the formation of negative attitudes and beliefs.

It says that the "understanding of the determinants of parenting attitudes remains limited." It looked at particular aspects but acknowledged other aspects were outside the scope of this study.

Yes limited as in studies on the determinants involved but not that the determinants are in any way not involved or associated with driving negative attitudes and beliefs. Thats what your paper was about, to expand on the determinants or (risk factors) that lead to negative parenting beliefs. For example

Despite the emphasis on delineating how parental attitudes correspond with parental behavior and children’s functioning, far fewer studies have investigated the determinants of parental attitudes and behaviors.

As noted, some theoretical models of parenting determinants have been developed. Belsky (1984) put forth a commonly used framework for understanding the determinants of parenting that included three domains of parenting: parents own personal and psychological resources such as their own prior family experiences and functioning, child characteristics including temperament and behavior, and contextual sources of stress and support such as quality of their social relationships and degree of outside stressors.

Parental attitudes are thought to be the by-product of these factors,

While one comprehensive model of factors that influence parenting does not exist, it is apparent that parenting is shaped by an array of variables across ecological levels (i.e., caregiver, child, family, macrosystem).

So it identifies the study is expanding on the determinants that drive parental negative attitudes and uses the example of Belsky's ecological model with the 3 domains which include parents psychology and stressors which could cover many things like poverty, past abuse, family conflict ect. So we have a general frame for the domains the determinants fall under and they then go into more detail about which determinants drive parents negative attitudes. For example

The primary aim of the present study was to expand the prior literature and utilize an ecological model to examine factors associated with parenting attitudes, including several caregiver, child, family, and macrosystem variables as well as child maltreatment.

They are actually encouraging professionals to develop a more comprehensive model of the factors (determinants) that drive negative parental beliefs.

The development of a more extensive model of parenting attitudes may help to identify caregivers who may be at risk for more negative and problematic parenting attitudes as well as represent critical intervention targets.

Then it lists the determinants that drive negative parental beliefs and attitudes.

Caregivers with lower educational attainment, a prior history of CPA and/or CSA, higher levels of depressive symptoms, and lower levels of social support were expected to exhibit more negative parenting attitudes. Caregivers with children who were born prematurely and those with higher levels of developmental concerns and internalizing and externalizing problems were anticipated to report more problematic parenting attitudes. Lower levels of family income, more caregiver-child separations, more stressful life events, and poorer family health were hypothesized to correspond with more inappropriate parenting attitudes. Lower levels of neighborhood satisfaction were expected to be tied to more negative parenting attitudes. Higher rates of child maltreatment, as indicated by both caregivers’ reports and child protection records, were anticipated to be associated with more problematic parenting attitudes.

Then it sums up what they were actually looking at and supporting as the drivers of negative parental beliefs which were determinants.

The current study makes a valuable contribution to the literature regarding determinants to parental attitudes by examining parental attitudes through the lens of a more extensive ecological model of child, caregiver, familial, and macrosystem variables, including considering the role of child maltreatment.

The value of this study is that it anchors abusive behaviour firmly in beliefs and attitudes, which is what I've been arguing for, and you've been arguing against, this whole thread.

Actually the value is it anchors negative parental beliefs and attitudes to the determinants or risk factors they identified. Which just happens to be exactly the same ones I have been identifying. They more or less say the same thing as what I have been saying.

Yes belief is an important part of the chain for human behaviour as we usually act on what we believe. But we believe by what we experience. Rubbish experience in and rubbish beliefs out.

Some are able to cope and overcome the determinants due to various reasons usually sort sort of protective factor like good temperament or emotional intelligence and insight or some support. But others when all factors combine and theres no protective factors then this can build to abuse.

 

[stevevw]

I am. But your "unreal, overwhelmed, out of control" picture diminishes the agency of abusers and insists they can't help it, don't choose it.

So you don't believe peoples agency can be compromised.

In which case, you can't argue that it's all about distress, stress, aggression, irrational thinking, and so on. That's reductive and simplistic, and omits far too much of the picture. (And completely mischaracterises too many abusers).

I am not saying its just about stress, past abuse, poverty, substance abuse, family conflict, DV, psychological problems but that this is an important part that needs to be considered to understand why people believe and behave abusive and violent.

When I say its a multi faceted and level issue thats what it means. That its a combination of factors (determinants and risks) minus protective factors and influenced on the individual, family and societal levels. Thats the Ecological Model of understanding human behaviour.

Not necessarily. That's the thing you keep overlooking.

If abuse causes distress then there will be distress in any situation of abuse for all parties involved. Even if they put on a front that everythings hunky dory. The fact that the situation has decended into a distress and dysfunction and that the behaviour associated is regarded as dysfunctional and negative parenting makes all cases of abuse dysfunctional and negative.

Sorry, no. You can't say that these beliefs are "always" caused by anything, let alone psychological distress.

But its a fact that negative and unreal beliefs about parenting are caused by cognitive errors. Even your article supports this. You can form negative beliefs from a positive attitude and disposition. Like I said negatve and rubbish in and negative and rubbiush out. We are what we eat. We believe according to our psychological states positive or negative.

Where in the article did it mention changing beliefs at all? I don't see that.

Well I was referring to another article you linked which also supported what I have said. But the last link does refer to how changing stress levels, giving support, lessening psychological problems like depression all help change the negative and unreal beliefs to more positive and realistic expectations and beliefs.

Numerous factors were consistently related to more positive parenting attitudes (i.e., more appropriate parenting expectations, greater empathy, and valuing non-physical punishment), including greater educational attainment, lower levels of children’s internalizing symptoms, greater family income, and lower levels of psychological aggression. Lower levels of caregiver depressive symptoms, and less severity of stressful life events were tied to more adaptive parenting attitudes in one or two domains.

I wouldn't agree with that. (As someone who's in the business of belief-changing, in my daily work!)

Well there is that bible verse that talks about some people who would look but not see and listen but not hear or how peoples hearts are hardened to the truth.

I think for most people we don't willingly come to God and believe we can do it ourselves. Pride comes before a fall.

If a person believed that their footy side was the best there is no way they would change belief unless they had experiences that led to a change of heart and mind such as they relocated to another teams area and maybe a player saved their life. Its got to be something that changes their inner self to change belief. People have to be primed and made ready within to believe in something.

This sentence doesn't even hold up to basic scrutiny, because it rests on subjective judgements about "positive" and "negative" experiences and beliefs.

We can measure experiences through science and eirst person testimony. The science can measure the harm done physically and psychologically and associate certain negative outcomes on the mind and body.

First hand testimony is a powerful measure as when we get consistent negative experiences coming from the very people effected with can know its negative because they percieved it that way regardless of the circumstances.

Again, I don't see that in the article I linked. Direct quote?

I was actually referring to your other articles on this one. For example the one on preventing IPV. It mentions making women more equal by restructuring society such as quotas and affirmative actions, increasing womens financial status, supporting their mental health is what will prevent abuse.

Your other article on psychiatric patients being treated reduced their risk and had a direct influence on preventing potential abuse by the fact that their mental illness was treated.

Your latest article as I mentioned above talks about the positive determinants that change attitudes and beliefs from negative ones to positive ones thus preventing existing abusers and potential abuses. Such as reducing psychological distress (depression), less severity of stressful life events, greater family income which were associated with positive parenting attitudes.

A couple of my link mentioned that increasing financial support directly reduced abuse in studies.

So we have several links all more or less saying the same thing that the negative determinants or factors lead to neegative and unrealistic parenting attitudes and beliefs and the positive determinants or Protective factors lead to positive and more appropriate parental beliefs and attitudes.

 

[Paidiske]

Yes but thats exactly what I have been saying.

If that's what you've been saying, then it's inconsistent for you now to claim that there's a simplistic pathway from "negative" experiences to "negative" beliefs, to abuse.

The simple fact that abuse is negative means that it involves negative experiences for both the abuser, victim and household. It seems strange to me that your now trying equate abuse with positive experiences.

I am not. I am saying that your evaluation of what is negative or positive is irrelevant.

Yes but there are reasons why they don't abuse. Its the protective factors.

No, the point is that people's response to the "negative" experience is not uniformly "negative" in turn.

But the fundemental premise of your paper is that some combination of risk factors or what they call determinants are present which drive the formation of negative attitudes and beliefs.

And yet your contention in this thread has mostly been that it's not about attitudes and beliefs. So I don't find your position at all consistent; most of the thread you argue against attitudes and beliefs as important, but here you accept them.

Yes limited as in studies on the determinants involved but not that the determinants are in any way not involved or associated with driving negative attitudes and beliefs.

The point is that this paper is one contribution to a complex and as yet under-developed area of investigation. It is not a complete analysis of what forms beliefs, much less the last word on the matter.

Actually the value is it anchors negative parental beliefs and attitudes to the determinants or risk factors they identified.

As one aspect of a much larger and more complex picture. But even so, it puts the importance of attitudes and beliefs as the drivers of abuse, front and centre.

Yes belief is an important part of the chain for human behaviour as we usually act on what we believe.

I'm sure I've seen you argue against this repeatedly in this thread.

So you don't believe peoples agency can be compromised.

I don't believe that most abusers agency is compromised to the point that they have no choice but to abuse.

I am not saying its just about stress, past abuse, poverty, substance abuse, family conflict, DV, psychological problems but that this is an important part that needs to be considered to understand why people believe and behave abusive and violent.

When I say its a multi faceted and level issue thats what it means. That its a combination of factors (determinants and risks) minus protective factors and influenced on the individual, family and societal levels. Thats the Ecological Model of understanding human behaviour.

But what you're ignoring here are things like cultural and social norms, which we know are a really important part of what's going on in belief formation.

If abuse causes distress then there will be distress in any situation of abuse for all parties involved. Even if they put on a front that everythings hunky dory. The fact that the situation has decended into a distress and dysfunction and that the behaviour associated is regarded as dysfunctional and negative parenting makes all cases of abuse dysfunctional and negative.

That's not the same as saying every person who abuses has particular "risk factors." That is false.

But its a fact that negative and unreal beliefs about parenting are caused by cognitive errors.

It's only an accurate statement if you both preface it with "in some cases," and acknowledge that "negative," and "unreal beliefs" are subjective determinations.

Well I was referring to another article you linked which also supported what I have said. But the last link does refer to how changing stress levels, giving support, lessening psychological problems like depression all help change the negative and unreal beliefs to more positive and realistic expectations and beliefs.

Numerous factors were consistently related to more positive parenting attitudes (i.e., more appropriate parenting expectations, greater empathy, and valuing non-physical punishment), including greater educational attainment, lower levels of children’s internalizing symptoms, greater family income, and lower levels of psychological aggression. Lower levels of caregiver depressive symptoms, and less severity of stressful life events were tied to more adaptive parenting attitudes in one or two domains.

This is not talking about changing stress levels; it is talking about the differences observed between people with different stress levels.

Its got to be something that changes their inner self to change belief.

Sorry, I still don't agree, and you'll need to come with something more substantial than simple assertion.

We can measure experiences through science and eirst person testimony. The science can measure the harm done physically and psychologically and associate certain negative outcomes on the mind and body.

First hand testimony is a powerful measure as when we get consistent negative experiences coming from the very people effected with can know its negative because they percieved it that way regardless of the circumstances.

This is irrelevant to the point I made.

For example the one on preventing IPV. It mentions making women more equal by restructuring society such as quotas and affirmative actions, increasing womens financial status, supporting their mental health is what will prevent abuse.

That's not about removing stress on abusers. (In fact, for the abusive men it may well increase stress, at least initially, as their power is challenged). It's about removing power imbalance.

Your other article on psychiatric patients being treated reduced their risk and had a direct influence on preventing potential abuse by the fact that their mental illness was treated.

That's not about removing stress either (and you're still missing the biggest point of that article, which is that the population without those illness at all were more abusive).

Your latest article as I mentioned above talks about the positive determinants that change attitudes and beliefs from negative ones to positive ones thus preventing existing abusers and potential abuses.

No; that's a careless reading of the article. Noting that abuse correlates with particular conditions doesn't mean that we can change attitudes and beliefs just by changing those conditions.

A couple of my link mentioned that increasing financial support directly reduced abuse in studies.

Directly reduced abuse reports.

So we have several links all more or less saying the same thing

(Really not).

 

[Josheb]

I think good science is when a finding can be repeated independently by different sources. The more the better.

I agree. I'd also add good science covers as many variables as possible and no one study, or small set of studies, should be treated as definitive.

I am reminded of that movie, "Twins," with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny Devito in which the former is raised in a "perfect" environment with piles of support and nurturance and the latter raised with the opposite. In the end neither turned out to be particularly healthy, moral, or spiritual. Forty or fifty years from now our children will be reading studies on the problems, the long-term adverse effects of not spanking, pain-free upbringing, over-nurturance and how bad eggs are for you .

​

Parenting views held in the 19th century:

• Instill obedience by never giving a child what they want.​
• Fussy infants may be calmed by the administration of laudanum (an opiate).​
• Turpentine may be administered for tapeworms and mercury to treat dysentery.​
• Lancing open the top of a child's gums will facilitate the growth of their first set of teeth.​
• A child's arms should be tie to the chair when setting them in isolation (time-out).​
• Corporal punishment is acceptable only if the correct device for administering the effect us used (a thin strip of leather or a bedroom slipper are suitable), and never applied to head, ears, or hands.​
• A child's reading should be restricted to works of non-fiction (novels were considered corrupting and frivolous).​
• "Too vivid an imagination, if not judiciously checked, may tend to create an untruthful habit of speech in childhood which may continue to increase with years."​
• It's okay to threaten a child. "In the tale of Suck-a-Thumb, for example, Conrad’s mother orders him not to suck his thumb while she’s away, lest a tailor come and literally cut it off."​

I'll take a spanking, thank you.