Social Media and Mental Health

This is a topic I've wanted to discuss for a while. I've wanted to see which aspects of social media are related to one's mental health. After coming across a great ABC podcast (All in the Mind) I wanted to get on posting quickly, so here it is.

What's going to follow is a discussion about the various effects of using social media - particularly how these effects relate to your mental health. What it's not going to be is a review of relevant literature on the topic (that'll come later), but rather a review of some of the interesting tidbits I came across in the aforementioned podcast and the expert interviewed. It's vibrant, interesting, and down right applicable to almost every one of us. After all, you probably came across this blog through the use of social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) so this discussion is definitely for you!

What this won't be is a rant against social media. I use it. So does almost everybody I know. It's got a ton of awesome aspects to it, but it's also got a ton of adverse aspects to it. So on that note, I think we can begin.

Research psychologist Dr. Larry Rosen describes in his new book iDisorder (and in an interview with ABC broadcaster Lynne Malcolm), the negative effects social media might have with regards to accentuating mental illness. That being said, in terms of accentuating I mean bringing to the fore conditions that might've otherwise remained dormant were there relatively little importance to one's life placed on social media use.

Here's an illustration.

We've all got that one friend who's posts on Facebook or Twitter (I'll be discussing these two mediums in this posts; the former more so as that's what I'm mostly familiar with) who've gone to the gym. Not only have they gone to the gym, but they've eaten some sort of healthy snack prior to going. Not only that but they also might've consumed some sort of health drink. But it doesn't even end there... They also take photos of what they're doing (they might even compile these images into a collage with some cleverly constructed meme to go along with it)!

Another friend you have is always travelling. Or so it seems, since most the images posted are of them engaged in some sort of extracurricular activity. Now intellectually you might understand that they're not always travelling (after all they might also post some mundane aspects of life), but emotionally you're affected. 'Why aren't I getting out more? Others do it all the time!' It might make you question your social life given the portrayal of others' lives on social media.

Now none of these activities in and of themselves present a mental instability (in the past I've also done one or more of the latter), but I say we look at these in light of what we understand about personality disorders, specifically narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) describes personality disorders (although notoriously difficult to get a full understanding of since most of the symptomatology is overlapping) as personality types that deviate significantly from the 'norm' (APA, 2013). They lead to stress within the person and those around them. They're also (generally) not helping the person afflicted in their their own daily life.

NPD describes a person that's always thinking of themselves. They have an elevated sense of self worth and esteem and a need for admiration. They're constantly seeking attention and generally have a lack of empathy towards other (i.e. they find it difficult to see where other people are coming from, and don't really care about how they affect others' moods).

NPD is a great example to use in this post because it's pretty amusing to talk about in the context of social media posts. I don't at all mean to say that people that are constantly posting about themselves are suffering from NPD, but I want to say that when there's a tendency towards such a personality style (or 'disorder'), social media might play a huge part in accentuating it.

People that are always using the words "I" and "Me" at the expense of "We" in their posts generally use social media to back their own selfish agenda. They might post when things are always going great in their life to the expense of when things aren't going so well (though someone suffering from NPD might not see that distinction all too well).

Social media provides a platform for people of that nature to gain a greater audience and therefore make themselves feel important. Their symptoms come more to the fore. If there's a predisposition towards a particular mental illness, social media might do well in pronouncing the symptom formation. That doesn't only go for NPD, but other disorders as well. 

Take major depression for example. Sophia (a case in point) has Facebook. She's also been diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). After pulling herself out of bed well after noon she picks up her phone, goes on Facebook and checks her notifications (or she might've been doing this in bed before finding the strength to rise). There's none! None! The night before she posted "Life's not worth living any longer!" and it seems that no one cares! Okay, she's only got about 70 friends (a lower number of friends on Facebook has been shown to create higher rates of mental meltdown; more friends has the adverse effect) on there, but at least one could have commented!

What happens next? Her suicidal ideation increases given she now has confirmation for her ruminations regarding her depleted worth. With suicidal ideation there's an increased probability for suicide attempts, and then completion.

The above might have been a bit of an extreme proposition, but it paints the picture I want to portray.

For so many people, social media has become their social world. Their life is consumed by the pictures, the comments, the 'life' they have on screen. They live a life they want to portray to others, but in doing so they negate their actual life. Their fantasy life has become their actual life, and their actual life has become a vehicle for propagating their life on screen.

In doing so, they've neglected themselves and objected themselves. One would do well to wonder if such an experience would lead to nothing other than mental health problems.

I also want to talk a little bit about Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) in relation to 'iDisorder'.

Day by day we're running around frantically busying ourselves with what we call our daily life. Whether we're working at home, at a corporation, being a parent, or not working at all, we've had the experience of engaging with the social life on screen.

We're constantly checking our phone. Be it for new social media comments, emails, or the like, we're engaged. Phantom Pocket Vibration Syndrome (PPVS) describes the working of this obsession we live with on a day-by-day basis. You've probably guessed what it means already.

Well, PPVS describes the phenomenon of feeling what's not there. You're walking along on your way to work and you feel a vibration in your jacket pocket. Checking it, there's nothing! Have you experienced it? Well, according to Rosen (2013) 89% of participants in a psychological study have. 

What's going on?

Well, in simple terms, we've been so accustomed to technology in our lives that we've re-wired our brains. Neural pathways are formed, and the more we use the more we make use of these pathways in our brains. Because there have been countless times where we've felt real vibrations in our pockets, our brains react in such a way that when we experience neurological stimulation (say our jacket pocket hits the right side of our chest) our brain attributes it to our phone rather than our jacket. Our brain convinces us that we've been 'notified' and we must check it now (Rosen, 2013)!

How's this relate to OCD? You might've guessed. When we're so anxious that we constantly need to check our techs, we're creating obsessive ruminations that we can't seem to master. These obsessions turn into compulsions. These compulsions take some of us over so much so that we have to be checking our devices every few minutes in case somebody's commented.

If you relate this to somebody that's got a genetic or environmental predisposition for OCD, then they could be in a whole world of hurt when engaging constantly with social media.

I want to bring to the fore, as a finality, how social media relates to Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). This is an interesting one. 

You pick up your phone. Open Facebook or Twitter. There's a comment! You're immersed in this discussion you're having; hyper focused. You can't pull your attention away. Your focus is not even averted when your partner walks into the room and tries to initiate discussion. 'I'm almost finished and then I can talk' you say.

You have an attention deficit (you can't pull your attention away from what you're doing at the moment). You're hyperactive because you're always needing to do something. If it's tech related, then it fits into this context. You're not engaging in mindful activity. You're not 'stopping to smell the roses' but always on the move with what you're doing. 

In short, if you have a tendency towards ADHD, then tech might accentuate it.

Well what can we do then?

Here's a few tips taken from Dr. Rosen. 

Every hour or two take about ten minutes to calm your brain. It's surprising how little it takes to 're-set' your mindset and get on achieving what you want to.

Take a short walk. Listen to music. Exercise. Meditate. Talk to somebody (Rosen, 2013).

Just rip yourself from your technology and recharge your psychology!

For more resources, visit Dr. Rosen's website, or All in the Mind with Lynne Malcolm.

Dr. Larry Rosen - Expert on the effects technology has on our psychology

References

American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Rosen, L. (2013). Phantom pocket vibration syndrome. Psychology Today. Retrieved from: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rewired-the-psychology-technology/201305/phantom-pocket-vibration-syndrome.

Images retrieved from:

http://www.feds.ca/wp-content/blogs.dir/57/files//2014/03/social-media.jpg
http://workplaceinsight.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/930s-Smartphone.jpg
http://sujonhera.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/facebook-addiction-sujonhera-1.jpg
http://cached.imagescaler.hbpl.co.uk/resize/scaleToFit/420/420/?sURL=http://offlinehbpl.hbpl.co.uk/galleries/OKM/Bathroom_Visit.gif
http://www.swprn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/2012-06-09-a-Narcissist.png
http://images.fastcompany.com/upload/phantom-phone-feature.jpg
http://drlarryrosen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/larry2300-dpi.jpg

Will You Really Help Somebody in Need?

I was scouring through Youtube looking for videos on one of my favourite pastimes: entertaining prank compilations. I found what I was looking for, and also realised that I could write up a psychology-related blog post related to the matter. I've titled it: Will You Really Help Somebody in Need?

The video above is put in for good humour, however the topic on discussion is anything but humorous. This week on social media I found a video that showed the response of those walking by a man that had fallen down on the pavement in some European country. The man was dressed in baggy, casual clothing that didn't seem all that out of the ordinary from something a young person - or myself for that matter - would wear.

A video camera was set up to record who would actually help this man. He spluttered while walking, then began to cough convulsively, then clutched at his chest while falling down. The crowded street did nothing! People kept walking by even though he was calling out for help. 

Then something else happened. The video switched from the person that was dressed in 'baggy wear' to a man that was dressed in a suit. Same presentation, same fall - however, there was not the same response!

What do you presume happened? Well, of course the bystanders went to his aid so see whether he was okay. The video was entitled The Importance of Appearances Experiment - in this case, appearances could have made all the difference between life and death!

The Walking Dead - Bicycle Girl

Switching back from this video the the earlier one I'd like to start by saying that I'm a massive The Walking Dead fan! It's probably the reason I was looking through zombie scare videos on Youtube. It's also a favourite of a number of friends of mine.

Seeing the video I've shared at the beginning of this post I found myself both laughing, and becoming discouraged. How many people seemed to continue what they were doing even though these 'zombies' were running and seemingly attacking people? There were a great deal! This made me bring this up with a friend of mine.

Upon asking one of those in my social circle whether he would help anybody in need (in the context of a 'Zombie Apocalypse') he lost no time: '"Heck No!" Not even his wife and child (if they were turned). It brought me to consider scenes in The Walking Dead where the protagonist, Rick, would see somebody that was crying out for help and wouldn't intervene. 

Okay, these are fairly extreme situations, so why not discuss something closer to home?

Would you help somebody that's fallen down near you and can't seem to get back up if others were walking by him? Would you really? Research says no, you probably won't. It's a social psychological phenomena entitled The Bystander Effect.

What is the bystander effect? Well, it's when you're less likely to help somebody in an emergency when you're around others rather than by yourself - the more people there are around you, the less likely you're to help (Vaughan & Hogg, 2011). 

In 1964, a 28-year-old woman called Kitty Genovese was murdered in Queens. What was peculiar about her murder is that it was done in public, people saw it through their windows, and heard her cries for help as a man was plunging a knife into her back five times, but nobody called the police. She was able to get into the hallway of the apartment complex across the street while the perpetrator followed her and stabbed another eight times. A man opened his  apartment door, looked at her, and closed the door again. Nobody went out to see whether she was okay. All those there basically ignored her. The blood-stained body was left in the hallway as she died. Eventually somebody called the police, but it was too late - Kitty was dead.

This case set the scene for research to be done into whether people would assist somebody in need. Later, researchers wanted to know whether people would help not only in emergencies, but in any prosocial behaviour (e.g. giving money to a homeless child).

Latané and Darley (1969) were researchers that set out to find answers to these questions. It was found that the overwhelming majority of people didn't actually see the need to help if they were surrounded by others.

When alone, 75% of people went to the aid of somebody in need. When a person saw other groups of people running to the aid of someone in need, they only helped out 38% of the time. When they were surrounded by others that didn't attempt to help, they only helped 10% of the time!

How can we explain this?

Some have posited that when a person sees someone else in need they tend to think another person or group would attend to them - in effect, nobody does (this is called the diffusion of responsibility; Vaughan & Hogg, 2011)!

Another explanation might be that when seeing somebody in an emergency, you might not want to lend a hand for the fear of making a fool of yourself. 'Am I on candid camera?' you might ask. This is called audience inhibition (Vaughan & Hogg, 2011).

Finally, another reason you might not lend a hand is because you're influenced by your surroundings. You look at others for a way to judge how you should act. If nobody else is helping, well why should you feel the need to help? This is called the social influence factor (Vaughan & Hogg, 2011).

However, there are exceptions to these explanations. For example, if you're walking with your uncle Phil and see someone spluttering for air and falling down, you have an increased probability of lending a hand (Latané & Rodin, 1969; Rutkowski, Gruder & Romer, 1983). However, regarding the latter, I've seen plenty of accounts where people that seemingly know one another walk past somebody that's in need without lending a hand.

Christy and Voigt (1994) also provided a clue that we'd be less apathetic to those that need out help if you know the person that's in need, or if it's a child. 

Well, regarding the previous statement, these videos might be of interest...

Even when children are put into the spotlight of the needy, they're ignored. What about if it's your family? Well, the second video might answer that question.

So where do we go from here?

It's a call for recognition and action. 

Are you going to fit into the statistic of being a bystander when the call for help is heard?

References

Christy, C. A., & Voigt, H. (1994). Bystander responses to public episodes of child abuse. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 824-847.

Latané, B. & Rodin, J. (1969). A lady in distress: Inhibiting effects of friends and strangers on bystander intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 189-202.

Rutkowski, G. K., Gruder, C. L., & Romer, D. (1983). Group cohesiveness, social norms, and bystander intervention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 545-552.

Vaughan, G. M., & Hogg, M. A. (2011). Social Psychology (6th ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Australia.

Images and video retrieved from:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh_oOMD5EyU&list=PLxCq3_41y8SaLHBBWHHuyyPeJc35wTIMQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6jSKLtmYdM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rsc-2oMB0s

http://manhattaninfidel.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/The_Walking_Dead_Bicycle-_Girl.jpg

What goes Down must come Up?

The sine curve theory. What is it?

Let's start with something a little simpler (but I'll let you be the judge of that). What's a sine curve? Or a sine wave? Or a sinusoid? [All names that can be used to describe what I'm here to talk about today] Good question. Look below.

That's a sine curve. Okay. So what does that mean to me I hear you ask. Well, I think it has the potential to mean a lot! Hear me out.

I'll begin by giving credit to somebody apart from myself in terms of this theory. I've heard it elsewhere, and I thought it'll make for a great post, so I decided to write about what I'd heard in a little more detail. I'll begin by saying that credit goes to Psychology in Seattle (a podcast I've spoken about previously in this blog) in their episode about Depression and Seasonal Affective Disorder. 

In this episode, Lita (an edutainer) described a working theory that she'd used when she was struggling with depressive symptoms in her teen years. This was called the "sine curve theory" and used the above diagram to describe the potential trajectory of a mood, both negative and positive. I'll get a little clearer if you keep reading on.

Say, you lose your father a number of years ago. This cuts you deep. It shatters your expectations, your worldview, your way of being. It affects you like you never thought anything could. You find yourself getting sad most of the time. You feel the lowest you've ever felt. It's kind of like you've hit emotional rock bottom.

I hope that plants a picture for something we could work with now. It's bad, of course, but you gradually feel a little better as time goes by. You're not as sad as you once felt. You start to do a few of the things you stopped doing (even though you enjoyed) once the tragedy happened. Things are getting back to normal. You're functioning again. You'll never forget all the great times spent with your father, but it's bearable to live on. It's not only bearable, it's getting to be enjoyable again. 

In short, you're almost back to the way you were before the tragedy.

So how can we turn this discussion about again to the sine curve? Well, it might help, as it did Lita, to start picturing the good that you've yet to experience. You might start looking forward to the future, the way things could shape up even better! You can look forward again.

You see, the sine curve designates a mathematical and physical state where there's a repetitive oscillation of a wave going only as high as possible given its lowest point. That is, it can't go above what it's experienced below. It experiences a sense of equilibrium in that its lowest point (in a negative form) is also its potential highest point (in a positive form). If you look at the diagram again, it'll make better sense.

How can we relate this to mood? Well, take the example of losing your father. You've experienced something that you thought you'd never experience in terms of you negative mood. You hit rock bottom! But, if we're going to use the analogy of the sine curve, there's room for growth!

As low as you've been is as high as you can be! You might've already experienced that; you might not have. But I think there's a potential, behind every negative emotion (as denigrating as it might be), there's the potential for you to hit the highest note on exciting emotions!

As low as you go is as high as you can go!

And think of it this way, you have the potential to experience a much higher capacity of good if you've gone through some tough times. A much higher capacity, if the theory proves correct, than the average Joe that's not experienced tough times in their life.

I like this theory, and I look forward to feedback concerning it - including it's potential flaws (which there are, as with every theory). Until then, I bid you farewell.

Images retrieved from:

http://blog.drseymourweaver.com/dermatology-blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Happiness.jpg

http://home.windstream.net/okrebs/Ch8-10.gif

Spanking: Re-visited

Given the wide readership of my previous post entitled: Spanking and Time-Out: Is there Really a Difference? and continued discussion about this (both for the motion that spanking is the least effective form of discipline, and against) in my social circles I decided to re-visit the topic.

This time I'm going to address a number of things.

1. I'm going to address the sort of 'slogan' of "I was spanked and I turned out fine" in terms of what that piece of anecdotal evidence really means in this context.

2. I'm going to bring into light further recent research (after 2000, and especially within the past few years) that deals with the topic of spanking and any long-term effects it might have on you.

3. I'm going to focus for the most part on spanking rather than other forms of discipline this time, as opposed to my previous post that dealt in equal weight with a number of disciplinary methods that parents incorporate.

As a fore-warning I'd like to say that, try as I might, I couldn't find much in the way of (outright, discernible) positive effects of spanking on children in the long-term. I looked through a number of databases, search engines, and textbooks and wasn't able to locate even a few (if you've had better luck, please refer them here). Call it a research bias (or that there actually aren't any positive effects), I don't know. But what I have to do is report on what I could find. That'll come soon.

Here we go.

Concerning the so-called 'slogan' that I've identified in the first point, I'd like to say a few things.

First, when we're saying that "I've been smacked and I turned out OK" we're really using our own sense of insight. This is called anecdotal evidence, and it can only be applied to your own experience, given the situation you find yourself in, along with a plethora of other possible factors. 

You have no way of knowing how you could've turned out if your parents used a different disciplinary method rather than spanking. How can you know you wouldn't have benefited in a number of other ways were your parents to try something different?

Also, using that 'slogan' is using it relatively. It's saying that given the way you look at other people you turned out 'fine' so that's okay. That's a relative claim, and if you were to ask a number of other people how they perceive you and how you present to them given your behaviours and such, they might give you vastly conflicting stories.

Finally, I think you have to ask yourself, "Am I the way I am ['good'] because I was spanked, or is it despite being spanked?" That's an important question. It relates to what I said before about your limited knowledge of how you could've turned out. You only know how you are now, and that's given a variety of different factors. You can't possibly know other ways you might've benefited were your parents to incorporate a style of discipline that wasn't so confronting.

Second, I'll premise this section by saying that all research must be taken with a critical eye. You'd do well to exercise caution when you're interpreting results of whatever study you're interested in. What you need to be aware of is that all research is based on averages. What do I mean by that? Well, there are always going to be a scattering of results when you study a phenomena. Some of those results are removed because they're so far from the number of standard deviations from the average that they'd skew the results (i.e. make them worth about as much as a half-burnt hundred dollar note).

The results are then tested for significance. That is, do they represent reliable statistical significance for what the study's about? They then report on these results and whether they support what their contention was (i.e. hypothesis) or not. 

Finally, I'd like to say that you have to be a little aware of the entire research body when you're dissecting a certain study you're after. If it's one study that's not a peer-reviewed article (i.e. not analysed by others in the discipline) and stands against what the rest of the body of research says, I'd be a little critical of that. There might be a reason it's like that.

The two-minute video below is great for understanding how to interpret research when there are so many conflicting studies.

Now, to begin discussing relevant research!

Beginning the discussion I thought I'd discuss a number of ways that mothers (as a lot of the research I found does focus on mothers' disciplinary practices) discipline their children. 

One study discussed the use of reasoning, denying privileges (i.e. taking things away), yelling, and spanking and their effects on a child's externalising behaviours (i.e. where the child aims their negative energy outwards, towards other kids, objects, parents, and so on). It found that in a multicultural sample of participants (African American and European American) the most common methods of discipline seemed to be starting with reasoning, then yelling, then denying privileges, and least of all spanking (Lansford, Wager, Bates, Dodge, & Pettit, 2012). 

For children in Kindergarten to grade 3 it didn't matter which disciplinary method was used, they still tended to show teacher-reported externalising behaviours. With children in grade 4 however only spanking showed an increase in externalising behaviours. 

In this study, it seems that yelling was almost as detrimental to the child's behaviour as spanking was - probably the reason UNICEF (2009) described yelling as a harsh form of punishment in itself. Denying privileges also seemed to provide evidence of higher externalising behaviours (although, if a mother enforced the denial rather than being quite lax with it, the punished behaviour seemed to be less likely to be repeated).

Another study also discussed externalising behaviours in children from a number of cultural backgrounds (i.e. White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian), but did so with a long-term (longitudinal) focus in mind. 

This study found that the earlier in life the child was spanked the more predicted increase in externalising behaviours in the long run across all ethnic groups (this was evident with a sample of over 11,000 families; Gershoff, Lansford, Sexton, Davis-Kean, & Sameroff, 2012). They also brought to light discussion of a large body of research that they were building on which described the higher rates of aggressive and antisocial behaviours when physical punishment was used on children (Gershoff, 2002).

Okay, so what does the research say about spanking and child development during the first five years? Researchers found that spanking at age one carried with it higher externalising behaviour at age three. And spanking at age three carried with it a higher amount of externalising and internalising behaviour at age five (Maguire-Jack, Gromoske, & Berger, 2012)!

According to Rizzo (2002) spanking is often used because of its simplicity and stems from the parents frustration rather than it being the "wisest choice for the child" (p. 88). That said, it seems very intuitive that most people spank because the child's done something that triggers frustration in the parent. The best way to vent that frustration is to direct it to the child. You're not usually thinking of whether it's going to get the child to behave in the long run, but rather - I'd argue - to give yourself an outlet to rid yourself of your negative emotions.

Looking at another study that reviewed the long-term negative (I guess because positive effects are hard to come by) effects of spanking on children it was found was there actually weren't many (Ferguson, 2013)! Seems like there's mixed results. Externalising, internalising (taking negative energy inwards - a predictor for depression in many people) and low cognitive performance were looked at only to see that in the long run negative effects were trivial. One of the highlights of the study was that 

Spanking has not only few benefits, but also fewer consequences than often assumed. (Ferguson, 2013; italics mine)

What's that meant to suggest? Well, exactly what it says! Although you can't see almost any benefit in spanking, you'll see even less negative consequences.

Let's take another study which looked at a massive amount of published research (a meta-analysis of 70 studies over 40 years involving close to 48,000 people) to see the effects spanking has on children. What was found were very small negative behavioural and emotional outcomes of spanking on those spanked. It was also seen that there was almost no negative effect on cognition when a child is spanked (Paolucci, & Violato, 2004).

Finally, here's the big question (I think): Does your good relationship with your child moderate the negative effects of spanking? In other words, if you're close with your child and do spank them on occasion, is your good relationship enough to counterbalance the later negative effects?

Let's see...

It was found (in a study with over 3,200 mothers) that when a mother spanked her child at age one they were more likely to show increased aggression at age three; and when spanked at age three there was higher aggression at age five (Lee, Altschul, & Gershoff, 2013). Over time, the warmth of the mother (maternal warmth - their good relationship with the child) regarding the child did not counteract the negative consequences of spanking. 

So whether or not, this study shows, the mother shows warmth towards the child, there still isn't any significant difference between when the mother shows no warmth at all. Interesting results!

I could bring to light further research that backs the points that've been made thus far, but that'll make this post much longer than it really needs to be. i think the research speaks for itself, and I'll start closing now.

Let's wrap up.

So what can we learn given this little exposé on the consequences of spanking on young children for the long run? 

1. I think we can see that there's a large body of research that shows us the negative consequences of spanking in terms of its negative effects towards increased aggression in children, and increased externalising and internalising behaviours.

2. Although there's a large body of research supporting the negative effects of spanking on kids, there's also mixed-results in terms of longitudinal research as to the actual proposed deficits of spanking of kids' behaviour in the long run.

3. No research, whether it's for or against the notion, attempts to show any positive effects of spanking for kids in the long run.

4. Using the 'slogan' "I was spanked and I turned out fine" isn'e really helpful given anybody can use their own anecdotal evidence to counter what you're saying. I think empirical research will speak truer than any anecdote could.

I'd like to close by taking psychologist Kelly McDonigal's (the lady in the video I put up) advice as to the interpretation of research. We're inclined to look critically at the research we read (including the research I've presented) and see how this applies to our situation. We got to keep in mind that research is based on averages, and you could be an outlier - someone that stands outside the average. We also have to trust our own situation and process of discipline, and use research to supplement that. If what you're doing is working extremely well, this post isn't to dissuade that!

I thank you for your time!

References

Ferguson, C. J. (2013). Spanking, corporal punishment and negative long-term outcomes: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(1), 196-208.

Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 539-579.

Gershoff, E. T., Lansford, J. E., Sexton, H. R., Davis-Kean, P., & Sameroff, A. J. (2012). Longitudinal links between spanking and children's externalising behaviors in a national sample of White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian American families. Child Development, 83(3), 838-843.

Lansford, J. E., Wager, L. B., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S. (2012). Parental reasoning, denying privileges, yelling, and spanking: Ethnic differences and associations with child externalizing behavior. Parenting: Science and Practice, 12, 45-56.

Lee, S. J., Altschul, I., & Gershoff, E. T. (2013). Does warmth moderate longitudinal associations between maternal spanking and child aggression in early childhood? Developmental Psychology, 49(11), 2017-2028.

Maguire-Jack, K., Gromoske, A. N., & Berger, L. M. (2012). Spanking and child development during the first 5 years of life. Child Development, 83(6) 1960-1977.

Paolucci, E. O., & Violato, C. (2004). A meta-analysis of the published research on the affective, cognitive, and behavioural effects of corporal punishment. The Journal of Psychology, 138(3), 197-221.

Rizzo, C. P. (2002). Counterpoint. Clinical Pediatrics, 41(2), 88-91.

UNICEF. (2009). Progress for children: A report card on child protection. New York, NY: Author.

Images retrieved from:

http://readingcraze.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/research-designs.png

http://transenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/slogan-creation-logo-idea-advertising.jpg

http://peggyomara.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/mom-and-toddler-2.jpg

http://abcnewsradioonline.com/storage/news-images/87730163.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1341292568056

http://images.essentialkids.com.au/2013/10/09/4814902/modernfamilywide-620x349.jpg