小孩兒常被打屁股易變傻

       In the U.S., Straus and his colleague Mallie Paschall of the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, looked at 1,510 children — 806 kids ages 2 to 4, and 704 ages 5 to 9 — and found that roughly three-quarters had endured some kind of corporal punishment in the previous two weeks, according to interviews with the mothers. Researchers measured the children's IQ initially, then again four years later. Those kids who hadn't been spanked in the initial survey period scored significantly better on intelligence and achievement tests than those who had been hit. Among the 2-to-4-year-olds, the difference in IQ was five points; among the older kids, there was a 2.8-point gap. That association held after taking into account parental education, income and other environmental factors, says Straus.

　　在美國(guó)，斯特勞斯和他在太平洋研究所的同事邁里·帕什爾一起做過(guò)一個(gè)項(xiàng)目。這位同事是專職于調(diào)查與評(píng)估的。他們以1510個(gè)小孩為觀察對(duì)象，其中806個(gè)2到4歲；704個(gè)5到9歲。當(dāng)時(shí)，他們通過(guò)對(duì)孩子的家長(zhǎng)的采訪了解到，四分之三的孩子在2個(gè)星期內(nèi)被體罰過(guò)。他們先對(duì)孩子們的智商進(jìn)行了測(cè)試，然后4年以后進(jìn)行回訪。最后發(fā)現(xiàn)，在當(dāng)時(shí)調(diào)查期間沒(méi)有受到體罰的孩子，在智力測(cè)驗(yàn)和成就測(cè)驗(yàn)上的得分均高于受過(guò)體罰的孩子。其中2到4歲這一批里面，得分的差距是5分，而5到9歲的一批里面，差距是2.8分。斯特勞斯說(shuō)，他們?cè)谔暨x受訪人群時(shí)，是考慮了各家庭的親子教育，收入狀況和其他因素都不相同這一先設(shè)條件的。

　　So how might getting spanked on the butt actually affect the workings of the brain? Straus notes that being spanked or hit is associated with fright and stress; kids who experience that kind of trauma have a harder time focusing and learning. In another recent paper that he coauthored with Paschall, Straus writes that previous research has found that even after you control for parental education and occupation, children of parents who use corporal punishment are less likely than other kids to graduate from college.

　　那么為何打的是屁股，傷的是腦袋呢？ 斯特勞斯發(fā)現(xiàn)，體罰會(huì)使小孩受驚嚇、有壓力。有過(guò)這種創(chuàng)傷的小孩很難集中注意力和有效地學(xué)習(xí)。在他與帕士奇合著、最近發(fā)表的另一篇論文中，他提到，即使在孩子們的家庭教育情況、父母的職業(yè)都接近的情況下，相對(duì)來(lái)說(shuō)，那些受過(guò)體罰的小孩順利完成大學(xué)學(xué)業(yè)也要困難一些。

　　Still, it's not clear if spanking causes lower cognitive ability or if lower cognitive ability might somehow lead to more spanking. It's quite possible that kids with poor reasoning skills misbehave more often and therefore elicit harsher punishment. "It could be that lower IQ causes parents to get exasperated and hit more," Straus says, although he notes that a recent Duke University study of low-income families found that toddlers' low mental ability did not predict an increase in spanking. (The study did find, however, that kids who were spanked at age 1 displayed more aggressive behavior by age 2, and scored lower on cognitive development tests by age 3.) "I believe the relationship [between corporal punishment and IQ] is probably bidirectional," says Straus. "There has to be something the kid is doing that's wrong that leads to corporal punishment. The problem is, when the parent does that, it seems to have counterproductive results to cognitive ability in the long term."

　　但是有一點(diǎn)必須考慮到。我們無(wú)法確認(rèn)是受到體罰造成了智力低下，還是正因智力低下而導(dǎo)致孩子容易受到體罰。有些小孩腦袋沒(méi)那么靈光，他們可能經(jīng)常做錯(cuò)事而被罰。斯特勞斯也是承認(rèn)這一點(diǎn)的。他說(shuō)，智力低的小孩，確實(shí)容易引起父母發(fā)火，所以挨的板子要多一些。但是杜克大學(xué)最近對(duì)低收入家庭作了一項(xiàng)研究，發(fā)現(xiàn)還在蹣跚學(xué)步的兒童，是不會(huì)因?yàn)橹橇Ψ矫娴脑蚨艿綉土P的。（同時(shí)，他們偏偏又發(fā)現(xiàn)，那些1歲時(shí)被打過(guò)的小孩，2歲時(shí)會(huì)有打別人的舉動(dòng)，3歲時(shí)智力偏低。） “小孩受體罰和小孩智力變低，這兩者之間我認(rèn)為是一種惡性循環(huán)。”斯特勞斯說(shuō)， “小孩做錯(cuò)事，父母體罰他，從長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)來(lái)看，會(huì)對(duì)孩子的認(rèn)知能力造成負(fù)面的影響，而這與家長(zhǎng)體罰的初衷是相反的。”

　　One problem with Straus' data is that some of the parents who tended to spank may also have been engaging in actual physical abuse of their children. Researchers define corporal punishment as physical force intended to cause pain — but not injury — for the purpose of correcting a child's behavior, not simply hurting him. Studies have shown that very few parents who use corporal punishment also beat their kids, but Straus can't rule out the possibility that his data is confounded by the presence of child abuse, which past research has shown to affect victims' development.

　　斯特勞斯的數(shù)據(jù)也是有漏洞的：有些家長(zhǎng)在體罰孩子的時(shí)候，對(duì)孩子身體的身體造成了確確實(shí)實(shí)的傷害。而斯特勞斯他們對(duì)“體罰”的定義為：對(duì)孩子肉體的一種懲罰——在程度上，只產(chǎn)生疼痛，不造成傷害；在出發(fā)點(diǎn)上，是為修正孩子的行為，而不是為了懲罰而懲罰。雖然只有極少數(shù)家長(zhǎng)在體罰時(shí)會(huì)痛打孩子，這是有研究證明的，但是斯特勞斯無(wú)法排除這樣一種可能性：他所說(shuō)的體罰，其實(shí)包含了孩子肉體受到傷害這一類情況。而肉體受到傷害的情況，過(guò)去就已有結(jié)論，這是會(huì)影響孩子各方面的發(fā)育的。