Pro-Spanking Study

[K. A. Pital]

Someone mentioned Tiger moms here? I am sorry for only bringing an anecdote, but I met a guy whose life was literally wrecked by that type of parenting. He even wrote a book about that. And I must say, he was a damn fine guy with an enormous potential. He mastered Russian language as a mere hobby to a level which usually requires foreigners, especially Americans, waste years of their life on hard studies.

So I couldn't imagine just how such a talented person's life was such an utter wreck, but he informed me and Anya about some aspects of his childhood, and that was... enlightening.

Now, the traditional Russian upbringing includes spanking obviously, but "Tiger Moms" with lots of forbidding rules and crushing children's self-esteem are not anywhere close to the Russian culture and seem completely alien to me. I'm not even sure how such a parenting technique could produce beneficial results unless the psychology of the child was simply strong enough to withstand the relentless pressure.

I think corporal punishment is a secondary issue. You can denigrate your child in many ways without spanking it, and you can use corporal punishment very sparingly - once or twice in life, as it was the case with me and most of my classmates who grew up to be normal people. Those in my circle who were abused by parents ended up becoming criminals and drug addicts, more often than not, but out of 100% who were spanked, only a few - maybe 5% - were routinely and sadistically abused. One of those I knew was abused even managed to grow up a decent human being, though others were not as lucky.

[Serafina]

Keep in mind that being screwed up doesn't necessarily mean being unsuccessful. There are plenty of people with successful jobs and apparently happy families, but well-hidden traumas, neuroses and other psychological conditions. As long as everything goes fair no one on the outside will notice. Which doesn't mean that they are personally happy or will manage to handle a personal crisis as well as a well-adjusted person.

[K. A. Pital]

Keep in mind that being screwed up doesn't necessarily mean being unsuccessful. There are plenty of people with successful jobs and apparently happy families, but well-hidden traumas, neuroses and other psychological conditions. As long as everything goes fair no one on the outside will notice. Which doesn't mean that they are personally happy or will manage to handle a personal crisis as well as a well-adjusted person.

I know. I just remembered my friend when people mentioned Asian parenting styles and "Tiger Moms", his talents should have made him a successful skilled professional (and he was quite talkative too, so his traumas wouldn't be noticeable to HR people). But he was so crushed by his mother that he couldn't find his own worth at all.

The person who mastered Russian language as a hobby in a few weeks told me he was trying to enlist to the Army to have at least some occupation. I was shocked, to say the least.

[Serafina]

The person who mastered Russian language as a hobby in a few weeks told me he was trying to enlist to the Army to have at least some occupation. I was shocked, to say the least.

Why? Such people are a traditional source of talented people for the military. More independent people usually have no incentive to join in the first place, and the abused (and thus nonindependent) ones are easy to shape and command and thus perfect for the military.

And yes, i qualify any form of spanking as abuse. It might be mild abuse if done in a mild manner, but it's abuse nonetheless.


The reason for a ban of spanking is quite simple: Not doing so is an enabler. Too much violence might still be banned, but if spanking is allowed it would be much harder to detect. If it is banned, any injury or bruise is an indicator that something is wrong - if it is not it can be written off as a normal result of "proper discipline".

[K. A. Pital]

Injuries can't result from proper discipline anyway. If it comes to injuries which clearly came about in a non-natural way (no "falling off the stairs" excuse can work), the child service usually takes the child away no matter how the parents might explain it. And at the same time, spanking is legal here in Russia. I don't see how spanking enables an excuse for injuries like tears, bruises etc. It never excuses anything, at least in the courts here.

Not sure what's the situation in America, but "these bruises resulted from me spanking child properly" seem to be an incredible excuse which nobody should take seriously at all.

Such people are a traditional source of talented people for the military.

I didn't know about him being abused at that time, hence the surprise. Also, in the end of the sad story - the military turned him down. The same military which is hungry for warm bodies and qualified people turned down a person who can learn languages effectively by snapping fingers (well, not like that, but by listening 2-3 times and then writing it down in a little notebook). Heh.

I never heard about that Tiger Mom thing before I met him, but then I looked over it and, well, that's crazy. And some of them don't use spanking at all, but abuse children horribly. Abuse does not need a physical channel, not necessarily.

[Dooey Jo]

Nothing wrong with hitting children. But you can't hit adults because they are very fragile and might die. BTW, if you still cling to this absurdity of a notion, you should try to go smack yourself and see if you learn to be any smarter. They used to do it in schools you know, but I guess it's bad when teachers do it, because they're not the child's supposed guardians. For fuck's sake, it's not controversial that you shouldn't even hit dogs for such purposes. No no, but let me guess: People aren't dogs; they're monkeys, so it's okay. Science, fuck yeah! Proving what we always knew in our guts to be true, and if it doesn't it's probably some soft shit-science that can be ignored anyway. Like that psychology bullshit showing hit monkeys get all fucked up.

The lengths pseudo-intellectuals will go to, to justify their reactionary views.

Oh, and I don't know how fucking daft conservative daft you'd have to be to think that a ban on spanking is the only relevant societal change that has happened in Sweden since the early '80s. 1994, after a huge economic crisis and massive cuts to the educational systems making the youths feel fucked over by the government, saw more juvenile crime than '84? Must be because their parents could go to jail if they spanked their children! Surely my views cannot be coloured by my massively conservative society.

And if someone intends to reply to this by saying that "spanking isn't hitting", save yourself the keystrokes and just say "DERRRP", because you sure as fuck wouldn't be saying that if it were between adults. It's so fucking obvious that this whole business is nothing more than the last remnant of an idea that said that adults should have the right to beat up kids, and men to beat up women, and more powerful men to beat up less powerful men. Get over it, you idiots.

[Simon_Jester]

Not sure what's the situation in America, but "these bruises resulted from me spanking child properly" seem to be an incredible excuse which nobody should take seriously at all.

I've never heard of it being used as a defense, but that proves nothing.

Such people are a traditional source of talented people for the military.

I didn't know about him being abused at that time, hence the surprise. Also, in the end of the sad story - the military turned him down. The same military which is hungry for warm bodies and qualified people turned down a person who can learn languages effectively by snapping fingers (well, not like that, but by listening 2-3 times and then writing it down in a little notebook). Heh.

I never heard about that Tiger Mom thing before I met him, but then I looked over it and, well, that's crazy. And some of them don't use spanking at all, but abuse children horribly. Abuse does not need a physical channel, not necessarily.

Like almost any other kind of parenting it occupies a sliding scale. "Tiger Mom" can mean a psychotic, abusive bitch who breaks her children, or "Tiger Mom" can mean someone who puts intense but carefully measured pressure on her children to succeed, and induces such success.

Speaking for myself, I could probably have done with more pressure than I got as a child. But my parents were very, very far from tigers.

What bugs me about this whole discussion, and similar discussions about childrearing, is that it seems very difficult to come up with prescriptive descriptions of parenting: "do this, don't do that, do this, don't do that." I get the feeling that if we could work out a test for parenting methods, it would take the form: "Add X points to your score if you do this, subtract Y points if you do that, add Z points if you do the other thing..." until eventually you get to a bottom line that reads "if you have accumulated more than ??? points, your child grows up sane, more than ?? and they grow up merely mildly neurotic, less than ? and they're a complete wreck."

If parenting had to be done perfectly to get a functioning adult out the other end it wouldn't even be possible to do it at all, which confuses the question of which techniques work and when. Something that works for one person at one time may fail horribly when used differently by another person at another time.

I simply don't know whether spanking is a "never works right" thing or a "works in certain conditions if applied according to strict and limited conditions, and otherwise never works" thing. And I think it would be very hard to answer that question.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I save corporal punishment for direct, observed, recent transgressions.

This is the only reason why what you are doing might actually work. Physical negative reinforcement only works--the association between action and pain is only made--when it is done immediately, and even then it is less effective than the more nuanced approach you said you use when he does something nasty at school.

This has been shown in study after study with everything from lab rats to humans.

[Starglider]

For fuck's sake, it's not controversial that you shouldn't even hit dogs for such purposes. No no, but let me guess: People aren't dogs; they're monkeys, so it's okay.

Dog psychology doesn't react well to hitting because it isn't something dogs naturally do, plus dogs are faster than humans and a dog's natural reaction to being whacked is just to run away. Discipline from older to younger dogs consists of growling, aggressive stares, nipping, grabbing and holding (with the mouth) and mounting. When dealing with exceptionally bad behavior from dogs, humans can cheat and do things like pick up the dog and force it into a submissive rolled-over posture. Done correctly this bypasses the decision of the dog whether to submitt or not entirely.

Unfortunately there is no direct equivalent for human children, and if there was I am sure it would be hated by the tabula rasa 'biology is irrelevant, everything can be fixed with positive thinking' crowd.

if it doesn't it's probably some soft shit-science that can be ignored anyway.

If you don't want to be classed as psuedo-science, explain why pain exists as a neurological mechanism if all it does is scar people and 'mess them up for life', and why evolution kept physical punishment as a default parenting behavior throughout essentially the entire mammalian existence on earth.

[Formless]

If you don't want to be classed as psuedo-science, explain why pain exists as a neurological mechanism if all it does is scar people and 'mess them up for life', and why evolution kept physical punishment as a default parenting behavior throughout essentially the entire mammalian existence on earth.

Because evolution =! an intelligent designer, shithead. I mean, seriously Starglider?

Also, show that physical punishment is the default parenting behavior in nature, please.

[ArmorPierce]

If you don't want to be classed as psuedo-science, explain why pain exists as a neurological mechanism if all it does is scar people and 'mess them up for life', and why evolution kept physical punishment as a default parenting behavior throughout essentially the entire mammalian existence on earth.

Because evolution =! an intelligent designer, shithead. I mean, seriously Starglider?

Also, show that physical punishment is the default parenting behavior in nature, please.

What do you mean? Plenty of animals do it. That makes it by definition natural. It's even done cross species http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoUPvylEfN8

[Formless]

If you don't want to be classed as psuedo-science, explain why pain exists as a neurological mechanism if all it does is scar people and 'mess them up for life', and why evolution kept physical punishment as a default parenting behavior throughout essentially the entire mammalian existence on earth.

Because evolution =! an intelligent designer, shithead. I mean, seriously Starglider?

Also, show that physical punishment is the default parenting behavior in nature, please.

What do you mean? Plenty of animals do it. That makes it by definition natural. It's even done cross species http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoUPvylEfN8

Not good enough evidence. Seriously, your word + a video of a cat getting pissed off at an unrelated puppy that was biting its ear? If you're going to spam, at least make the spam funny like, say, a LOLcat.

[ArmorPierce]

It's not a spam dumbass. It's showing a behavior that cross species lines. If you want same species http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF2KAmDOJFs Occuring at :22

Yes it's an accepted fact that mother mammals will often use corporal punishment

Now to the nipping towards the puppy. Usually, mothers engage in this behavior to correct a puppy. Normally, this type of correction is directed towards boisterous puppies that nip or engages in other unruly behaviors.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Canine-Behav ... ng-pup.htm

It occurring in nature is the definition of natural, are you going to really try to argue that?

[Formless]

Actually, that originally read "go away, you simpleton. You're not even worth mocking" before I changed it to be more flippant. But frankly I stand by that statement. Another youtube video? Don't even fucking bother putting those into your posts, they betray your laziness towards evidence. Evidence would be systematic studies, statistics, and so on. A youtube video of an animal biting at another gives me no context, no way of interpreting that behavior because for all I know they are playing or being retributive for past transgressions or some shit.

The "allexperts" article is far better, and if you knew what you were doing you would have posted that in the first place. Although:

Now to the nipping towards the puppy. Usually, mothers engage in this behavior to correct a puppy. Normally, this type of correction is directed towards boisterous puppies that nip or engages in other unruly behaviors. It is the way a mother tells the puppy how to behave and their place in the pack. Turning a puppy on to the back, is the way mothers force the pups into submission. If you notice, very submissive dogs turn their belly's up. At eight weeks a mother dog may discipline puppies because she no longer may want to nurse and wants to be left alone. This link provides a list of how mother dogs normally discipline puppies:

Just a reminder that evidence among primates would be far more relevant in this kind of discussion. Consider for a moment the difference in parenting needs between an animal that gives birth to a whole litter nearly every time and one that usually gives birth to single babies and occasional twins, and you might understand.

Edit; also, the claim was that it was the default parenting method in nature, which is a bit more generalized claim than "some animals do it". So you still haven't actually demonstrated what I asked Starglider to show.

[Hamstray]

What do you mean? Plenty of animals do it. That makes it by definition natural. It's even done cross species http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoUPvylEfN8

I fail to see how snapping someones neck amounts to any definition of parenting.

[K. A. Pital]

Just a reminder that evidence among primates would be far more relevant in this kind of discussion.

Wasn't physical reprimand evidence among chimpanzees posted in the very first page of this thread?

[Formless]

The quote was more complicated than just that, though. For starters, it was primarily about how chimps treat their infants by giving them lots of attention rather than reprimanding them at all (by contrast, I've heard of parents who spank their kids from as young as 2). Second of all, it said that young chimps that do get bites for bad behavior are also shown immediately afterwards shows of affection (hugs) from the parental figure punishing them. Again, by contrast whenever I was punished no such luck-- at least not until after a few minutes of time out in addition to the spanking. The passage (if you clicked the link) was about secure attachment, a known aspect of good parenting... and also not something your average spanking advocate appears to have among their goals. Its very easy to present a passage like that one out of context, which were I to be pointed I think Akhlut was doing. He may not even know he was doing it.

[K. A. Pital]

The quote was more complicated than just that, though.

I know. I merely noted that there is a practice of physical reprimands, even if it is not considered to be abusive. Part of the problem is that you heard of parents who spank kids at the age of 2, whereas I only heard of people spanking them after 4-5 yo and maybe once or twice per life. Which group is representative? Which are a deviation? There's no clear statistical data on this, and it would be notoriously hard to collect that type of data with any reliability.

[Formless]

Ghetto edit: when I say that I think Akhlut was presenting that quote out of context, understand that "Jane" was a field researcher and "Grub" was the nickname of her son Hugo. That's kind of an important detail.

[Covenant]

There are more important things than obedience. I don't understand the obsession with obedience, but it was never a thing in my house, so none of my brothers ever bothered being 'disobedient' in the first place. We beat the crap out of each other for a while, which was a bit lousy, but we grew out of it and are fully functional individuals with a really close relationship.

That's just anecdote, but I don't think violence would have solved anything but to stir the pot, and I really don't understand what role obedience really serves nine times out of ten. If you're too young to be reasoned with then it's not like they're acting reasonably anyway, so the parent shouldn't take it as an affront that this little annoyed child is throwing a fit.

I'd never tell someone how to raise their kids, but if my parents had ever told me I was being disobedient, I would have burst out laughing. I was anything but a push-over either, stubborn is my core defining personality trait. But since I was never beaten into submission it never felt like being helpful was a duty I'd like to avoid. Somehow I have to imagine that making it coerced would have horribly impacted my relationship with my parents because of it.

[Spoonist]

So lets recap since it seems people don't get it.

In the 60s and 70s child psychologists in the US noticed that parents who mostly gave their kids corrective feedback and enforced strict rules were over represented in cases where children had oppositional or antisocial behavioral patterns. While the opposite was true if the parents gave positive reinforcement of when the children behaved correctly.
To test if this was simply a lack of parental skills, they set up a program where a psychologist taught the parents positive reinforcement and how to make a more objective evaluation of the childs negative behavior to reduce parent-child conflict.
Turned out that it worked better than the control group where the psychologists met the children instead.
So it showed that it was more effective to train parents to give more positive feedback than corrective feedback, compared to treating the kids directly. Ergo lots of kids antisocial behavior is parental skill related where corrective>positive=bad. Note that positive only does not work, only more positive than corrective.
This started a trend of "evidenced-based treatment" where one would use double-blind testing to evaluate different methodologies.
This became a small revolution in child psychology during the 80s.
At the base of the revolution was the simple lesson that statistically parents with well behaved kids focused on reinforcing what the kids do right, while parents with antisocial kids focused on reinforcing what the kids do wrong. In moderation of course, don't overdo it.
(As a sidenote it turns out that it works in management as well, rewarding good employee behavior gives better results that correcting bad employee behavior. Hence employee of the month stuff at McD etc. Its basic psychology really but people tend to ignore that when it comes to children.)

By the end of the 80s researchers tried to get governements in US and europe interested in setting up parental classes with this simple lesson. It failed.
However there was an interest for diagnosed and troubled kids getting help and there existed grants and budgets etc for this.
So PMT (Parent Management Training) was created. It focuses on where the money is so autism, downs, ADHD, ODD, etc is of course over represented. Since it turned out that there was money in this there are lots of institutes and research devoted for this among others:
http://www.yale.edu/yaleparentingcenter/index.html
http://www.oslc.org/
http://www.activeparenting.com/
http://www.incredibleyears.com/
http://www.strengtheningpractice.org.uk/
Some are better than others, some are just in it to maximize profit.

This of course works equally well in Sweden, without anglo-saxon heritage and spanking culture
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9410000882
while in Sweden we downplay "timeouts" since its not in line with our childrens ethics (and research). Also because most parents

do timeouts wrong.

So why the tangent you ask?
Because all the anecdotes about "I got slapped and I turned out OK" are not asking the crucial question, "did slapping have anything to do with me turning out OK". Statistically, No. Instead its more likely that you turned out OK because of how your parents encouraged what you did right and not how they punished what you did wrong.
Followed by the next question "would it have been better if my parents used a different method than slapping". Statistically Yes. Parents who have recieved parental skills training use less spanking and timeouts while at the same time getting better cooperation from and less conflicts with their kids.
Especially so if you were a troubled child.

Here are some articles and papers from the last decade:
What is EBP http://www.oadd.org/publications/journa ... _perry.pdf
http://pages.uoregon.edu/cfc/classes/CP ... oblems.pdf
http://www.pitt.edu/ppcl/Publications/e ... mitted.pdf
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releas ... 284539.pdf
http://www.phoenixchildrens.com/PDFs/pr ... ipline.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 3406002250
http://www.mendeley.com/research/physic ... disorders/
http://www.mendeley.com/research/mother ... -children/

Here is a good summary
http://www.phoenixchildrens.com/PDFs/pr ... ipline.pdf

[Spoonist]

OK, going for the posts in reverse order here, if someone feels left out or feels that I missed their point, please point it out to me and I'll try to adress it tomorrow.

@ AssholePierce
You dimwit. Primates engage in tribal warfare, rape, theft, poo-flinging, etc so while all of them being "natural" we as a civilazation thinks they are socially unacceptable. But that doesn't matter because how animals behave doesn't dictate anything about how we humans should. We have created something better than what primates have, called civilization, in it we make up rules as we go along to maximize prosperity. Guess how much of that is copying other primates behavior because its "natural".
Top that with language giving us humans a better tool than whatever the mammals use for socializing. Proving that yours and Goodall's comparison is nonsequential. In Goodall's defence its in line with her "they are like us" stuff meant to save the primates from extinction.
You however have no such defence.

why evolution kept physical punishment as a default parenting behavior throughout essentially the entire mammalian existence on earth.

It isn't. Default mammal parenting behavior is lots of love, encouragement and showing what to do. Compare the amount of snuggle time mammal offspring gets vs how much physical punishment, you might be suprised. Looking at primates, their offspring gets lots of attention not only from their parents but the whole pack, plus they get away with lots of things that a human parent wouldn't tolerate.
Plus in relation to evolution it too leaves lots of "good enough" stuff, if it doesn't kill you its in the package you know... That doesn't mean its optimal nor socially correct in the context of human civilizatin.

I simply don't know whether spanking is a "never works right" thing or a "works in certain conditions if applied according to strict and limited conditions, and otherwise never works" thing. And I think it would be very hard to answer that question.

Spanking works for immediate compliance. If the parent is strapped for time/effort/intelligence it works better than not correcting at all.
Parental depression for instance is one of the highest contributors for maladjusted kids. This because the parent statistically gives the child less overall reinforcement, even negative reinforcement is better than that.
When it comes to substance abjuse, its the same, drugs that makes the parent ignore the child is statistically worse than those that make the parent overly aggressive. (Unfortunately statistics isn't helpful if you are on the end of the scale and you get seriously abused).
Same again for the handicapped parents, its better with a strange behaving parent that tries than a parent that doesn't care.

Injuries can't result from proper discipline anyway. If it comes to injuries which clearly came about in a non-natural way (no "falling off the stairs" excuse can work), the child service usually takes the child away no matter how the parents might explain it. And at the same time, spanking is legal here in Russia. I don't see how spanking enables an excuse for injuries like tears, bruises etc. It never excuses anything, at least in the courts here.

Not sure what's the situation in America, but "these bruises resulted from me spanking child properly" seem to be an incredible excuse which nobody should take seriously at all.

I wish this was true, unfortunately it isn't. Meta studies show that serious child abuse correlates to spanking %.
One of the contributing factors is that people don't report their neighbours because they don't know how bad it is. Another that abused kids make excuses for their parents, while in countries with a ban the information to the kid helps them overcome this to report earlier.

@Dave
Wasn't directed at you.

Could we stop with the useless personal anecdotes?
Especially since they are based on flawed reasoning.

Haven't been using them.

??? Uhm, I didn't say that you did?? I thought it was obvious that I had one post which was quoting you, then another post directed at others with the comment you quote? I find you responding to that as very weird.

Its the same flawed reasoning that the religious use when they say they are more moral than unbelievers.

What is genuinely not clear to me is what the effects of spanking are when used in a restricted fashion... by people who are holding it in reserve for the most extreme cases of bad behavior, under circumstances where it's impossible to explain what's wrong or a literal matter of life and death that they stop doing whatever they're doing.

Your question seems strange. You are missing something key here. In child psychology the most effecient preventative action a parent can do is be scared. If the child sees that the parent is genuinly afraid of something then that will stick out clearly in their mind. If the kid goes for the stove and mom screams, pulls it away and starts crying out of fear, that child will definately think twice about going there again.
Take pathological fobies for instance, they are directly socially inheritable. If the mom is terrified of spiders then its more than likely that daughters and still likely but less so sons will be afraid of spiders as well. If the parent in their panick spanks the child has almost nil significance. Its the fear that is key.

If its a matter of life and death or they need to stop - drag them away immediately, hold them - hard if necessary, it gives you much more control over the situation and your own reaction will be much more visible to the child. Grab, go away, put down and talk it out. Much more effecient.


Please, give an explicit example of a situation which you are refering to and I could go into details if you wish. However where striking works is if there are too much to do, too many of them or your other actions won't let you grab them.


I'm not saying that violence never works, I'm just saying that there are usually other methods in each given situation that is more effective. Violence however is a generic response so people tend to go for that when they don't know what to do. Training specifically targets this, whether it be parenting, military, police, school or whatever.

If the conjecture of your anecdotes were correct then how come the US has higher rates of teenage pregnancies, teen violence, teen crime, teen gangs etc than most other similarly rich nations?

Because it has higher poverty rates, inferior social programs to deal with those poverty rates, a massive drug and incarceration problem among communities affected by those poverty rates...?

With the odds that stacked against the US, I'd expect higher rates of teen pregnancy, teen violence, and teen gangs whether spanking was practiced in the US or not.

If you had read/quoted the whole passage you would have seen that I wrote "Guess what, spanking isn't statistically as effective as you imply. Instead its all those other factors that make a bigger impact."
For you to name such factors is a dissapointing response. It just shows failed communication.
To be extra clear if need be; spanking does not affect any of those significally enough statistically, nor does non-spanking, which was the point I've been repeating over and over again. Non-spanking is at least as effecient as spanking, pointing out violence stats does not prove a thing unless you can correlate it.
For people to say that spanking worked for me they are missing all of those cases where spanking didn't, or worse where it directly led to bad stuff.

Now wait just a minute here...

See above response to simon.

[K. A. Pital]

If the child sees that the parent is genuinly afraid of something then that will stick out clearly in their mind. If the kid goes for the stove and mom screams, pulls it away and starts crying out of fear, that child will definately think twice about going there again.

You are seriously overestimating child brains here. I've seen (not once, not twice, but dozens of times) how a child runs out on the road before running cars, moms scream and shout (and some faint and fall), and yet the child has absolutely no sense of fear or at least fear for the mother. I have seen very little children (2-3 years old) display unexplainable sadism, simply because they don't understand that causing pain to another being is bad. The empathy children have for their parents does not universally guide their actions.

So while a pre-adolescent child would probably stop before causing harm to his parent, since he hardly understands complex things like "being hit by a car will cause me to die and my parents to experience a lot of grief", he repeats the road-running until stopped by an outside force.

This does not mean you need to spank your child, but fear of the parent does fail when the child can't understand what is the danger.

[Versac]

If the child sees that the parent is genuinly afraid of something then that will stick out clearly in their mind. If the kid goes for the stove and mom screams, pulls it away and starts crying out of fear, that child will definately think twice about going there again.

You are seriously overestimating child brains here. I've seen (not once, not twice, but dozens of times) how a child runs out on the road before running cars, moms scream and shout (and some faint and fall), and yet the child has absolutely no sense of fear or at least fear for the mother. I have seen very little children (2-3 years old) display unexplainable sadism, simply because they don't understand that causing pain to another being is bad. The empathy children have for their parents does not universally guide their actions.

So while a pre-adolescent child would probably stop before causing harm to his parent, since he hardly understands complex things like "being hit by a car will cause me to die and my parents to experience a lot of grief", he repeats the road-running until stopped by an outside force.

This does not mean you need to spank your child, but fear of the parent does fail when the child can't understand what is the danger.

Depends on the specific threat. In a series of experiments dealing with phobia development, it was shown that it is possible to teach a baby chimpanzee to be afraid of snakes by showing it spliced-together footage of its mother freaking out when it saw one. On the other hand, it is not possible to use the same technique to teach a fear of kittens; the baby chimp just won't respond in the same way.

[K. A. Pital]

Depends on the specific threat.

Sure, but you wouldn't like your child ignoring even one specific threat like a car running over him or 220 volts of electric current in the powerline. You'd want to have a universal mechanism to make it avoid threats.