[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Intergenerational Transmission -- smoking analogy
I extend Murray Straus's smoking analogy one step further, and tell
students that many people who smoke are subject to ills less severe and
obvious than cancer--they may have a greater likelihood of asthma,
weakened heart, less ability to run quickly, bad breath, and increase
the likelihood that those who are dear to them will suffer from
respiratory ills. This can be likened to corporal punishment. Most
people will not have the most severe types of harm, but may suffer from
lesser harms (perhaps weakened bonds with their
parents/children/partners, mild mood disorders, impeded ability to
resolve conflicts etc.) and not know the corporal punishment could be a
contributing factor. Students USUALLy (not always) end up agreeing with
me that it's not worth the risk.
Lisa Fontes
Murray Straus wrote
> Sharon:
>
> I have the same problem in relation to the harmful effects of spanking, but
> it is even more difficulty because almost every one has been spanked and it
> therefore contradicts their personal experience. Almost everyone can say
> (and most do say) "I was spanked and I'm ok." I try to deal with this by
> first introducing the concept of "risk factor" in the sense of an event,
> experience, or characteristic that increases the risk or probability of a
> noxious result, rather than being a one-to-one cause. Then I present data
> on smoking as risk factor. I use smoking because almost everyone now
> believes that smoking is harmful (this would not have worked a generation
> ago). I present evidence showing, for example, that 1 out of 3 heavy
> smokers die of lung cancer or some other smoking related disease.
> Students agree that this is a high death rate. Then I point out that the
> same statistic means that 2 out of 3 heavy smokers do not die from it. So
> most heavy smokers can say "I smoked all my life, and I'm ok," which is the
> same as "I was spanked and I'm ok." Both are factually correct
> statements, but the implication that therefore smoking or spanking is ok
> not correct. The correct implication is that they are the lucky ones; or
> that they have the "disease" and do not know it; or they have the disease,
> but do not realize that it was caused by smoking or spanking (as used to be
> the case with lung cancer). This has to be followed up by a discussion of
> why not everyone exposed to a disease (physical or social) vector, comes
> down with that disease, including examples they already know about but did
> not realize the underlying principles, ranging from the common cold to
> babies born to HIV infected mothers who do not have HIV.
>
> Murray A. Straus, Professor of Sociology
> & Co-Director, Family Research Laboratory
> University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824
> Phone: 603 862-2594 Fax: 603 862-1122
> E-mail MAS2@CHRISTA.UNH.EDU
>
> See the Family Research Laboratory web site http://www.unh.edu/frl
> for bibliography of books and papers by members of the lab, conference
> announcements, and information about the lab faculty and research program.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sharon Carnahan <Carnahan@Rollins.Edu>
> To: Child Maltreatment Researchers
> <CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>
> Date: Monday, April 05, 1999 10:50 AM
> Subject: Intergenerational Transmission -- Not
>
> >I am lecturing this week in Developmental Psychology class about child
> >abuse. I am having trouble getting the concept of intergenerational
> >trasmission across to my class. They can't seem to get the idea that
> >while many adults who abuse children were themselves abused, many abused
> >children grow up to be successful parents without abusing their
> >children.
> >
> >Can anyone recommend an effective tool, set of questions, classroom or
> >workshop exercise, or concise set of numbers, to help my students get
> >this?
> >
> >(Not sure all that many of us professionals get it either, come to think
> >of it!)
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >Sharon Carnahan, Ph.D.
> >Rollins College