Academic Research Challenges Spanking Critics
Hosted free by tripod.com
Or so most Americans seem to think. According to a recent Voter/Consumer Research poll commissioned by the Family Research Council, 76 percent of the more than 1,000 Americans surveyed said that spanking was an effective form of discipline in their home when they were children. These results are made all the more impressive by the fact that nearly half of those who answered otherwise grew up in homes in which they were never spanked. Taken together, more than four out of five Americans who were actually spanked by their parents as children say that it was an effective form of discipline.
In addition, Americans perceive lack of discipline to be the biggest problem in public education today, according to a recent Gallup poll. Several studies show strong public support for corporal punishment by parents.
There are several arguments commonly leveled against disciplinary spanking. Interestingly, most of these arguments can be used against other forms of discipline. Any form of discipline (time-out, restriction, etc.), when used inappropriately and in anger, can result in distorting a child's perception of justice and harming his emotional development. In light of this, let us examine some of the unfounded arguments promoted by spanking opponents.
Argument #1: Many psychological studies show that spanking is an improper form of discipline.
Counterpoint: Researchers John Lyons, Rachel Anderson and David Larson of the National Institute of Healthcare Research recently conducted a systematic review of the research literature on corporal punishment. They found that 83 percent of the 132 identified articles published in clinical and psychosocial journals were merely opinion-driven editorials, reviews or commentaries, devoid of new empirical findings. Moreover, most of the empirical studies were methodologically flawed by grouping the impact of abuse with spanking. The best studies demonstrated beneficial, not detrimental, effects of spanking in certain situations. Clearly, there is insufficient evidence to condemn parental spanking and adequate evidence to justify its proper use.
Argument #2: Physical punishment establishes the moral righteousness of hitting other persons who do something which is regarded as wrong.
Counterpoint: The "spanking teaches hitting" belief has gained in popularity over the past decade, but is not supported by objective evidence. A distinction must be made between abusive hitting and nonabusive spanking. A child's ability to discriminate hitting from disciplinary spanking depends largely upon the parents' attitude with spanking and the parents' procedure for spanking. There is no evidence in the medical literature that a mild spank to the buttocks of a disobedient child by a loving parent teaches the child aggressive behavior.
Researchers at the Center for Family Research at Iowa State University studied 332 families to examine both the impact of corporal punishment and the quality of parental involvement on three adolescent outcomes -- aggressiveness, delinquency, and psychological well-being. The researchers found a strong association between the quality of parenting and each of these three outcomes. Corporal punishment, however, was not adversely related to any of these outcomes. This study proves the point that quality of parenting is the chief determinant of favorable or unfavorable outcomes. Remarkably, childhood aggressiveness has been more closely linked to maternal permissiveness and negative criticism than to even abusive physical discipline.
It is unrealistic to expect that children would never hit others if their parents would only exclude spanking from their discipline options. Most children in their toddler years (long before they are ever spanked) naturally attempt to hit others when conflict or frustration arises. The continuation of this behavior is largely determined by how the parent or caregiver responds. If correctly disciplined, the hitting will become less frequent. If ignored or ineffectively disciplined, the hitting will likely persist and even escalate. Thus, instead of contributing to greater violence, spanking can be a useful component in an overall plan to effectively teach a child to stop aggressive hitting.
Reactive, impulsive hitting after losing control due to anger is unquestionably the wrong way for a parent to use corporal punishment. Eliminating all physical punishment in the home, however, would not remedy such explosive scenarios. It could even increase the problem. When effective spanking is removed from a parent's disciplinary repertoire, he or she is left with nagging, begging, belittling, and yelling, once the primary disciplinary measures -- such as time-out and logical consequences -- have failed. By contrast, if proper spanking is proactively used in conjunction with other disciplinary measures, better control of the particularly defiant child can be achieved, and moments of exasperation are less likely to occur.
Without the prudent use of spanking for the particularly defiant child, a parent runs the risk of being inconsistent and rationalizing the child's behavior. This inconsistent manner of parenting is confusing and harmful to the child and is damaging to the parent-child relationship. There is no evidence that proper disciplinary spanking is harmful to the child.
Argument #5: Physical punishment makes the child angry at the parent.
Counterpoint: All forms of punishment initially elicit a frustrated, angry response from a child. Progression of this anger is dependent primarily upon the parent's attitude during and after the disciplinary event, and the manner of its application. Any form of punishment administered angrily for purposes of retribution, rather than calmly for purposes of correction, can create anger and resentment in a child. Actually, a spanking can break the escalating rage of a rebellious child and more quickly restore the relationship between parent and child.
· The young child who insists on running from his parent in a busy mall or parking lot.
· The toddler who refuses to sit in his car seat.
· The young patient who refuses to hold still as a vaccination is administered, or as a laceration is repaired.
Power and control over the child are necessary at times to ensure safety, health and proper behavior. Classic child rearing studies have shown that some degree of power, assertion, and firm control is essential for optimal child rearing. When power is exerted in the context of love and for the child's benefit, the child will not perceive it as bullying or demeaning.
Corporal punishment is often defined broadly as bodily punishment of any kind. Since this definition includes spanking as well as obviously abusive acts such as kicking, punching, beating, face slapping, and even starvation, more specific definitions must be used to separate appropriate versus inappropriate corporal punishment.
Spanking is one of many disciplinary responses available to parents intended to shape appropriate behavior in the developing toddler and child. It is an adjunctive corrective measure, to be used in combination with primary responses such as restraint, natural and logical consequences, time-out, and restriction of privileges.
Child development experts believe spanking should be used mainly as a back-up to primary measures, and then independently to correct deliberate and persistent problem behavior that is not remedied with milder measures. It is most useful with toddlers and preschoolers from 18 months to 6 years of age, when reasoning is less persuasive.
Moreover, child development experts say that spanking should always be a planned action by a parent, not an impulsive reaction to misbehavior. The child should be forewarned of the spanking consequence for each of the designated problem behaviors. Spanking should always be administered in private. It should consist of one or two spanks to the child's buttocks, followed by a calm review of the offense and the desired behavior.
|The Act||Spanking: One or two
spanks to the buttocks
|Beating: To strike repeatedly
(also kick, punch, choke)
|The Intent||Training: To correct
|Violence: Physical force
intended to injure or abuse
|The Attitude||With love and concern||With anger and malice|
|The Effects||Behavioral correction||Emotional and physical injury|
Argument #7: Spanking is violence.
Counterpoint: Spanking, as recommended by most primary care physicians, is not violence by definition ("exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse"). Parents who properly spank do not injure or abuse their child.
The use of this term "violence" in the spanking debate only serves to deepen the confusion. Why do anti-spanking authors repeatedly fail to distinguish between abusive violence and mild spanking? The distinction is so fundamental and obvious that its omission suggests that these authors use such terminology for its propaganda value, not to clarify issues.
Dr. Diana Baumrind of the Institute for Human Development at the University of California-Berkeley, conducted a decade-long study of families with children 3 to 9 years old. Baumrind found that parents employing a balanced disciplinary style of firm control (including spanking) and positive encouragement experienced the most favorable outcome in their children. Parents taking extreme approaches to discipline (authoritarian-types using excessive punishment with less encouragement or permissive-types using little punishment and no spanking) were less successful.
Baumrind concluded that evidence from this study "did not indicate that negative reinforcement or corporal punishment per se were harmful or ineffective procedures, but rather the total patterns of parental control determined the effects on the child of these procedures."
This approach of balanced parenting, employing the occasional use of spanking, is advocated by several child rearing experts. In the hands of loving parents, a spanking to the buttocks of a defiant toddler in appropriate settings is a powerful motivator to correct behavior and an effective deterrent to disobedience.
Argument #9: Adults who were spanked as children are at risk for using violence as a means of resolving conflicts as adults.
Counterpoint: This theory comes from work done by Murray Straus of the Family Research Lab at the University of New Hampshire. Straus' conclusions are based upon theoretical models and survey results of adults recalling spankings as teenagers. His work is not clinical research, and many experts believe that his conclusions go far beyond his data. As with most of Straus' survey research, teenage spanking is the focus, not the selective use of spanking of young children by reasonable parents. The evidence for his conclusion disappears when parental spanking is measured between the ages of 2 and 8 years, and when childhood aggression is measured at a later age.
After a decade of longitudinal study of children beginning in third grade, Dr. Leonard Eron found no association between punishment (including spanking) and later aggression. Eron, a clinical psychologist at the Univeristy of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, concluded, "Upon follow-up 10 years after the original data collection, we found that punishment of aggressive acts at the earlier age was no longer related to current aggression, and instead, other variables like parental nurturance and children's identification with their parents were more important in predicting later aggression."
Argument #10: Spanking leads a parent to use harmful forms of corporal punishment which lead to physical child abuse.
Counterpoint: The abuse potential when loving parents use appropriate disciplinary spanking is very low. Since parents have a natural affection for their children, they are more prone to underutilize spanking than to overutilize it. Both empirical data and professional opinion oppose the concept of a causal relationship between spanking and child abuse.
Surveys indicate that 70 to 90 percent of parents of preschoolers use spanking, yet the incidence of physical child abuse in America is only about 5 percent. Statistically, the two practices are far apart.
Furthermore, over the past decade reports of child abuse have steadily risen while approval for parental spanking has steadily declined.
More than 70 percent of primary care pediatricians reject the idea that spanking sets the stage for parents to engage in forms of physical abuse.
Teaching parents appropriate spanking may actually reduce child abuse, according to Larzelere, in his 1994 review article on corporal punishment. Parents who are ill-equipped to control their child's behavior, or who take a more permissive approach (refusing to use spanking), may be more prone to anger and explosive attacks on their child.
Parental child abuse is an interactive process involving parental competence, parental and child temperaments, and situational demands. Abusive parents are more angry, depressed and impulsive, and emphasize punishment as the predominant means of discipline. Abused children are more aggressive and less compliant than children from nonabusive families. There is less interaction between family members in abusive families and abusive mothers display more negative than positive behavior. The etiology of abusive parenting is multifactorial with emphasis on the personalities involved, and cannot be simply explained by a parent's use of spanking.
In a letter to the editor in a 1995 issue of Pediatrics, Drs. Lawrence S. Wissow and Debra Roter of Johns Hopkins University's pediatrics department acknowledge that a definitive link between spanking and child abuse has yet to be established.
Finally, the Swedish experiment to reduce child abuse by banning spanking seems to be failing. In 1980, one year after this ban was adopted, the rate of child beatings was twice that of the United States. According to a 1995 report from the government organization Statistics Sweden, police reports of child abuse by family members rose four-fold from 1984 to 1994, while reports of teen violence increased nearly six-fold.
Argument #11: Spanking is never necessary.
Counterpoint: All children need a combination of encouragement and correction as they are disciplined to become socially responsible individuals. In order for correction to deter disobedient behavior, the consequence imposed upon the child must outweigh the pleasure of the disobedient act. For very compliant children, milder forms of correction will suffice and spanking may never be necessary. For more defiant children who refuse to comply with or be persuaded by milder consequences such as time-out, spanking is useful, effective, and appropriate.
· The child should be forewarned of the spanking consequence for designated problem behaviors.
· Spanking should always be administered in private (bedroom or restroom) to avoid public humiliation or embarassment.
· One or two spanks should be administered to the buttocks. This is followed by embracing the child and calmly reviewing the offense and the desired behavior in an effort to reestablish a warm relationship.
Family Policy is published six times per year by the Family Research Council. Annual subscriptions are available for $15. Contact: Family Research Council, 700 Thirteenth St., N.W., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20005. Phone: 202-393-2100. President: Gary L. Bauer; Editor: William R. Mattox, Jr.; Editorial and Production Support: Charles A. Donovan, Rosanne Dupras, Lynne Edwards, Anne Redd; Distribution: Kevin Gilliam, Steve McIntyre. Vol. 9, Number 5; Copyright: © October, 1996 by the Family Research Council. All rights reserved. FP96JPA.
Fathman, Dr. Robert E. "Corporal Punishment Fact Sheet." July 1994.
Lyons, Dr. John S., Anderson, Rachel L., and Larson, Dr. David B., memo.
Voter/Consumer Research Poll, National Values. Commissioned by the Family Research Council, 1994.
"School Poll." The Washington Times. Aug. 28, 1995, p. A-2.
Flynn, Clifton P. "Regional Differences in Attitudes Toward Corporal Punishment." Journal of Marriage and the Family. 56 (May 1994): 314-324.
Lyons, Dr. John S., Anderson, Rachel L., and Larson, Dr. David B. "The Use and Effects of Physical Punishment in the Home: A Systematic Review." Presentation to the Section on Bio-Ethics of the American Academy of Pediatrics at annual meeting, Nov. 2, 1993.
Simons, Ronald L., Johnson, Christine, and Conger, Rand D. "Harsh Corporal Punishment versus Quality of Parental Involvement as an Explanation of Adolescent Maladjustment." Journal of Marriage and Family. 1994; 56:591-607.
Olweus, Dan. "Familial and Tempermental Determinants of Aggressive Behavior in Adolescent Boys: A Causal Analysis." Developmental Psychology. 1980; 16:644-660.
Socolar, Rebecca R. S., M.D. and Stein, Ruth E.K., M.D. "Spanking Infants and Toddlers: Maternal Belief and Practice." Pediatrics. 1995; 95:105-111.
Hoffman, Martin. "Parental Discipline and Child's Moral Development." Journal of Personal Social Psychology. 1967; 5:45-57.
Baumrind, Diana, Ph.D. "Rearing Competent Children." Damon, W. (Ed.) Child Development Today and Tomorrow. 1989; pp.349-378. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass.
McCormick, Kenelm F., M.D. "Attitudes of Primary Care Physicians Toward Corporal Punishment." Journal of the American Medical Association. 1992; 267:3161-3165.
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. 1987; p. 1316. Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Larzelere, Dr. Robert E. and Merenda, Dr. J.A. "The Effectiveness of Parental Discipline for Toddler Misbehavior at Different Levels of Child Distress." Family Relations. 1994; 43 (4).
Roberts, Mark W. and Powers, Scott W. "Adjusting Chair Time-out Enforcement Procedures for Oppositional Children." Behavioral Therapy. 1990; 21:257-271, and Bean, Arthur W. and Roberts, Mark W. "The Effect of Time-out Release Contingencies on Changes in Child Noncompliance." Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 1981; 9:95-105.
Forehand, R.L. and McMahon, R.J. Helping the Noncompliant Child. 1981; pp. 79-80. New York: Guilford Press.
Clark, Lynn C. SOS! Help for Parents. 1985; pp. 181-185. Kentucky: Parents Press.
Baumrind, Dr. Diana. "The Development of Instrumental Competence Through Socialization. Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology. 1973; 7:3-46.
Austin, Glenn. Love and Power: How to Raise Competent, Confident Children. 1988. California: Robert Erdmann Publishing. Also, Dobson, Dr. James. The Strong-Willed Child. 1985. Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, and Coopersmith, Stanley. The Antecedents of Self-Esteem. 1967. New York: W.H. Freeman & Co. Reprinted 1981. California: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Larzelere, Dr. Robert E. "Should the Use of Corporal Punishment by Parents be Considered Child Abuse?" Mason, M., Gambrill, E. (Eds.) Debating Children's Lives. 1994; pp. 204-209. California: SAGE Publications.
Eron, Dr. Leonard D. "Theories of Aggression: From Drives to Cognitions." Huesmann, L.R. (Ed.) Aggressive Behavior, Current Perspectives. 1994; pp. 3-11. New York: Plenum Press.
Straus, Murray A. "Discipline and Deviance: Physical Punishment of Children and Violence and Other Crime in Adulthood." Social Problems. 1991; 38:133-152. National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse. Memorandum. May 1995; 2(5). White, Kristin. "Where Pediatricians Stand on Spanking." Pediatric Management. September 1993: 11-15.
Larzelere, Dr. Robert E., op. cit.
Socolar, Rebecca R.S., M.D. and Stein, Ruth E.K., M.D., op. cit. Baumrind, Dr. Diana, op. cit.
Wolfe, David A. "Child-Abusive Parents: An Empirical Review and Analysis." Psychological Bulletin. 1985; 97(3): 462-482.
Wissow, Dr. Lawrence S. and Roter, Dr. Debra. Letter to the editor, in reply to corporal punishment letter. Pediatrics. 1995; 96(4): 794-795. Larzelere, Dr. Robert E., op. cit.
Statistics Sweden. K R Info. May 1995; pp. 1-6. Stockholm, Sweden.
The erotic component
motion pictures exploit it
The erotic danger:
the spanko fetish
how grave a concern?
punish me with kisses