What Does Research Say About the Effects of

Physical Punishment on Children?

[Note to trainers: The heart of the following material is section e: "consequences of physical punishment." You probably will want to focus on that, perhaps use only it. Look carefully at the other sections and use selectively. The 14 "consequences" discussed in section e are summarized on a handout included in the training packet. A set of transparency masters were distributed at the train-the-trainer session and are available on request. Section h lists other available resources.]

A. Physical Punishment Is Widely Seen as an Acceptable or Even Necessary Form of Discipline

1. The following stories could be used to illustrate the common naive assumption that the way to discipline children is to tell 'em, then tell 'em again, and if they still don't mind, hit 'em.
              (SELECT ONE OF THE STORIES)
   
   
   1. A year old fell out of an upper story window and was killed. The mother, who was out of the house at the time, was incredulous as well as grief stricken. "I always spanked him for going near the open window," she said. As a matter of fact she had just spanked him for the same offense and had felt so bad about it that she had gone to get him some ice cream when the tragedy happened. One cannot help wondering if the child ever understood what he was spanked for. The idea that he did not understand—could hardly be expected to understand at his age—apparently never occurred to his mother.
      
      Probably she will spank even more frequently and vigorously with other children in the future to assure that no reoccurrence of this tragedy will happen. And if (hopefully), it does not happen, she probably will loudly proclaim the preventive powers of spanking to all in earshot. What else might she have done?
      
      
   2. In Willard Motley's novel, Knock on Any Door, the central character, Nick, ends up on death row convicted of murder after a long career of delinquency and crime. In the background of his career are intense hatred and fear of his father, primarily because of the frequent spankings and beatings he had received for minor (and later, major) infractions from his father during his growing up years. He didn't even want to see his father (and mother) while in his cell awaiting execution. The father, who we have learned really loves his son, is severely shaken by his son's terrible fate. "I can't understand it," the father says. "I told him and told him, and I always whipped him when he did wrong—over and over and over again."
      
      But the young man in the death cell doesn't understand the source of his troubles any more than the father does. He gives his aunt, who visits him in his death cell, the following advice for bringing up his newborn nephew: "Don't let what happened to him happen to me, Aunt Rosa. Beat the hell out of him, Aunt Rosa. See that he does right. So this whole self-defeating pattern of reliance upon violence as the ultimate method of discipline (intended to communicate and teach) is passed on from generation to generation.
      
      
2. The use of physical punishment is quite common.
   
   Most studies over the years have shown that from 85 to 95 percent of American parents have used some kind of physical punishment with their children at one time or another.
   
   The proportion who "regularly" spank, slap, shake, or hit is quite a bit less than this but still substantial. Varying estimates put the proportion whom with some regularity use physical force with toddlers somewhere between 75 and 90 per cent.
   
   Estimates from some of Straus' research indicates that over 50 percent of parents of young teens (13-14 year olds) and 25% of 16-18 year olds still occasionally hit as a disciplinary attempt.
   
   

B. Some Recent National and Minnesota Data

It is the belief of Murray Straus and Ron Pitzer, based on their observations and "taking of the public pulse," that there has been:

One indicator of this change is the surprising lack of resistance and objection Straus and the "Positive Parenting" team have received to this message in the past two to three years. We are aware of only a little research to support or refute this contention.

Among that which does is the following:

As can be seen, these studies show a steady decline since 1986 in the proportion of respondents who agree that "a good, hard spanking is sometimes necessary to discipline a child."

As also can be seen, the Goodhue County MN data shows a considerably lower proportion of spanking supporters than found in most studies to this date. This may be because:

Probably both are true. The following data show that Minnesota parents also report less actual use of spanking, slapping, and hitting than have most studies. The first six columns show the proportion of parents who reported spanking their children (in the past six months) never, once, twice, 3-10 times, and 11-20 times—by age of child. The last column shows averages from several national studies for selected ages of children (for purposes of comparative perspective).

On this overhead, point out:

• 2/3 of MN parents report never spanking their child
  
• as children get older, there is a dramatic decrease in the use of spanking
• preschool children are most likely to be spanked, particularly two year olds

Although we have no hard evidence, we suspect that the work of Early Childhood Family Education and other systems of parent education have contributed to the lower Minnesota figures.

You may ask: What about the violence we see in society today? Remember: The shift in attitude and behavior about spanking and other forms of physical punishment of children is a recent phenomenon. Today's perpetrators of violence were children when spanking was a more approved form of discipline.

C. Discussion Questions:

Why is the commitment to spanking so strong?

What are parents' reasons for believing in spanking?

Some common reasons (ADD TO THIS):

• Appears effective (that is, it does stop the misbehavior. BUT no more effectively than other techniques.)
  
  
• Religion
  
  
• Taken for granted by our culture
  
  
• Personal experience Teens and adults who were spanked frequently or moderately are much more advocates and users of spanking than are those who didn't experience it. Those who were frequently and harshly punished, in rational moments, recall its unpleasantness and may prefer to refrain from inflicting similar pain on their children. But they tend to have short fuses, easily "lose it", and have no or few alternatives to turn to.
  
  
• Subcultural ethos
  
  
• Not aware of alternatives
  
  
• Not believing that alternatives are effective.
  
  

Barbara Carson and other researchers have found that many parents who spank and even profess a belief in spanking do not really consider it very effective. She found that over 40% of parents who regularly spank thought spanking was rarely, if ever, effective. Cudaback in a study of low- income young mothers, virtually all of whom vigorously supported spanking as an appropriate parental action, found that fewer than 25% thought it was effective.

And they are right. It is not very effective ... and it has many unintended consequences.

Let's review some of what is known about spanking.

D. Two Dimensions

In 1964, Straus reviewed the socialization literature and concluded—two dimensions: power and support.

Schaefer (1959)—circumplex: control and support

In 1976, Rollins and Thomas posited the same: "For approximately four decades, the parent-child literature has identified the interaction of two variables of parental behavior as critical in accounting for parental influence in the socialization of children. These variables are parental power/control and parental nurturance."

Baumrind (FR, Oct 1996)— "demandingness" and "responsiveness"

E. Consequences of Physical Punishment: A Quick Literature Review

[Note that pp.5-7 of the curriculum is a background piece that summarizes "What the Research Says About Physical Punishment."]

Immediate consequences

1. Will stop misbehavior. . . but no better than other firm measures
   
   Many (if not most) of the studies which purport to find corporal punishment to be "beneficial"/effective (Larzelere) studied it as a way to stop or correct misbehavior. And it will; we don't question that.
   
   But so will other firm measures, when the children "take you seriously". Perhaps the most effective of these is to move to the child immediately when the request, command, or demand is made.
   
   
2. Can lead to child abuse.
   
   Some educators, researchers, and child protection workers (Murray Straus, for example) consider even "ordinary", mild physical punishment as abusive. It is a form of violence, but we do not take the stand that one or two open-handed swats on the seat is "abuse". Hitting with a closed hand (fist) anywhere on the body, hitting the face or head in any way, and hitting with an object is (in our opinion) abuse.
   
   For two reasons, we (the Positive Parenting team) advise no hitting at all:
   1. We don't know precisely where to draw the line between "acceptable physical punishment as discipline" and child abuse. NOTE: Robert Larzelere, one of the most frequently quoted supporters of spanking (among researchers), limits "acceptable corporal punishment" to two swats on the seat with an open hand.
      
      
   2. Anger and violence (even "mild violence") can easily escalate out of control.
      
      Some 70% of child abuse cases were attempts to discipline through the use of physical punishment that escalated out of control. (Kadushin & Martin; Straus)
      
      Although much corporal punishment is of low intensity and frequency, its range is wide and the most severe end is clearly abusive. A major problem, as noted above, is that one cannot easily specify where "appropriate" punishment fades into abuse. It is because of this difficulty of "drawing the line", that we have chosen to argue for NO hitting of children.
      
      

Short and medium-range consequences:

3. Cannot teach what to do—new, appropriate, or alternative behavior
   
   The best that punishment alone can do is teach or dramatize what not to do. Often, it probably points out what not to get caught doing. And, as we will further note in a moment, trying to teach (explain, reason) a child who is feeling threatened, afraid, angry, or pain is almost impossible.
   
   
4. Does not deter child from repeating same behavior (any better than other tactics)
   
   Spanking is often effective at stopping misbehavior momentarily. However, it is no more (and probably less) effective than other means at stopping further misbehavior, in the short run. And it can and often does have a number of undesirable side effects, in the long run.
   
   72% of Goodhue county parents admitted that their children, at least sometimes, repeated the behavior for which they were spanked. More striking, 34% indicated this happens half the time or more.
   
   REMEMBER: With young children, nothing works all the time. Remember also: The effects discussed below are not unequivocal; they are increased probabilities (in some cases, such as with aggressiveness of children, sharply increased probabilities).
   
   
5. Spanking hinders rather than improves general compliance (especially when child is not in immediate presence of the punisher).
   
   Children who are spanked are less, not more, compliant (when out of the immediate sight or presence of the punisher) than are non-spanked children. Straus' recently published (Archives, 1997) longitudinal study demonstrates this probably more convincingly than any other study to date.
   
   The basic reason for this, according to research, is that children of non-spanking parents tend to control their behavior on the basis of what is right or wrong; spanked children control their behavior out of fear—to avoid being hit. Instead of learning to differentiate between right and wrong, they learn to differentiate only what does and doesn't result in a spanking.
   
   
6. Undermines reasoning, explanation and other forms of "parental induction," because child cannot learn, reason, or problem-solve well while experiencing threat, pain, fear, or anger.
   
   Pediatrician Dr. J. Donald Walcher points out that, in his experience, there is little effectiveness in trying to make any explanation at the onset of a disciplinary action. Often the parent and the child are upset at that time. Consequently, the parent makes statements and threats that may be unreasonable and the child is unable to pay any attention whatever. Please note the phrase "is unable to pay attention." Stress research (Selye; others) tells us clearly that when a person experiences threat, fear, anger, or pain, his/her body automatically prepares to respond to the threat (the alarm or stress or "fight/flight" response). While this prepares us well to fight or flee, it actually hinders learning or problem-solving because blood is being shunted from the problem-solving/learning centers to the muscles. The cerebral cortex temporarily closes down. And when children have been or are just about to be spanked, they are experiencing threat and pain—probably accompanied by anger and/or fear.
   
   To support our argument that children can't learn well while being spanked or otherwise harshly punished/disciplined and therefore feeling threat or pain ("alarm reaction"), consider the following information related by Dr. Richard Weinberg (Director of the University of Minnesota's Institute of Child Development): It is understood now in the medical profession that for 15-20 minutes after being told they have cancer or other serious condition, patients' anxiety, fear, etc. is so great that they simply do not or cannot hear/comprehend whatever is explained to them about prognosis, alternative treatments, immediate steps. This is so commonly understood that (good) doctors routinely schedule another consultation very soon and repeat all that was reviewed at the initial revelation.
   
   Is it reasonable to assume that children are any more able than are adults to learn or be reasoned with when experiencing fear, threat, or pain?
   
   
7. Is inconsistent with non-violent precepts
   
   It is inconsistent (and confusing) to tell a child that inflicting pain and being violent is inappropriate and then to inflict pain to modify that child's behavior. How can a child possibly be sensitive to subtle nuances such as that inflicting pain is sometimes justified but sometimes not?
   
   
8. Increases probability of aggressive acting-out
   
   Being spanked as children increases the probability of their hitting others now at home and in the neighborhood and later as adults.
   
   Perhaps the most frequent and powerful relationship demonstrated by research is that between physical punishment and aggressive acting-out of the child—both now as a child in relations with sibs, peers, parents, and others . . . and later as an adult in all their relations (but especially with spouse and children).
   
   Hitting children models violent behavior, teaching them
   
   • that hitting others is morally correct (after all that is what their own parents do) when those others are doing "something wrong" and won't stop
   • that the way to deal with annoyance is to hit
   • that being angry and "beyond yourself" justifies hitting.
     
     
   Persons who have been hit also tend to carry a great deal of anger, to have a "short fuse," to "fly off easily."
   
   
9. Physical punishment chips away at the bond of affection between parent and child; induces resentment and fear.
   
   Each episode of physical punishment chips away at the bond of affection between parent and child.
   
   
   • Several research studies have found that 40-50 percent of people, when asked how they felt when they were spanked, reported that they "hated the parent."
   • Resentment and fear of parent keeps children (a) from wanting to be like their parents, (b) from wanting to change behavior which parents disapprove, and (c) from learning how to behave differently. Children must, essentially, allow us to socialize or discipline them. They do this when they love and trust the parent not when they fear or hate the parent.
   • This is an especially unfortunate consequence when our children get older, since perhaps the only real resource we have with adolescents is a "bank of goodwill."
     
     

10. Children don't learn to take responsibility for their own behavior ("external attribution")—control behavior to avoid being hit (punished) rather than on basis of what is right or wrong.
    
    They tend to see the major responsibility for children conforming to proper standards as residing in others (parents, teacher, law enforcers). This puts the responsibility for good behavior on the wrong shoulders.
    
    Conscience development is impeded.
    
    
11. Spanking hinders the development of empathy and compassion for others; child focuses on own pain rather than on effects of behavior on others.
    
    Spanking hinders development of empathy and compassion, because the child focuses on his/her own pain rather than on the effect of his/her behavior on others. The natural human reaction to feeling threatened or being hurt is a flood of anger and/or fear that psychologists call the "fight or flight" reaction. It ensures that your child cannot listen, think, or feel remorseful.
    
    
12. Spanking is a risk factor (increases the probability) for an array of undesirable social and psychological circumstances.
    
    Research by Straus and many others has shown relationships between spanking and many undesirable outcomes:
    
    
    • psychological effects—feelings of rejection, powerlessness, anger, fear, low self-esteem, depression, alienation, dependence, emotional instability, emotional unresponsiveness, negative world view.
      
      
    • Depression
    • Suicide
    • Alcohol and drug abuse
    • Spouse battering
    • Child abuse
    • Delinquency and vandalism
    • Violent crime—assault, murder, rape, robbery
    • Lower educational, occupational, and economic achievement
      
      
    This data comes from a national survey of over 8,000 families. What it shows is that physical punishment is a risk factor. It, particularly when combined with other risk factors, can contribute to negative outcomes for children. Because many of these outcomes are not measurable until a child reaches adulthood, it has been difficult to determine that spanking is one of the factors that contribute to the outcomes.
    
    One helpful way of looking at this is the same way we have begun to look at smoking. In the past, smoking was viewed as a harmless habit. There was some concern that there might be negative health effects, but no one could prove it. Today, we have definite evidence that smoking is a contributing factor to disease and death of many people. Granted, not everyone who smokes develops lung cancer, but smoking is a risk factor.
    
    The same may be said of spanking. Not every child who was spanked experiences negative outcomes, but it is an identified risk factor.
    
    
13. Can become an "easy-way-out" for youngsters—easier than restitution, reconciliation, grounding, penalties.
    
    Refer to Coloroso's notion that persons who have committed a hurtful act against others need to:
    
    
    1. "fix it" (restitution)
       
       
    2. present a plan for how they will avoid such actions in the future
       
       
    3. "heal with the victim" (reconcile)
       
       
    This, we believe, is similar to the principles of "restorative justice."
    
    Youngsters may find that accepting a spanking is easier or less demanding than such an approach. But we believe such steps are more fair to the victim and teach much more to the perpetrator than being punished.
    
    
14. Eventually becomes impossible as child grows older and stronger
    
    Spanking as a sole or major mode of discipline throughout childhood makes it more difficult for parents to influence children later on, especially in adolescence, when physical force is no longer possible.
    
    Even the major proponents of spanking recommend against spanking after a certain age:
    
    

F. Summary and Conclusions

I believe there is ample data to support the conclusions that corporal punishment

1. is not an effective disciplinary tool and
2. increases the risk of a number of less than desirable outcomes, including
   • aggressive acting-out,
   • reduced compliance,
   • adolescent and adult violence, and
   • a number of psychological effects.
   
   
   

The evidence is shaky in many places, is inconsistent in some, pretty solid in some. The effect sizes are small; that is, not much of the variance is accounted for, in most studies, by corporal punishment. But as Murray Straus (letter to editor of upcoming issue of Archives. . . ) and Patricia Cohen (Pediatrics, p. 835) eloquently point out: "Given the multiple determinants, small effect sizes are to be expected. It is a well-established principle in epidemiology that a widely prevalent risk factor with small effect size (such as spanking) can have a much greater impact on public health than a risk factor with a large effect size, but low prevalence."

Read Patricia Cohen's closing comment about this matter of effect size on page 835 from Pediatrics, October 1996, Vol. 98, Number 4. (ball player's batting average).

I do agree with Diana Baumrind (and others) that mild, occasional physical punishment in a loving context has little if any effect (though Giles-Sims, Straus, and Strassberg disagree). But I do not, as a parent educator and creator of parenting curricula, find that very helpful or applicable—primarily because I don't know where to draw the line. We have chosen to draw it at NO physical punishment ("try not to use it at all").

We do not yet feel comfortable enough about that conclusion's generalizability to all culture's and conditions to get in a parent's face and say "Don't spank!" . . . or to launch a public campaign around that slogan. We DO feel comfortable enough about it to work hard at creating educational and public awareness programming that offers parents a wide array of prevention, nurturance, and guidance tactics to use instead of physical punishment.

I don't want to be glib or nonchalant about this, but I tend to agree with Straus (letter to editor of Archives. . ., late 1997 or early 1998) that: "There are circumstances when parents are benefited by advice based on research that is less than conclusive." I want to close by reading a short statement by Leonard Eron, who with his colleagues has done a lot of research over a lot of years on the relation of physical punishment and aggression.

Read From Pediatrics, October 1996, Vol. 98 No. 4, p. 123.

A couple of final points:

1. "No hitting" is a message which we believe should be emphatically taught by parents, teachers, child-care providers, etc. For a parent to insist on "no hitting" and then enforce the rule by hitting (and spanking IS hitting) is inconsistent and confusing.
   
   
2. Do we really want to inflict pain on our loved ones?

Share Astrid Lingren Story

G. Arguments that have been given in support of physical punishment of children

1. It stops the misbehavior (especially critical in dangerous situations).
   
   
2. It shows the children who's boss.
   
   
3. Is "part of the parent's cultural and/or religious heritage."
   
   
4. Is a necessary "last resort" when children are "willfully defiant" (Dobson; Trumbull; Larzelere).
   
   
5. Baumrind: "Spanking is not a generative cause of aggression or pathology in children when used appropriately.". . .
   • is controlled
   • is contingent on the child's behavior
   • the child is forewarned
   • parent uses more positive than negative incentives
   • is immediate
   • parent is calm
   • is used privately
   • is carried out in conjunction with reasoning
   • the intention is to correct, not to retaliate
   • is mild; does not escalate to abuse
   • children are not under 18 months or past puberty
     
     (Source: Pediatrics 98: 830, 857, Oct. 1996)
     
     
6. Larzelere: "The evidence to date suggests that nonabusive spanking has generally beneficial effects* on children under the following limited conditions." . . .
   • with children aged 2 to 6 years
   • used less than weekly
   • used at nonabusive levels of severity, preferably two open-handed swats to the buttocks
   • leaving no bruise
   • used privately
   • used with reasoning
   • used primarily as back-up for less aversive discipline responses (such as reasoning and time-out)
   • resulting in an intermediate level of child distress
   • by loving parents
     
     (Sources: Pediatrics 98:827, Oct. 1996; FAMSCI post, Aug. 1997)
     
     
   *NOTE: As nearly as I can ascertain, the purported beneficial effects boil down to demonstrating to the child that his/her parents are serious.
   
   NOTE II: It is not possible at this point to obtain an assessment of the effects of spanking within the guidelines or limits proposed by Baumrind and Larzelere—because no study has obtained data from parents as to whether those guidelines were met. My speculation is that only a minuscule proportion of instances of spanking would meet all those criteria—hence, be acceptable even to these critics.
   
   

H. Resources

The following items related to the above material are available:

1. Handout: "Consequences of Physical Punishment"
   Lists the 14 consequences discussed above.
   
   
2. "References Providing Research Conclusions About Physical Punishment of Children"
   Provides a listing of research studies providing support for each of the 14 consequences.
   
   
3. "Citations"
   Gives complete citations for all items listed in above reference list.
   
   
4. "Parental Socialization Practices: A Research Bibliography"
   A much more comprehensive bibliography of research studies, books, and essays on parental socialization, with emphasis on physical punishment. 57 pages; some 1000 citations).
   
   
5. Transparencies: "Consequences of Physical Punishment
   Keyed to handout above.
   
   
6. "What the Research Says About Physical Punishment"
   Three-page summary of the literature. Pages 5-7 of the "Positive Parenting" curriculum.
   
   
7. "A Discourse on Spanking"
   Reprint of a review prepared for the newsletter of the Minnesota Children's Trust Fund.
   
   
8. "Prevalence and Demographics of Corporal Punishment"
   Two-page summary with citations of supportive studies.
   
   

Produced by Communication and Educational Technology Services, University of Minnesota Extension.

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, this material is available in alternative formats upon request. Please contact your University of Minnesota Extension office or the Distribution Center at (800) 876-8636.

University of Minnesota Extension is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation.