negative effects of corporal punishment essay

Negative Effects of Children’s Corporal Punishment

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

The Negative Physical/Psychological Effects of Corporate Punishment on Children

What science says about using physical force to punish a child.

The article discusses the negative effect of using violence to discipline children, especially in their early childhood learning and development. According to the author, early childhood development gains direction from several factors. Genetic factors such as nature, gender, and health conditions, which arise from within the children, play an essential role in children’s growth, development, and relationship with others.

Therefore, the author argues that a child exposed to continuous violent disciplinary acts is likely to experience slow or negatively skewed development. When a child is exposed to extreme violent discipline, he or she may be stigmatized. The author is definite that community and social structure influence child development.

The author states that “young victims of violence may start withdrawing and behaving differently as a coping strategy” (Samakow par. 11). Since using violence to discipline children does not allow the young minds to engage the free spirit that promotes creativity, “the learning process at home or in school may be compromised since applying force as a corrective measure may be counterproductive” (Samakow par. 14). When nothing is done to help such a victim, the child may grow into a violent adult with very poor socialization skills. The quotes confirm that the use of violence to discipline children interferes with early childhood learning, which plays an essential role in child development.

Physical Punishment in Childhood: The Rights of the Child. New York: John Wiley & Sons

The book provides a wide range of views; the authors explore the fine line between normalized physical punishment and illegal or unacceptable physical and emotional abuse of children. It builds on the emerging field of research that provides opportunities for children to speak for themselves about their views and experiences. It provides observations from children, professionals, and several generations from within individual families. Also, it discusses the power of language used by parents, professionals, and the media to describe physical punishment.

The author states “The silencing and powerlessness of children who suffer degrading and unjust treatment by adults responsible for their care and protection is a characteristic of childhood often maintained by sanctioned physical punishment” (Saunders and Goddard, 2008, p.415). Prof. Goddard states that “it seems clear that ‘much violence is learned at home, home, therefore, is surely where we should begin to arrest the process” (Goddard, 1994, p. 12).

Corporal Punishment of Children

In his article, Lenta strived to promote the idea that the practice of subjecting children to corporal punishment cannot be considered appropriate. The author’s line of reasoning, in this respect, is concerned with outlining the main pro-punishment arguments and exposing them, as such that is being utterly inconsistent with the realities of modern living. For example, Lenta mentions the fact that the application of corporal punishment often does prove rather effective, as the inexpensive and convenient instrument of correcting children’s behavior.

According to the author, many people also believe that by subjecting their children to corporal punishment, they help the latter to become emotionally comfortable with the notion of discipline – something that should benefit children in the long term. Lenta, however, refutes these claims by pointing out what appear to be the main indications of the concerned practice’s inappropriateness, such as the fact that corporal punishment violates the child’s “right to security of the person” and the “right not to suffer degrading punishment” (699). This positions Lenta’s article, as such that is being strongly opposed to the idea that there is nothing wrong with administering corporal punishment to children.

“Corporal punishment cannot be justified on consequentialist grounds because it involves the infliction of pain that has not conclusively been shown to do significant good, because it poses some risk of serious harm, and because there are alternative punishments that bring about as much (if not more) benefit at a lower cost” (Lenta 690). “The unfair discrimination inherent in the corporal punishment of children is a serious moral wrong. It is a violation of the ideal of respect for the equal dignity of all” (Lenta 705).

Even though the authors of the above-summarized articles (and the book) took different approaches to define the actual effects of corporate punishment on children, they all agree that most of these effects are strongly negative. The following is the synthesis of the actual insights, as to the inappropriateness of subjecting children to corporal punishment, contained in the reviewed sources:

• Corporal punishment results in the social alienation of children. While subjected to it, the child will naturally come to assume that there is something utterly wrong about him or her, which in turn will lead this person to begin experiencing the sensation of self-loathing. In its turn, this explains why corporate punishment is being often discussed as the strong contributive factor behind one’s tendency to exhibit mentally abnormal behavior. As Saunders and Goddard noted: “Physical (corporal) punishment may effectively devalue children, foster poor self-esteem, and contribute to a fearful and coercive environment” (114). This suggestion is fully justified because, as psychologists are being well aware, children rarely assign any moral significance to the punishment that they receive – for them, it is essentially the matter of a ‘lesser force’ being subdued by a ‘greater force’. Consequently, this results in convincing them that the ways of the world are strongly unjust and that adults cannot be trusted. As the ultimate consequence, the likelihood to end up becoming socially alienated/violently minded individuals, on the part of people with the childhood experience of having been corporally punished, increases rather substantially. What is even worse, as a result of having been punished physically (verbally), children are likely to develop a rebellious attitude towards adults and to eventually become even less manageable, in the behavioral sense of this word – as the gesture of paying their punishers with the same token of respect. According to Samakow: “Physical punishment encourages kids to continue the cycle of abuse…. children who are hit are more likely to use the action to solve problems with their peers and siblings” (par. 11). Such an eventual scenario is also predetermined by the sheer cuteness of how children perceive the surrounding reality. After all, children have always been known for their ability to learn rather quickly that the most energetically effective way for them to avoid being punished, is to make sure they are not caught doing wrong things – as opposed to ceasing to be affiliated with these things, altogether.
• Corporal punishment of children often leads to physical abuse. The very juxtaposition of a child (the punished) against an adult (the punisher), naturally presupposes the heightened possibility for the latter to end up miscalculating the actual strength, with which psychical punishment is being administered – especially if such widely used forms of corporal punishment as spanking and paddling are being concerned. This, in turn, may result in the punished child sustaining physical injuries. According to Saunders and Goddard: “In some cases, the mild ‘smack’ or ‘tap’ on a child’s hand or bottom escalates into severe and sometimes criminal abuse. Even fatal abuse has been linked to physical punishment” (4). What contributes towards increasing the likelihood of such a scenario, is that neither parents nor teachers are qualified in administering physical punishment. In this respect, the realities of post-industrial living in the West need to be considered, as well. After all, these realities presuppose the parents/teachers’ continual exposure to the increasing amounts of (often irrelevant) information, on one hand, and to the requirement to apply ever more effort into ensuring that they retain their ‘place under Sun’, on the other – hence, causing them to experience the sensation of emotional distress on a semi-permanent basis. However, it is a well-known fact that the stressed-out individuals do not only exhibit a tendency to indulge in violence but also to use excessive force, while on the rampage. Yet, as practice indicates, most parents/teachers decide in favor of resorting to corporal punishment, as the instrument of ‘correcting’ children, when all other options have been exhausted, which means that the actual process of administering this kind of punishment is highly emotional and consequently – prone to abuse.
• The application of corporal punishment to children undermines their chances to become socially responsible individuals. Even though that a child of just about any age (with the exemption of toddlers) can be corporally punished, it is namely the children from six to thirteen years old, who appear to be the most vulnerable to the prospect of facing such a punishment. At this age, most children gain a preliminary awareness of the notion of what a civil right stands for. Therefore, when subjected to corporal punishment, they are being naturally prompted to doubt the conceptual validity of the notion in question. This simply could not be otherwise – the very premise that children can be administered corporal punishment presupposes this punishment’s discriminatory essence: “Corporal punishment unfairly discriminates against children. The unfair discrimination inherent in the corporal punishment of children is a serious moral wrong. It is a violation of the ideal of respect for the equal dignity of all” (Lenta 705). Therefore, there is nothing too surprising about the fact that, as many studies indicate, individuals with a history of having been excessively exposed to corporal punishments, tend to exhibit a rather cynical attitude towards the idea that it is specifically the impersonal law, which defines the qualitative dynamics within the society. As a logical result, these individuals often choose to break the law, as the mean of trying to make their lives count. It is understood, of course, that this situation can hardly be considered thoroughly tolerable, which in turn explains why, as time goes on, the idea of banning corporal punishment, as the method of disciplining children, becomes increasingly popular with more and more people.
• Corporal punishment is capable of setting children on the path of sexual deviation. As it was mentioned earlier, corporal punishment is primarily about inflicting physical pain upon a child, which is being done in a variety of different ways. The common assumption, in regards to these methods of discipline, is that after having been subjected to them, the child will be naturally prompted to associate physical pain with the wrongdoing – something that should make him or her think twice, before deciding in favor of the latter. However, what is being usually overlooked, in this respect, is that the process of administering this kind of punishment is utterly humiliating. Yet, as psychologists are being aware, those who end up being subjected to humiliation continuously, are likely to develop an unhealthy taste for being treated in such a manner (sadomasochism), and towards inflicting pain upon others. According to Saunders and Goddard: “Cumulative evidence suggests that physical punishment may (at least in part) be responsible for … masochistic sexual relationships” (144). What it means is that, regardless of whether they do it willingly or unwillingly, but by administering corporal punishment to their children, parents do make it more likely for the former to turn psychologically/mentally deviant: “Spanking alters kids’ brains” (Samakow par. 15). There is an even more sinister aspect to this – as practice shows, the main reason for some parents/teachers to decide in favor of subjecting the child to corporal punishment is that they derive sadistic pleasure out of it. It is understood, of course, that under this type of circumstances, the punishing of children ceases to serve even a nominal ‘corrective’ function and becomes the instrument of these children’s victimization. This, however, does not only represent an acute risk to the affected children’s normal development but also the well-being of the society, as a whole, which is another reason why the practice of corporal punishment is being increasingly criticized.

Overall, all three sources do agree that the range of negative effects of corporate punishment on children is indeed rather wide and that parents/teachers should do their best to avoid taking advantage of this disciplinarian instrument. Even though the authors do deserve to be given a credit for having done a fair amount of research on the given topic, many of the contained contra-punishment claims, on their part, appear to be somewhat biased. The practical value of the reviewed sources would be much higher if the authors focused more on supporting these claims with references to the empirical studies, as to the negative effects of corporal punishment on children.

The Positive Psychological/Physical Effects of Corporal Punishment on Children (As Seen by Some Authors)

Social theory and practice.

This particular article is quite unusual, in the sense that it can be discussed as being nothing short of an apologetic account of children’s corporal punishment. The reason for this is that in it, the author aimed to substantiate the idea that, once assessed from the consequentialist and retributivist perspectives, the practice will appear fully justified. As Benatar noted: “Given… that the (negative) effects (of corporal punishment) are not substantial, there is a strong likelihood that they could be overridden by other considerations in a consequentialist calculation” (243).

The author’s approach to arguing in favor of his point of view on the subject matter in question is concerned with the deployment of the rhetorical principle of reductio ad absurdum . For example, according to the author, to claim that applying physical punishment to the child prompts him or her to adopt a tolerant attitude towards violence, would be the same as to claim that keeping convicts incarcerated endorses the idea that the best way to deal with people who displease us, is to throw them into jail. At the same time, however, Benatar does agree with the suggestion that parents/teachers should try their best to avoid subjecting children to corporal punishment.

“Corporal punishment indeed involves the application of direct and intense power to the body, but I do not see how that constitutes a more severe lowering of somebody’s standing than employing indirect and mild power in the course of a strip search, for example” (Benatar 242). “Punishment in schools can be seen as serving a useful educational purpose. It facilitates the move from the jurisdiction of the family to the jurisdiction of the state, teaching the child that punishment is not always inflicted by close people who love one and no one” (Benatar 239).

Paddling and the Repression of the Feminine in Male Hazing

In his article, Mechling deploys a psychoanalytical approach to discussing the actual significance of administering corporal punishment (spanking/paddling) to children (boys). According to the author, this practice serves the role of encouraging young boys to adopt the patriarchal outlook on how society functions. The reason for this is that spanking/paddling of boys is in essence the sublimation of sexual intercourse. As Mechling noted: “The paddle embodies masculine power and authority… The shape of the paddle itself may suggest the phallus, the ultimate symbol of power in a patriarchal society” (63).

What it means is that, when subjected to this kind of punishment, the boys are being naturally prompted to a) associate the notion of ‘masculinity’ with the notion of ‘authority’, b) repress the unconscious feminine anxieties within themselves, as ‘shameful’. This, in turn, is supposed to familiarize boys with the idea that it is thoroughly natural for them to be concerned with the thoughts of domination, and consequently to increase their chances to attain a social prominence, by the time they reach adulthood. Even though Mechling’s article does not directly relate to the paper’s actual subject matter, it nevertheless contains several in-depth insights, into what creates the objective preconditions for corporal punishment to continue being administered to children.

“The male buttocks signify both strength and vulnerability. It displays the male musculature, but it is also the site where a man can be feminized” (64). “We note that the origins of paddling (as the form of corporal punishment) in the late nineteenth century… coincides with a growing “crisis in masculinity” experienced in both England and the United States” (71).

Even though the practice of subjecting children to corporal punishment is now being ostracized, some authors nevertheless believe that there at least a few benefits to it, as well. The mentioned two articles exemplify the validity of this suggestion because as a result of having been introduced to them, one will come to realize that there is indeed a good reason for the concerned practice to remain controversial, rather than to be banned altogether.

The foremost discursive premise, upon which the authors build their line of argumentation, can be outlined as follows: the very fact that this type of punishment has been used since the dawn of history, suggests it is indeed fully consistent with the laws of evolution – the main driving force behind humanity’s continual advancement. Hence, the hypothesized positive effects:

• Corporal punishment, administered (moderately) by parents to their children, helps the latter to develop the sense of social responsibility and the ability to understand the dialectical relationship between causes and effects. The logic behind this suggestion is that, while subjected to such punishment (properly administered), children are likely to think of it as ‘fair’, simply because on an intuitive level, they know that their parents do not wish them any harm, as something that has the value of a ‘thing in itself’. In its turn, this helps the punished to recognize the long-term beneficence of having been forced to go through the ordeal. The suggestion’s validity is being indirectly supported by the fact that, even though there is indeed much of a public outcry to ban corporal punishment, many empirical studies, concerned with defining the negative psychological effects of such punishment on children, imply that the practice in question is not quite as morally wicked, as it is being commonly assumed. According to Benatar: “Although there is evidence that excessive corporal punishment can significantly increase the chances of psychological harm (on children), most of the psychological data are woefully inadequate to the task of demonstrating that mild and infrequent corporal punishment has such consequences” (242). The fact that many adults reflect upon having been corporally punished by their parents in the past, as such that did them a great deal of good, serves as yet additional proof of the validity of this point of view. Benatar suggests that this simply could not be otherwise. Due to being cognitively underdeveloped, children are naturally driven to form their behavioral attitudes reactively to whatever happens to be the externally induced stimuli. What it means is that if parents are being quick enough to ensure that their children associate delinquency with pain (humiliation), it will indeed have a strongly positive effect on these children’s ability to choose in favor of the socially appropriate way of addressing life challenges.
• Corporal punishment helps children to become emotionally adjusted to the actual ways of the world. Even though that in the civilized society, people’s violent attitudes are being condemned, it does not change the fact that violence remains the ultimate instrument of ensuring that citizens act in the socially appropriate manner – the existence of such institutions as police, supports the validity of this claim. Moreover, the factor of violence continues to have a strong effect on the qualitative dynamics of the relationship between the society members – even if it is being extrapolated in the seemingly non-violent form. The reason for this is that, regardless of what appears to be the existential mode of a particular person, he or she inevitably strives to attain dominance within the society. In its turn, this creates the objective preconditions for the presence of semi-violent tensions within even the most advanced/tolerant society. Therefore, by subjecting children to corporal punishment, parents help their young ones to become accustomed to the idea that life itself is rather ‘unfair’, which in turn has a positive effect on the measure of these children’s existential competitiveness. As Benatar suggested: “There is no reason why children should not learn about it (violence). Punishing children when they do wrong seems to be one important way of doing this” (246). Essentially the same line of reasoning drives the practice of forcing children to attend the classes of sex-education – the sooner they learn about the technical aspects of the ‘baby-making’ process, the better. Similarly, the sooner the child learns that pain (either physical or mental) is the actual price for making wrong decisions in life; the more likely it will be for him or she considers the would-be consequences of choosing in favor of a particular course of action while trying to make the best out of life.
• The application of corporal punishment against boys helps to maintain society’s structural integrity. The logic behind this suggestion is that, while being administered this type of punishment, boys are expected to refrain from reacting to the ordeal in an emotionally charged manner, such as crying, for example. Thus, along with serving as the correctional tool, corporal punishment serves the function of teaching boys how to repress their feminine anxieties – something that in turn leads towards strengthening the factor of gender differentiation within the society. As Mechling pointed out: “(Corporal punishment) performed in the carefully framed ritual… is not the product of testosterone out of control. Rather, the critics of hazing need to understand that safe hazing practices such as paddling play a crucial role in the social and psychological construction of heterosexual masculinity” (70). The reason why this factor needs to be strengthened is that, as practice indicates, for men and women to be able to form long-lasting marital relationships, they need to be strongly affiliated with the ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ values, respectively. This, in turn, implies that the process of the notion of corporal punishment falling out of favor with more and more people is not quite as objective as it may seem to be. Rather, it is being reflective of the fact that Western societies grow increasingly feminized.

It is understood, of course, that both articles cannot be considered thoroughly consistent with the discourse of political correctness, because they promote the idea that the continual use of corporal punishment on children has been dialectically predetermined. This, however, does not lessen the degree of both articles’ discursive usefulness. In the future, the authors could consider inquiring into whether the elements of corporal punishment could be incorporated into the alternative (non-punitive) methods of disciplining children.

The Alternative (Non-Punitive) Methods of Disciplining Children

Discipline without punishment.

This article discusses different violent disciplinary acts that are directed toward children and their effect on the growth and development of the minors. According to the author, the role of parenting involves proactive reasoning and being in control of children’s lives to create a global citizen. The process has no specific role, but a cluster of adult responsibilities such as providing basic needs, love, and moral support in all spheres of life.

The author suggests alternatives to using violence to discipline children with the same or better results. According to the author, the first step is defining basic family and societal morals that oppose violence, however mild it is. A responsible parent should make sure these aspects are internalized in their thought patterns when planning or executing disciplinary acts on children. For instance, a parent might offer corrective punishment for any unbecoming behavior by using dialogue as a correction tool with very effective results without having any physical or psychological pain on a child.

The author is categorical that using violence to discipline a child “may turn out to be harmful, especially when the parent or teacher is overcome by emotions in the process” (Wilson par. 9). The author suggests alternatives to using violence to discipline children with the same or better results. A responsible parent should make sure these aspects are internalized in their thought patterns when planning or executing disciplinary acts on children. For instance, a parent might “offer corrective punishment for any unbecoming behavior through using dialogue as a correction tool with very effective results without inflicting any physical or psychological pain on a child” (Wilson par. 11).

The quotes highlight alternatives to using violence to discipline a child, such as dialogue and instigating psychological adjustment variables such as control of depression, self-esteem, and life satisfaction among the children.

Effective Discipline for Children

The article, Effective Discipline for Children , discusses moderate discipline on child development as compared to using violence. According to the authors, child development depends on a lot of factors. These factors include love, caring, provision of basic needs, and security. Reflectively, a violent disciplinarian parent is likely to put children at a glaring risk of total behavioral, emotional, mental, and social development of child physical and psychological aspects of growth.

Children exposed to violent disciplinary actions by parents, guardians, or teachers are vulnerable to depression, eating disorders, and even unending anxiety. Some of the characteristics of a child exposed to continuous violent disciplinary acts include poor physical and psychological health, trauma, fear, irresponsible, and rudeness behavior among peers.

In the ideal, “an effective discipline does not instill shame, negative guilt, and a sense of abandonment or a loss of trust. Instead, it instills a sense of greater trust between the child and the parent” (Nieman et al. 38). The authors are categorical that “parents should refrain from hurting the child’s self-esteem by instilling shame, guilt, loss of trust, or a sense of abandonment” (Nieman et al. 40). These quotes highlight the negative effects of using violence to discipline children.

The authors of these two articles do agree that parents/teachers should consider resorting to the alternative (non-punitive) strategies when addressing children’s delinquency. In particular, the authors make numerous references to the following alternative approaches to introducing children to the notion of discipline, without subjecting them to corporal punishment:

• Making an analytical inquiry into why a particular child misbehaves, to find the circumstantially justified non-punitive method for influencing his or her behavior for the better. As it was pointed out earlier, the discursive paradigm of corporal punishment can no longer be considered thoroughly consistent with the realities of today’s living – something that both authors never cease stressing out, throughout the entirety of their articles. For example, according to Wilson: “Punishment stops bad behavior for the moment. Punishment does not teach the behavior you want. Punishment does not cause good behavior” (1). The reason for this is that, in light of recent discoveries in the field of genetics, the child’s tendency to act in one way or another appears to be rather biologically than environmentally predetermined. The case of autistic children illustrates the validity of this suggestion perfectly well. After all, it does not make any secret that these children are known for their strongly defined anti-social attitudes, which at times appear to be intentionally malicious. Yet, it would prove utterly inappropriate to subject autistic kids to corporal punishment – the would-be undertaken measure will have no positive effect, whatsoever. Therefore, parents and teachers should consider resorting to non-violent methods of influencing children’s behavior. One of them would be trying to appeal to the child’s sense of rationale – especially if he or she is old enough to understand the meaning of the ethics-related terms. As Wilson suggested: “Ask the child the reason for the misbehavior before you punish. Allow the child a chance to explain. Children do not think like adults. The child’s motive may have been good” (2329-4). It is understood, of course, that this particular intervention strategy is much more time-consuming, as compared to spanking/paddling, for example. Yet, there is a good reason to believe that parents/teachers should prioritize it when it comes to disciplining children.
• Providing children with anticipatory guidance, in regards to what accounts for the negative effects of delinquency. This idea reflects the assumption that: “Undesirable behaviors are best avoided through prevention and by building supportive structures that include clear, consistent rules” (Nieman, Alberta, Shea, and Scotia 37). The best approach for parents/teachers to proceed with doing it is by holding informal conversations with children while telling them that there is a good reason for people to behave in a socially appropriate manner. Even though there can be no guarantee that the deployment of this delinquency-prevention strategy will prove utterly effective, parents/teachers should still consider resorting to it, as the means to give children yet another reason to think of adults as their friends and mentors, rather than the enemies.
• Providing non-punitive incentives for children to refrain from misbehaving. As of today, it becomes increasingly clear to educators that, within the context of a parent/teacher applying the ‘stick and carrot’ approach towards addressing the child’s misbehavior, the emphasis should be placed on enthralling the young one with the prospect of receiving the ‘carrot’. In plain words, when it comes to correcting the child, parents and teachers should never cease being observant of the fact that, due to being concerned with trying to achieve instant gratification, as an integral part of their existential mode, children are more than capable of indulging in the socially productive behavior. Provided, of course, that they associate it with the prospect of receiving a much-desired reward. In its turn, this presupposes that the important element of effective parenting is assessing the subtleties of the child’s psychological makeup – something that can be achieved by the earlier mentioned non-punitive method of anticipatory guidance: “Anticipatory guidance offers… an opportunity for prevention, to discuss the type of discipline according to the child’s developmental age” (Nieman, Alberta, Shea and Scotia 38).

In light of these insights, inferred from both articles, there can be only a few doubts that the manners, in which the affiliated authors went about arguing what can be deemed the most effective methods of addressing children’s delinquency, are indeed mutually complementary. At the same time, however, many suggestions, contained in the reviewed articles, appear rather formulaic. Had the authors provided more references to the discursively relevant empirical studies (in support of the promoted ideas), it would contribute rather substantially to the measure of these articles’ objectiveness.

Additional Insights Into the Discussed Subject Matter

Corporal punishment in u.s. public schools: a continuing challenge for school social workers.

The main thesis, promoted by Dupper and Dingus throughout their article’s entirety, is that the appropriateness/inappropriateness of the practice of subjecting children to corporal punishment, cannot be thought of in terms of a ‘thing in itself’, in the social sense of this word. That is, the actual essence of the ethical outlook on it, shared by most people, is predetermined by the currently predominant socio-cultural discourse.

According to the authors, this is the reason why the practice in question is being considered legal in the U.S. Southern states – in this part of the country, the social influence of Christianity (the religion that endorses physical punishment of children) continues to remain rather considerable. Nevertheless, Dupper and Dingus do not doubt the objectiveness of the fact that there is a negative correlation between the popularity of corporal punishment, as the instrument of children’s ‘correction’, and the quality of living standards in the affiliated area. This, of course, endows their article with the clearly defined progressive sounding.

“The use of corporal punishment in schools is associated with damaging physical and psychological outcomes that can affect some children for the remainder of their lives” (Dupper and Dingus 245). “Higher rates of child abuse fatalities occur in states that allow corporal punishment in the schools, and students are more likely to die from school shootings in states where cor­poral punishment is used” (Dupper and Dingus 246).

Discipline for Young Children-Discipline and Punishment: What is the Difference?

This article discusses conflicts that might arise between parents in the process of disciplining children. The article is categorical that poor conflict management tools may lead to the use of violence on children in the name of exercising disciplinary authority. Even though most of the parents have the best interest of the child, conflict arises when they do not attend the necessary training on how to handle children (Telep par. 7).

For instance, the author discusses a conflict situation involving one of the parents and the organization on the need to attend obligatory training on foster parenting. As a strategy for managing this conflict, the stakeholders in child protection from aggression should engage the parents in foster care training to ensure that there is no conflict with the child when it comes to discipline and parenting (Telep par. 7).

Therefore, “conflict can be used as a tool for proactive child correction through looking beyond the conventional violent disciplinary strategy” (Telep par. 11). One of such program proposed by the author is the RDRESS program. RDRESS is an abbreviation for Resolving Disputes and Reaching an Equitable Solution Swiftly. This model involves “proactive problem identification and examination of the impact of mediation on the child’s integrity” (Telep par. 14). The quotes highlight the need for proactive disciplinary actions to avoid the counterproductive results that arise from using violence to discipline children.

Both of the summarized articles are valuable, in the sense of helping readers to gain a better understanding of what makes the practice of corporal punishment to continue being used against children, even though it sparks much public controversy. In this respect, we can accentuate the following insights of relevance:

• The qualitative aspects of the concerned practice should be discussed in conjunction with what happened to be the practitioners’ religious stance: “Often, attitudes toward physical punishment reflect religious beliefs and ideas about what children are like” (Telep par. 21). Regardless of what happened to be the actual form of corporal punishment, it reflects essentially the same discursive premise – it is possible to ‘correct’ the behavioral model of a young person by making him or her associate its anti-social behavior (as perceived by parents/teachers) with the sensation of a strong emotional/physical discomfort, induced by the application of corporal punishment. In its turn, this can be thought of as the remnant of the Judeo-Christian outlook on the process of the child’s upbringing. After all, it does not represent any secret that even today, many Christians believe that it is possible for ‘demons’ to invade one’s body, to turn it into their sanctuary – something that used to be traditionally perceived, as the reason why some children exhibit a rather intolerable behavior. Therefore, it was thoroughly logical, on the part of religious people to assume that, by inflicting pain to the body of the misbehaving child, they would be able to make ‘demons’ to consider leaving it for good. This explains why the practice of subjecting children to corporal punishment is being particularly popular throughout the so-called ‘Bible belt’ in America: “The southern and southwestern states practice a traditional, conservative, Evangelical Protestant religion, in which literal interpretations of the Bible are very common, and in which the Bible is often used to support and even demand that parents use corporal punishment on their children” (Dupper and Dingus 246). What it means is that, even though the concerned practice does exhibit the indications of being hardly justified, it is likely to remain the essential part of the process of parenting – especially in the families/schools, associated with the ‘traditional’ values.
• While deciding in favor/disfavor of corporate punishment, parents/teachers should be mindful of the main psychological principles of how children tend to address life-challenges. The emergence of psychology, as a fully legitimate science, during the 20th century’s initial decades, revealed the sheer fallaciousness of the religious view on how parents/teachers should go about disciplining children. The reason for this apparent – this particular development produced a powerful effect on people’s perception of what is the driving force behind the child’s tendency to act in one way or another. It simply could not be otherwise – it is specifically the workings of one’s unconscious psyche, which define the concerned person’s individuality more than anything else does. Nevertheless, because these workings are not the subject of rationalization, there can be very little point in expecting that the child’s existential stance can be ‘corrected’ by the mean of encouraging him or her to conclude that, since delinquency results in pain, he or she would much better off staying away from the former. As Telep noted: “The child who has been treated harshly has no reason to be good. Or he may be good just to keep from being punished and not learn to be good because he thinks it is the right thing to do” (par. 6). This, in turn, calls for the reassessment of the very conceptual premise of corporate punishment. Hence, Telep’s suggestion that instead of learning not to misbehave from ‘pain’, children should learn from ‘experiences’: “Parents should tell the child before it happens, what the consequences are for breaking a rule. If the child knows that the consequence of not getting to the dinner table in time to eat with the family is not eating, then he has a choice” (par. 27). It is understood, of course, that this claim is far from being considered undisputed. However, it does illustrate the appropriateness of the suggestion that parents should pay close attention to what are the deep-seated psychological needs of their children. Because this idea is being explored throughout the entirety of both articles, there is a good rationale to think that they are indeed discursively related. The focus of additional research, in this respect, could be concerned with inquiring into what parents/teachers should do, to increase the measure of their awareness of how the child’s unconscious psyche functions.

In light of the earlier mentioned insights, as to the effects of corporal punishment on children, it can be safely assumed that, as time goes on; this type of punishment will continue being widely deployed – the practice’s very ‘convenience’ and ‘cost-effectiveness’ (as seen by parents and teachers) create the objective prerequisites for this to be the case. Another contributing factor, in this respect, is the absence of the scientifically legitimate methodology for disciplining children in a strictly non-punitive manner – suggesting that it is wrong to subject children to violence, is not enough.

At the same time, however, the measure of this punishment’s severity is likely to be progressively reduced, which in turn should come as the consequence of people’s growing awareness of the fact that administering corporal punishment to children is not only ethically dubious but that it is also something that balances on the edge of the law. This trend’s actual logic presupposes the ever-increasing popularity of the alternative approaches to correcting children’s behavior, such as the mentioned earlier ‘anticipatory guidance’.

Works Cited

Benatar, David. “Corporal Punishment.” Social Theory and Practice 24.2 (1998): 237-260. Print.

Dupper, David R., and Amy E. Montgomery Dingus. “Corporal Punishment in U.S. Public Schools: A Continuing Challenge for School Social Workers.” Children & Schools 30.4 (2008): 243-50. Print.

Lenta, Patrick. “Corporal Punishment of Children.” Social Theory and Practice 38.4 (2012): 689-716. Print.

Mechling, Jay. “Paddling and the Repression of the Feminine in Male Hazing.” Thymos 2.1 (2008): 60-75. Print.

Nieman, Peter, Calgary Alberta, Sarah Shea, and Nova Scotia . “Effective Discipline for Children.” Paediatrics & Child Health 9.1 (2004): 37–41. Print.

Samakow, Jessica. What Science Says About Using Physical Force to Punish a Child ? 2014. Web.

Saunders, Bernadette and Chris Goddard. Physical Punishment in Childhood: The Rights of the Child . New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2009. Print.

Telep, Valya. Discipline for Young Children-Discipline and Punishment: What is the Difference? 2014. Web.

Wilson, Elaine. Discipline without Punishment. 2010. Web.

• Child Abuse and Culture: Juan’s Case Analysis
• Experiential Expertise in Recovery from Intimate Partner Violence
• Familial Violence and Corporal Punishment Approval
• Social Issues: Corporal Punishment
• Judicial Corporal Punishment: An Update
• Child, Youth and Family Intervention
• Psychology: Drug Impact and Use Prevention
• The Effects of Forgiveness Therapy
• Group Counseling for Children of Addicted Parents
• Smoking Experience and Hidden Dangers
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, March 27). Negative Effects of Children’s Corporal Punishment. https://ivypanda.com/essays/negative-effects-of-children-corporal-punishment/

"Negative Effects of Children’s Corporal Punishment." IvyPanda , 27 Mar. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/negative-effects-of-children-corporal-punishment/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Negative Effects of Children’s Corporal Punishment'. 27 March.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Negative Effects of Children’s Corporal Punishment." March 27, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/negative-effects-of-children-corporal-punishment/.

1. IvyPanda . "Negative Effects of Children’s Corporal Punishment." March 27, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/negative-effects-of-children-corporal-punishment/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Negative Effects of Children’s Corporal Punishment." March 27, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/negative-effects-of-children-corporal-punishment/.

Fact sheets

• Facts in pictures
• Publications
• Questions and answers
• Tools and toolkits
• Endometriosis
• Excessive heat
• Mental disorders
• Polycystic ovary syndrome
• All countries
• Eastern Mediterranean
• South-East Asia
• Western Pacific
• Data by country
• Country presence 
• Country strengthening 
• Country cooperation strategies 
• News releases

Feature stories

• Press conferences

Commentaries

• Photo library
• Afghanistan
• Cholera 
• Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
• Greater Horn of Africa
• Israel and occupied Palestinian territory
• Disease Outbreak News
• Situation reports
• Weekly Epidemiological Record
• Surveillance
• Health emergency appeal
• International Health Regulations
• Independent Oversight and Advisory Committee
• Classifications
• Data collections
• Global Health Estimates
• Mortality Database
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Health Inequality Monitor
• Global Progress
• World Health Statistics
• Partnerships
• Committees and advisory groups
• Collaborating centres
• Technical teams
• Organizational structure
• Initiatives
• General Programme of Work
• WHO Academy
• Investment in WHO
• WHO Foundation
• External audit
• Financial statements
• Internal audit and investigations 
• Programme Budget
• Results reports
• Governing bodies
• World Health Assembly
• Executive Board
• Member States Portal
• Fact sheets /

Corporal punishment and health

• Corporal or physical punishment is highly prevalent globally, both in homes and schools. Around 60% of children aged 2–14 years regularly suffer physical punishment by their parents or other caregivers. In some countries, almost all students report being physically punished by school staff. The risk of being physically punished is similar for boys and girls, and for children from wealthy and poor households.
• Evidence shows corporal punishment increases children’s behavioural problems over time and has no positive outcomes.
• All corporal punishment, however mild or light, carries an inbuilt risk of escalation. Studies suggest that parents who used corporal punishment are at heightened risk of perpetrating severe maltreatment.
• Corporal punishment is linked to a range of negative outcomes for children across countries and cultures, including physical and mental ill-health, impaired cognitive and socio-emotional development, poor educational outcomes, increased aggression and perpetration of violence.
• Corporal punishment is a violation of children’s rights to respect for physical integrity and human dignity, health, development, education and freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
• The elimination of violence against children is called for in several targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development but most explicitly in Target 16.2: “end abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children”.
• Corporal punishment and the associated harms are preventable through multisectoral and multifaceted approaches, including law reform, changing harmful norms around child rearing and punishment, parent and caregiver support, and school-based programming.

Corporal or physical punishment is defined by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which oversees the  Convention on the Rights of the Child , as “any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however light.”

According to the Committee, this mostly involves hitting (smacking, slapping, spanking) children with a hand or implement (whip, stick, belt, shoe, wooden spoon or similar) but it can also involve, for example, kicking, shaking or throwing children, scratching, pinching, biting, pulling hair or boxing ears, forcing children to stay in uncomfortable positions, burning, scalding or forced ingestion.

Other non-physical forms of punishment can be cruel and degrading, and thus also incompatible with the Convention, and often accompany and overlap with physical punishment. These include punishments which belittle, humiliate, denigrate, scapegoat, threaten, scare or ridicule the child.

UNICEF’s data from nationally representative surveys in 56 countries 2005–2013 show that approximately 6 out of 10 children aged 2–14 years experienced corporal punishment by adults in their households in the past month. On average, 17% of children experienced severe physical punishment (being hit on the head, face or ears or hit hard and repeatedly) but in some countries this figure exceeds 40%. Large variations across countries and regions show the potential for prevention.

Apart from some countries where rates among boys are higher, results from comparable surveys show that the prevalence of corporal punishment is similar for girls and boys. Young children (aged 2–4 years) are as likely, and in some countries more likely, as older children (aged 5–14 years) to be exposed to physical punishment, including harsh forms. Physical disciplinary methods are used even with very young children – comparable surveys conducted in 29 countries 2012–2016 show that 3 in 10 children aged 12–23 months are subjected to spanking.

Most children are exposed to both psychological and physical means of punishment. Many parents and caregivers report using non-violent disciplines measures (such as explaining why the child’s behaviour was wrong, taking away privileges) but these are usually used in combination with violent methods. Children who experience only non-violent forms of discipline are in the minority.

One in 2 children aged 6–17 years (732 million) live in countries where corporal punishment at school is not fully prohibited. Studies have shown that lifetime prevalence of school corporal punishment was above 70% in Africa and Central America, past-year prevalence was above 60% in the WHO Regions of Eastern Mediterranean and South-East Asia, and past-week prevalence was above 40% in Africa and South-East Asia. Lower rates were found in the WHO Western Pacific Region, with lifetime and past year prevalence around 25%. Physical punishment appeared to be highly prevalent at both primary and secondary school levels.

Consequences

Corporal punishment triggers harmful psychological and physiological responses. Children not only experience pain, sadness, fear, anger, shame and guilt, but feeling threatened also leads to physiological stress and the activation of neural pathways that support dealing with danger. Children who have been physically punished tend to exhibit high hormonal reactivity to stress, overloaded biological systems, including the nervous, cardiovascular and nutritional systems, and changes in brain structure and function.

Despite its widespread acceptability, spanking is also linked to atypical brain function like that of more severe abuse, thereby undermining the frequently cited argument that less severe forms of physical punishment are not harmful. 

A large body of research shows links between corporal punishment and a wide range of negative outcomes, both immediate and long-term:

• direct physical harm, sometimes resulting in severe damage, long-term disability or death;
• mental ill-health, including behavioural and anxiety disorders, depression, hopelessness, low self-esteem, self-harm and suicide attempts, alcohol and drug dependency, hostility and emotional instability, which continue into adulthood;
• impaired cognitive and socio-emotional development, specifically emotion regulation and conflict solving skills;
• damage to education, including school dropout and lower academic and occupational success;
• poor moral internalization and increased antisocial behaviour;
• increased aggression in children;
• adult perpetration of violent, antisocial and criminal behaviour;
• indirect physical harm due to overloaded biological systems, including developing cancer, alcohol-related problems, migraine, cardiovascular disease, arthritis and obesity that continue into adulthood;
• increased acceptance and use of other forms of violence; and
• damaged family relationships.

Th ere is some evidence of a dose–response relationship, with studies finding that the association with child aggression and lower achievement in mathematics and reading ability became stronger as the frequency of corporal punish ment increased.

Risk factors

There are few differences in prevalence of corporal punishment by sex or age, although in some places boys and younger children are more at risk. Children with disabilities are more likely to be physically punished than those without disabilities. Parents who were physically punished as children are more likely to physically punish their own children.

In most of the countries with data, children from wealthier households are equally likely to experience violent discipline as those from poorer households. In contrast, in some resource-poor settings, especially where education systems have undergone rapid expansion, the strain on teachers resulting from the limited human and physical resources may lead to a greater use of corporal punishment in the classroom.

Prevention and response

The INSPIRE technical package presents several effective and promising interventions, including:

• Implementation and enforcement of laws to prohibit physical punishment. Such laws ensure children are equally protected under the law on assault as adults and serve an educational rather than punitive function, aiming to increase awareness, shift attitudes towards non-violent childrearing and clarify the responsibilities of parents in their caregiving role.
• Norms and values programmes to transform harmful social norms around child-rearing and child discipline.
• Parent and caregiver support through information and skill-building sessions to develop nurturing, non-violent parenting.
• Education and life skills interventions to build a positive school climate and violence-free environment, and strengthening relationships between students, teachers and administrators.
• Response and support services for early recognition and care of child victims and families to help reduce reoccurrence of violent discipline and lessen its consequences.

T he  earlier such interventions occur in children's lives, the greater the benefits to the child (e.g., cognitive development, behavioural and social competence, educational attainment) and to society (e.g., reduced delinquency and crime).

WHO Response

WHO addresses corporal punishment in multiple cross-cutting ways. In collaboration with partners, WHO provides guidance and technical support for evidence-based prevention and response. Work on several strategies from the INSPIRE technical package, including those on legislation, norms and values, parenting, and school-based violence prevention, contribute to preventing physical punishment. The Global status report on violence against children 2020 monitors countries’ progress in implementing legislation and programmes that help reduce it. WHO also advocates for increased international support for and investment in these evidence-based prevention and response efforts.

• Global Partnership to End Violence Against Children
• International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect
• Violence Against Children – UNICEF Data

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.184(12); 2012 Sep 4

Physical punishment of children: lessons from 20 years of research

Associated data.

Over the past two decades, we have seen an international shift in perspectives concerning the physical punishment of children. In 1990, research showing an association between physical punishment and negative developmental outcomes was starting to accumulate, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child had just been adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations; however, only four countries had prohibited physical punishment in all settings.

By 2000, research was proliferating, and the convention had been ratified by 191 of the world’s 196 countries, 11 of which had prohibited all physical punishment. Today, research showing the risks associated with physical punishment is robust, the convention has been integrated into the legal and policy frameworks of many nations, and 31 countries have enacted prohibitions against the physical punishment of children. 1 These three forces — research, the convention and law reform — have altered the landscape of physical punishment.

The growing weight of evidence and the recognition of children’s rights have brought us to a historical point. Physicians familiar with the research can now confidently encourage parents to adopt constructive approaches to discipline and can comfortably use their unique influence to guide other aspects of children’s healthy development. In doing so, physicians strengthen child well-being and parent–child relationships at the population level. Here, we present an analysis of the research on physical punishment spanning the past two decades to assist physicians in this important role.

The early years: identifying patterns

As recently as 20 years ago, the physical punishment of children was generally accepted worldwide and was considered an appropriate method of eliciting behavioural compliance that was conceptually distinct from physical abuse. However, this perspective began to change as studies found links between “normative” physical punishment and child aggression, delinquency and spousal assault in later life. Some of these studies involved large representative samples from the United States; 2 some studies controlled for potential confounders, such as parental stress 3 and socioeconomic status; 4 and some studies examined the potential of parental reasoning to moderate the association between physical punishment and child aggression. 5 Virtually without exception, these studies found that physical punishment was associated with higher levels of aggression against parents, siblings, peers and spouses.

But were physical punishment and childhood aggression statistically associated because more aggressive children elicit higher levels of physical punishment? Although this was a possibility, 6 research was beginning to show that physical punishment elicits aggression. Early experiments had shown that pain elicits reflexive aggression. 7 In an early modeling study, 8 boys in grade one who had watched a one-minute video of a boy being yelled at, shaken and spanked with a paddle for misbehaving showed more aggression while playing with dolls than boys who had watched a one-minute video of nonviolent responses to misbehaviour. In a treatment study, Forgatch showed that a reduction in harsh discipline used by parents of boys at risk for antisocial behaviour was followed by significant reductions in their children’s aggression. 9 These and other findings spurred researchers to identify the mechanisms linking physical punishment and child aggression.

By the 1990s, it was recognized that the method by which causality is typically shown in scientific studies — the randomized control trial — had limited application for studying the physical punishment of children. Although randomized control trials can be used to study the effect of reducing physical punishment (as in the Forgatch study), they cannot be used to study the effect of imposing such punishment because it would be unethical to assign children to a group receiving painful treatment when research suggests that such pain poses harm not outweighed by potential benefit. The few existing randomized control trials showed that physical punishment was no more effective than other methods in eliciting compliance. In one such study, an average of eight spankings in a single session was needed to elicit compliance, and there was “no support for the necessity of the physical punishment.” 10

To address the causality question within ethical bounds, researchers designed prospective studies involving children who had equivalent levels of aggression or antisocial behaviour at the beginning of the study. In addition, increasingly sophisticated statistical modeling techniques were applied to correlational studies to aid understanding of the results. These studies changed the way in which physical punishment would be researched over the subsequent decade and redrew the landscape of the debate.

The new millennium: addressing causation and broadening focus

One of the first large prospective studies (1997, n = 807) controlled for initial levels of child antisocial behaviour and sex, family socioeconomic status and levels of emotional support and cognitive stimulation in the home. 11 Even with these controls, physical punishment between the ages of six and nine years predicted higher levels of antisocial behaviour two years later. Subsequent prospective studies yielded similar results, whether they controlled for parental age, child age, race and family structure; 12 poverty, child age, emotional support, cognitive stimulation, sex, race and the interactions among these variables; 13 or other factors. 14 – 17 These studies provide the strongest evidence available that physical punishment is a risk factor for child aggression and antisocial behaviour.

A landmark meta-analysis published in 2002 18 showed that of 27 studies on physical punishment and child aggression conducted up to that time (that met the criteria of the meta-analysis), all found a significant positive relation, regardless of the size of the sample, location of study, ages of the children or any other variable. Almost all adequately designed studies conducted since that meta-analysis have found the same relation. 19 – 23 In a randomized controlled trial of an intervention designed to reduce difficult child behaviours, 24 parents in more than 500 families were trained to decrease their use of physical punishment. The significant parallel decline seen in the difficult behaviours of children in the treatment group was largely explained by the parents’ reduction in their use of physical punishment. Together, results consistently suggest that physical punishment has a direct causal effect on externalizing behaviour, whether through a reflexive response to pain, modeling or coercive family processes.

By 2000, research on physical punishment had expanded beyond its effect on child aggression. Studies were showing associations between physical punishment and mental health, physical injury, parent–child relationships and family violence in adulthood. One of the first such studies 25 linked slapping and spanking in childhood with psychiatric disorders in adulthood in a large Canadian sample, and its findings have since been supported by an ever-growing number of studies. Physical punishment is associated with a range of mental health problems in children, youth and adults, including depression, unhappiness, anxiety, feelings of hopelessness, use of drugs and alcohol, and general psychological maladjustment. 26 – 29 These relationships may be mediated by disruptions in parent–child attachment resulting from pain inflicted by a caregiver, 30 , 31 by increased levels of cortisol 32 or by chemical disruption of the brain’s mechanism for regulating stress. 33 Researchers are also finding that physical punishment is linked to slower cognitive development and adversely affects academic achievement. 34 These findings come from large longitudinal studies that control for a wide range of potential confounders. 35 Intriguing results are now emerging from neuroimaging studies, which suggest that physical punishment may reduce the volume of the brain’s grey matter in areas associated with performance on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, third edition (WAIS-III). 36 In addition, physical punishment can cause alterations in the dopaminergic regions associated with vulnerability to the abuse of drugs and alcohol. 37

These findings are all consistent with the growing body of literature on the impact of adverse childhood experiences on neurological, cognitive, emotional and social development, as well as physical health. 38 Although some studies have found no relation between physical punishment and negative outcomes, 35 and others have found the relation to be moderated by other factors, 12 no study has found physical punishment to have a long-term positive effect, and most studies have found negative effects. 17

Another major change in the landscape was precipitated by research that questioned the traditional punishment–abuse dichotomy. Although research began to accumulate in the 1970s that showed that most physical abuse is physical punishment (in intent, form and effect), studies of child maltreatment have since clarified this finding. For example, the first cycle of the Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect 39 (CIS 1998) showed that 75% of substantiated physical abuse of children occurred during episodes of physical punishment. This finding was replicated in the second cycle of the study (CIS 2003). 40 Another large Canadian study 41 found that children who were spanked by their parents were seven times more likely to be severely assaulted by their parents (e.g., punched or kicked) than children who were not spanked. In an American study, 42 infants in their first year of life who had been spanked by their parents in the previous month were 2.3 times more likely to suffer an injury requiring medical attention than infants who had not been spanked. Studies of the dynamics of child physical abuse have shed light on this process, which involves parents attributing conflict to child willfulness 43 and/or rejection, 44 as well as coercive family dynamics 9 and conditioned emotional responses. 45

The mounting evidence linking negative long-term outcomes to physical punishment has contributed to a global shift in perceptions of the practice. In Canada, more than 400 organizations have endorsed the Joint Statement on Physical Punishment of Children and Youth. 46 A subset of these organizations is listed in Appendix 1 (available at www.cmaj.ca/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1503/cmaj.101314/-/DC1 ). In other countries, legislative reforms have been instituted to better protect children. 47 Accompanying these changes has been a growing emphasis on developing models of positive discipline that rely on nonviolent and effective conflict resolution.

The future: promoting nonviolent parenting

There is considerable evidence that providing support and education to parents can reduce their use of physical punishment and children’s externalizing behaviours. Most of the programs that have been evaluated are behaviourally based, with origins in the work of Patterson and colleagues. 48 In these programs, parents are taught to observe their children’s behaviour, communicate clearly and apply contingent consequences. Meta-analyses of studies evaluating these programs show positive effects on the competence, efficacy and psychological health of the parents, as well as on the behaviour of the children. 49 , 50 A recent implementation study of a strategy for parenting and family support showed that families in the treatment group had far fewer cases of substantiated child maltreatment, abuse injuries and out-of-home placements. 51

The consistency of research findings on physical punishment and positive discipline, along with growing support for the aims of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, has had a substantial impact on the views of health care providers. The Canadian Paediatric Society, “ strongly discourages [original emphasis] the use of physical punishment on children, including spanking.” 52 The American Academy of Pediatrics cautions that “corporal punishment is of limited effectiveness and has potentially deleterious side effects,” and “recommends that parents be encouraged and assisted in the development of methods other than spanking for managing undesired behavior.” 53

It is now 20 years since Canada ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which calls for the elimination of all forms of violence against children, including physical punishment. The debate has moved beyond discussions of outcomes and causality to those of ethics and human rights. This new context for examining physical punishment has propelled legal, policy and attitudinal changes worldwide. 47 An increasing number of countries are abolishing the use of physical punishment to better protect children and to shift parents’ focus from punishment to guidance and effective discipline. Evidence is emerging that the combination of law reform and public education is more effective than either strategy alone in changing parental attitudes and behaviours. 54

Physicians have a primary responsibility for translating research and evidence into guidance for parents and children, and they are credible and influential voices for advancing public education and policy concerning population health. For example, physicians can educate parents on child development to reduce angry and punitive responses to normative child behaviours and provide resources on positive discipline. 46 In addition, physicians may refer parents to public health programs, resource centres, positive parenting programs and other clinical professionals for further support. Furthermore, physicians can engage with other professionals to send clear, unambiguous messages on a population level. Examples of such messages are “Spanking hurts more than you think” (Toronto Public Health) and “Never spank!” (Public Health Agency of Canada). 55 , 56 Finally, physicians can urge the federal government to remove section 43 from the Criminal Code , which provides legal justification for the use of physical punishment, thereby undermining public education initiatives.

The Joint Statement on Physical Punishment of Children and Youth finds

The evidence is clear and compelling — physical punishment of children and youth plays no useful role in their upbringing and poses only risks to their development. The conclusion is equally compelling — parents should be strongly encouraged to develop alternative and positive approaches to discipline. 46

Effective discipline rests on clear and age-appropriate expectations, effectively communicated within a trusting relationship and a safe environment. 57

• Numerous studies have found that physical punishment increases the risk of broad and enduring negative developmental outcomes.
• No study has found that physical punishment enhances developmental health.
• Most child physical abuse occurs in the context of punishment.
• A professional consensus is emerging that parents should be supported in learning nonviolent, effective approaches to discipline.

Supplementary Material

See related editorial by Fletcher on page 1339 and at www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.121070

Competing interests: Ron Ensom is part of the national knowledge transfer initiative on physical punishment at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario. No other competing interests were declared.

This article has been peer reviewed.

Contributors: Joan Durrant was the primary author and drafted the manuscript and its subsequent revisions. The article was conceptualized and finalized by Joan Durrant and Ron Ensom. Both authors approved of the final version submitted for publication.

Physical discipline is harmful and ineffective

A new APA resolution cites evidence that physical punishment can cause lasting harm for children

By Eve Glicksman

May 2019, Vol 50, No. 5

Print version: page 22

• Physical Abuse and Violence

APA adopted a new policy about the ineffectiveness and dangers of physical discipline against children to raise awareness among parents, caregivers and mental health professionals.

The Resolution on Physical Discipline of Children By Parents , adopted by APA’s Council of Representatives in February, relies on strong and sophisticated longitudinal research that finds physical discipline does not improve behavior and can lead to emotional, behavioral and academic problems over time, even after race, gender and family socioeconomic status have been statistically controlled.

To start, the research finds that hitting children does not teach them about responsibility, conscience development and self-control. "Hitting children does not teach them right from wrong," says Elizabeth Gershoff, PhD, an expert on the effects of corporal punishment on children who provided research for the resolution. "Spanking gets their attention, but they have not internalized why they should do the right thing in the future. They may behave when the adult is there but do whatever they want at other times."

In addition, children learn from watching their parents. Parents who use physical discipline may be teaching their child to resolve conflicts with physical aggression. Researchers found that spanking can elevate a child’s aggression levels as well as diminish the quality of the parent-child relationship. Other studies have documented that physical discipline can escalate into abuse.

The purpose of this resolution is to promote effective forms of discipline for parents that don’t contribute to antisocial behaviors, aggression and trust issues. "Children do not need pain to learn," says Gershoff, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin, "We don’t allow aggression among adults. It’s a sad double standard that we don’t give children the same protection against violence."

Better discipline models

Upward of 80 percent of mothers spank their children between kindergarten and third grade, according to a large study conducted by Gershoff ( Child Development , May/June 2012).

Most parents raise children the way they were raised and have not been exposed to other models of discipline, says APA President Rosie Phillips Davis, PhD. "I don’t think most people know how to discipline without spanking. We don’t teach people to do it differently; alternatives seem time-consuming," she says.

The APA resolution presents effective alternatives that draw broadly on respectful communication, collaborative conflict resolution and parental modeling. Specifically, these approaches could include conveying anxiety about a dangerous action, taking away privileges or using praise to shape behavior.

Sometimes, simply ignoring the behavior and not engaging in a fight is the best tactic, says Christina Rodriguez, PhD, an associate professor at The University of Alabama at Birmingham and chair of the APA Committee on Children, Youth and Families, who led the resolution effort. "Parents need to learn what they should or shouldn’t respond to."

Parents of 3- to 5- year-olds are the most likely to spank. So, what about a preschooler who can’t be reasoned with? Rodriguez advises parents to think strategically and plan ahead. If your child is prone to act out while you get groceries, bring snacks and toys to redirect the child or choose a time to shop when the child isn’t sleepy, she suggests.

Calling a time-out for certain behaviors can be effective but it is often misused as a stand-alone strategy, Gershoff observes. "Looking at a wall for five minutes won’t teach a child how to behave."

Rather, parents need to give children guidance about what to do differently, what is known as "time out from positive reinforcement (TOPR)." This technique makes time-out an opportunity to regroup and think about how to do better next time.

A new study in American Psychologist offers guidelines in using TOPR to maximize the development of the child’s self-regulation skills while avoiding any weakening of the parent-child attachment bond from the time out ( American Psychologist , Feb. 25, 2019).

Give parents the facts

The APA resolution is clear that any perceived short-term benefits from physical discipline do not outweigh the potential detriments. By adopting the resolution, APA joins a number of professional and public health organizations in recommending that parents reject all physical discipline. The resolution also directs APA to support funding for research in the United States and other countries related to why parents turn to physical discipline.

Davis wants to see more training programs on parental discipline for psychologists. Currently, more than 75 APA members are collaborating to create a toolkit to facilitate conversations in the community about disciplining children. Multiple modules are being developed for parents, colleges, civic organizations and places of worship that will include frequently asked questions. APA also offers the ACT Raising Safe Kids Program to teach positive parenting skills.

Rodriguez hopes the resolution will prompt psychologists to guide parents toward healthier discipline practices than were used in the past. Now that we know the risks of not wearing seatbelts, most parents make sure children buckle up, she comments. "Why is it not the same for rejecting physical discipline when the risks are known?"

Some psychologists feel that it’s not their place to tell parents how to discipline their children, Rodriguez says. "But it is long past opinion that physical discipline makes things worse," she says. "It is incumbent on psychologists to take the opportunity to discuss the facts and share what we know. If mental health professionals don’t take this on, then who?"

To read the full APA resolution on child punishment, go to www.apa.org/about/policy/physical-discipline.pdf .

Recommended Reading

Letters to the Editor

• Send us a letter