This article was downloaded by: [University of Illinois Chicago]On: 17 October 2014, At: 04:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The American Journal of Family TherapyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uaft20

Current Status on Corporal PunishmentWith Children: What the Literature SaysPeter T. Oas aa Private Practice , Niceville, Florida, USAPublished online: 13 Oct 2010.

To cite this article: Peter T. Oas (2010) Current Status on Corporal Punishment With Children:What the Literature Says, The American Journal of Family Therapy, 38:5, 413-420, DOI:10.1080/01926187.2010.514214

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2010.514214

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The American Journal of Family Therapy, 38:413–420, 2010Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0192-6187 print / 1521-0383 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01926187.2010.514214

Current Status on Corporal Punishment WithChildren: What the Literature Says

PETER T. OASPrivate Practice, Niceville, Florida, USA

Research on corporal punishment supports that children need dis-cipline and the judicial use of corporal punishment could be ef-fectively utilized by parents. Despite controversy surrounding theuse of corporal punishment, there are no clear practice guidelinesor ethical standards within the profession that have been empir-ically defined or justified to prohibit mental health professionals,such as therapists, from making careful and supervised recom-mendations to parents on corporal punishment. Case studies arepresented which describe relevant variables to consider in makingrecommendations to parents.

Corporal punishment techniques (e.g., spanking) have existed for many yearsand remain a permanent form of discipline with children. Studies generallyestimate an overwhelming majority of parents continue to spank their chil-dren (Larzelere, Kuhn, & Johnson, 2004; Straus & Stewart, 1999). The majorityof the American public and professionals concerned with children remainconvinced that corporal punishment is sometimes necessary (Davis, Smith,& Marsden, 2005). Psychologists spank their own children (Anderson & An-derson, 1976) and tend to recommend spanking to parents less, but theystill remain split in their views as to whether the American PsychologicalAssociation (APA) should make a blanket policy statement on it (Schenck,Lyman, & Bodin, 2000).

Despite considerable professional and public controversy (Straus &Douglas, 2008) about corporal punishment, research continually indicates,through reviews and meta-analyses, that corporal punishment or spanking iseffective in the short-term suppression of undesirable behavior (Larzelere &Kuhn, 2005a; Benjet & Kazdin, 2003; Lerman & Vorndran, 2002; Baumrind,1996; Horn, Joseph, & Cheng, 2004; Harris, Erhner, & Hershfield, 1978).

Address correspondence to Peter T. Oas, P.O. Box 1002, Niceville, FL 32588. E-mail:peteroas@aol.com

413

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

4:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

414 P.T. Oas

Critics of corporal punishment often cite a review by Gershof (2002), buteven she states that laboratory research on learning has confirmed that cor-poral punishment is effective in securing short-term compliance and opines:“As a field and as a society, we must separate out the emotionally chargedaspects of the debate over corporal punishment so that we can knowledge-ably and responsibly recommend or discourage parent(s) use of corporalpunishment with their children” (p. 567). She goes on to state: “The pres-ence of corporal punishment may make certain behaviors more likely butclearly not inevitable. Other complex aspects of the parent-child relationshipin context probably play an important role but are not well understood”(p. 551).

The fact that over 90% of Americans are spanked as children, and mostare not violent, abusive, or criminal adults, contradicts an assertion that cor-poral punishment unilaterally will have negative effects on children (Straus& Stewart, 1999). Most of the research on physical punishment “lumps”together non-abusive punishment with a wide range of more severe andinappropriate punishment responses (Larzelere & Kuhn, 2005a).

In reviews, it is repeatedly stated that methodological problems in datagathering (Benjet & Kazdin, 2005; Larzelere & Kuhn, 2005; Gershof, 2002)and a more accurate assessment of the numerous parent-child variablesneeds to occur (Larzelere & Kuhn, 2005a; Baumrind, 1996; Chamberlain &Patterson, 1995) if psychologists are to develop recommendations of publicand professional policy based on scientific evidence (Larzelere, 2008). Someprofessionals (Straus & Douglas, 2008) support a ban on corporal punishmentdespite clear recommendations made in all comprehensive reviews to datethat it would be premature to do so, exhibiting what Larzelere, Kuhn, andJohnson (2004) describe as “a selection bias.” Alternative disciplinary tech-niques must also be evaluated as rigorously as spanking (Larzelere, 2005c).

Attempts by some politically minded organizations toward elimination ofall forms of corporal punishment as social policy (Global Initiative to End AllCorporal Punishment, 2009) are not based on exacting empirical and clinicaldata but instead are on allegations that the existence of corporal punishmentor spanking leads to greater rates of child abuse, violence, or aggression, andit is morally wrong to inflict pain or harm upon a child. These argumentsrarely define the type, severity, or context of corporal punishment.

To further understand potential benefits of corporal punishment andbefore making public policy recommendations with children, there should beclarity about exactly what is meant by corporal punishment. The professionalliterature tends to define corporal punishment as spanking, but that term inand of itself is not defined clearly. For example, is spanking considered aflick of the ear, tap/slap on the hand, or a pinch or squeeze to a child’s armto get their attention?

Opponents of corporal punishment or spanking tend to considerany physical response to be as harmful, or corporal punishment is too

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

4:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

Corporal Punishment With Children 415

often associated with acts of physical abuse and the propensity toward abusein the future is strengthened (Donnelly & Scott, 2005). However, physicalabuse is typically described as: “non-accidental physical injury as a result ofcaretaker acts. Physical abuse frequently includes shaking, slapping, punch-ing, beating, kicking, biting, and burning” (Ventrell & Duquette, 2005, p.114)and the term “injury” is further defined typically as something which yieldslasting, measurable physical effects such as bruising. Straus (1994) states:“Corporal punishment is the use of physical force with the intention of caus-ing a child to experience pain but not injury for the purpose of correction andcontrol of a child’s behavior (p.4).” Opponents have attempted to broadenthe definition of injury or abuse to include any type of emotional or psycho-logical pain to children, which is illogical and contradictory of research.

The National Clearing House of Child Abuse and Neglect (2002) indi-cates behaviors that do not result in significant physical injury (e.g., spank orslap) are considered corporal punishment whereas behaviors that risk injury(e.g., punching, kicking, and burning) are considered physical abuse. Thedefinitions of abuse, violence, aggression, and punishment are not uniformlyagreed upon.

In numerous studies, corporal punishment research indicates a potentialplethora of other variables that could determine not only the effectiveness ofa particular parental disciplinary response but the variables which determinethe probability of its being more or less effective. Applied behavior anal-ysis (Lerman & Vorndtan, 2002; Chamberlain & Patterson, 1995) indicatesvariables such as frequency of the response, intensity (pain level), type ofresponse, and parent and child variables such as the way in which the parentthinks about and delivers a response, and the way in which the child per-ceives and understands the response from the parent are all very importantto study further. Variables such as the age of the child, the parent’s ability tocontrol their own impulsive or specifically aggressive responses, a parent’sthoughts or feelings at the time, and the type of physical parental responsein terms of frequency and severity can affect the child very differently inclinical or therapeutic interactions (Benjet & Kazdin, 2005; Baumrind, 1996).

A comprehensive review of professional literature found no specificform of physical punishment was more strongly associated with physical ag-gression than other common disciplinary tactics (Larzelere & Kuhn, 2005a).“Controlled spanking” was more effective in reducing defiance and antiso-cial behavior. Another study found spanking and “positive parenting” didnot result in negative outcomes (Baumrind, 2001). Empirically based lit-erature reviews examine the effects of “conditional spanking” against al-ternative disciplinary tactics and found conditional spanking was preferableover ten out of thirteen alternative disciplinary tactics for reducing child non-compliance or antisocial behavior (Larzelere & Kuhn, 2005a). Only one out ofeleven empirically based studies found a positive linear association betweennon-abusive corporal punishment and negative child outcomes. There were

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

4:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

416 P.T. Oas

curvilinear associations between frequency or intensity of corporal punish-ment and child aggression with the most severely punished children ex-hibiting a tendency to be aggressive but only in the context of permissiveparenting practices that were overly severe.

Studies describing a more focused analysis of the specific mediatingvariables that tend to reveal potentially positive effects have been describedand are well documented for conditional spanking techniques. Researchershave also studied the importance of using corporal punishment or spankingas “back up techniques” to eventually strengthen the punishment value ofa less than physical or non-physical methods (Larzelere & Kuhn, 2005b).Age-appropriate, non-abusive corporal punishment may actually help par-ents enforce milder disciplinary tactics, thereby decreasing the risk of esca-lating disciplinary interactions. Empirically based studies have documentedmore beneficial than detrimental outcomes and the effectiveness of non-abusive spanking to enforce timeout with clinically defiant two- to six-year-olds (Larzelere, 2008; Larzelere & Smith, 2000).

Empirically based research contains numerous variables and complex-ities involved in the effectiveness or acceptability of corporal punishment.Baumrind (1996b) opines: “Parents who choose to use punishment oftenseek guidance in using it efficaciously. Efficacious punishment is contingentupon the child’s misbehavior, as well as upon the parents responding in aprompt, rationale, non-explosive manner and with knowledge and consid-eration of the child’s developmental level. The prudent use of punishmentwithin the context of a responsive, supportive parent/child relationship is anecessary tool in the disciplinary encounter with young children. The shortand long-term effects on child outcomes of any disciplinary practice withinthe normative range are moderated by cultural and child rearing contexts.The extent to which spanking or any other form of aversive discipline ispart of a harsh parenting pattern or is conditioned by warmth and the useof reason determines its meaning to the child and its consequent beneficialor detrimental effects. Within the context of an authoritative child rearingrelationship, aversive discipline is well accepted by the young child, effec-tive in managing short-term misbehavior, and has no documented harmful,long-term effects” (p. 414).

Numerous parent and child characteristics, perceptions of discipline,professional and cultural expectations and norms, and childhood learninghistories must be considered to determine whether corporal punishmentcould be effectively applied either in a controlled or backup manner. It hasbeen widely held that corporal punishment can provide short-term imme-diate behavioral change, but it may not be the best longer-term solution.There is little information in the scholarly literature to build upon alreadyaccepted variables involving non-corporal punishment. Procedures such asremoving pleasurable stimuli from the child through timeout, restriction, orloss of privileges are often preferable but not always sufficiently effective.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

4:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

Corporal Punishment With Children 417

Often parents have insufficient motivation or perseverance to utilize variouscharts, token economies, and/or systematically charted parent managementprograms that, if followed, would potentially lead to positive change in thechild’s behavior. These more demanding programs are not responsive tosome parents’ tendency to prefer a “quick fix” approach for more immediateimprovement. Parents can also be more subtly impulsive, distractible, anddefiant, so their behavior as well as the child’s must be shaped.

In one case, a mother and father brought their six-year-old, some-times defiant, aggressive, distractible, hyperactive, impulsive, unacceptablybehaved son for advice on discipline to help them with their out of controlchild. They did not believe their child’s behavior was a result of a geneticabnormality, chemical disturbance in the brain, or temperament, nor did theywant to drug their child. They simply lacked sufficient parental knowledgeand disciplinary technique, a common clinical situation.

Accepted scientific and clinical information and age old traditional par-enting practices on effective disciplinary techniques were discussed with theparents. The numerous factors necessary to determine appropriate punish-ment techniques were reviewed to provide short-term suppression of unde-sirable behavior, such as causing physical pain until non-physical rewardsand positive motivators and self-monitoring processes for longer-term behav-ioral control could be developed. Discussed was the fact that it is commonfor children to need a balance of pleasure and pain or rewards and pun-ishments contingent on the child’s behavior, and commonly recommendedprocedures of time out, taking things away, or verbal reasoning aren’t theonly options.

The parents were grateful to find it was “okay” to physically punish theirchild within a specified context of long standing clinically and scientificallysupported theoretical guidelines and parenting practices. It was discussedthat some forms of physical punishment are not considered abusive or un-helpful, and if used, common fears parents have of being reprimanded bythe local child abuse enforcement office would be unlikely. They agreed thattheir disciplinary responses had been at times too lenient, inconsistent, or oc-curred in the context of frustration or anger. A preplanned, calmly delivered,painful response to the child’s rear end provided the child with a healthyfear of authority. I also provided a new perception and healthy fear of theparents as someone who could cause him pain should he decide to remaintoo self-centered, thus mirroring the natural punishment and reinforcementcontingencies in real life.

In the context of a controlled therapeutic environment, the parents’attitudes and beliefs, psychological makeup, and specific punishment andreinforcement contingencies in the parent/child response could be observedand the subsequent change in the child’s behavioral response could beevaluated and techniques reappraised and modified. Once the behavior wasbetter controlled and the child’s behavioral desires became submissive to the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

4:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

418 P.T. Oas

parent’s, the parents and the child could discuss the process and perceivea positive resolution among them, so there was not any lingering confusionor resentment about punishment perceived by the child, and the tendencytoward future aggression in the child was lessened.

Another mother and father brought their misbehaved seven-year-oldobese child, but these parents had very different views about the use ofcorporal punishment with children. They tended to vary their response tothe child, including discipline with harsh verbal responses, ignoring thebehavior, thinking punitive discipline might damage the child’s self-esteemor the child’s misbehavior was not a product of less than effective parenting.This family also had a history of a tendency toward impatient, aggressive,and inconsistent behavioral responses to the child.

The mother was very angered at times and at other times was simplyconfused about how a child could benefit from a physical punishment fromthe parent. In her family when she was growing up, she had perceived thatshe was the recipient of abusive responses from her parents and swore shewould never “hit her child.” The father was physically punished a lot as achild but perceived it was appropriate and a corrective teaching tool.

The parents disagreed with each other on discipline; one parent wasperceived to be too harsh and one too lenient. After discussion about whatis helpful and appropriate, acceptable methods of agreed upon punitivediscipline involved various forms of physical exercise in this child whenhe was unwilling to practice sitting still, look the parents in the eye whenspoken to, and follow specific commands in the office, all of which weredefined as the target behaviors to produce a positive change in his Atten-tion Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) or Oppositional-Defiant Disorder(ODD) symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Experienced family therapists and research within the fields of developmen-tal psychology have shown a psychologically healthy parent-child relation-ship involves a reasonable balance between rewards and punishments, yetvery few studies examine a comparison between punishment techniques andrewards (e.g., positive reinforcement such as praise or incentives/rewards),and other techniques of punishment such as verbal reprimand or reasoningwith a child, non-corporal punishment (withdrawal of privileges/timeout),and controlled corporal punishment (spanking/hand slapping). A study byLarzelere, Schneider, Larson, and Pike (1996) revealed non-corporal andcorporal punishment were equally effective when combined with reasoning.Baumrind (2001) evaluated spanking and cognitive competence, commu-nal competence, and internalizing and externalizing problems. The analysescontrolled statistically for positive parenting, maladjusted parenting, parental

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

4:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

Corporal Punishment With Children 419

education, and previous child maladjustment (and after having eliminatedabusive parents from the analyses). Once these variables were controlled,the associations between spanking and negative outcomes disappeared. Thiswould seem to be a more fruitful area of clinical and empirical researchparticularly since family therapy and parent management training are thetreatment of choice for externalizing child behavior problems such as ADHDand ODD at a time when the profession is attempting to determine theeffectiveness of more evidence-based treatments.

REFERENCES

Anderson, K. A., & Anderson, D. E. (1976). Psychologists and spanking. Journal ofClinical Child Psychology, 5, 46–49.

Baumrind, D. (1996a). A blanket injunction against disciplinary use of spanking isnot warranted by the data. Pediatrics, 98, 828–832.

Baumrind, D. (1996b). The discipline controversy revisited. Family Relations, 45,405–414.

Baumrind, D. (1997). Necessary distinctions. Psychological Inquiry, 8, 176–182.Baumrind, D. (2001). Does casually relevant research support a blanket injunction

against disciplinary spanking by parents? Invited address at the 109th AnnualConvention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.

Benjet, C., & Kazdin, A. (2003). Spanking children: The controversies, findings, andnew directions. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 197–224.

Bornstein, M., Chamberlain, P., & Patterson, G. (1995). Discipline and child com-pliance in parenting. In Bornstein, M. (Ed.), Handbook of Parenting: Ap-plied and practical parenting (pp. 205–225). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Davis, J., Smith, T. W., & Marsden, P. V. (2005). General social survey, 1972–2004[Cumulative file] (Publication No. ICPSR04295-vl). Retrieved December 17, 2005,from National Opinion Research Center at www.norc.uchicago.edu

Donnelly, M., & Scott, R. (2005). Corporal punishment of children in theoreticalperspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gershoff, E. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviorsand experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin,128, 539–579.

Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment. (2009). Retrieved June 3, 2009,from http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org

Harris, S., & Ersner-Hershfield, R. (1978). Behavioral suppression of seriously dis-ruptive behavior in psychotic and retarded patients: A review of punishmentand its alternatives. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1352–1375.

Horn, I., Joseph, J., & Cheng, T. (2004). Nonabusive physical punishment and childbehavior among African-American children: A systematic review. Journal of theNational Medical Association, 96, 1162–1168.

Larzelere, R. E. (1996). A review of the Outcomes of Parental Use of Nonabusive orCustomary Physical Punishment. Pediatrics, 98, 824–827.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

4:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

420 P.T. Oas

Larzelere, R. E., Schneider, W. N., Larson, D. B., & Pike, P. L. (1996). The effectsof discipline responses in delaying toddler misbehavior recurrences. Child &Family Behavior Therapy, 18, 35–57.

Larzelere, R. E. (2000). Child outcomes of nonabusive and customary physical pun-ishment by parents: An updated literature review. Clinical Child and FamilyPsychology Review, 3, 199–221.

Larzelere, R. E., & Smith, G. L. (2000). Controlled longitudinal effects of five disci-plinary tactics on antisocial behavior. Presented at the Annual Meeting of theAmerican Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

Larzelere, R. E., Kuhn, B. R., & Johnson, B. (2004). The intervention selection bias:An under recognized confound in intervention research. Psychological Bulletin,130, 289–303.

Larzelere, R. E., & Kuhn, B. (2005a). Comparing child outcomes of physical pun-ishment and alternative disciplinary tactics: A meta-analysis. Clinical Child andFamily Psychology Review, 8, 1–38.

Larzelere, R. E., & Kuhn, B. (2005b). Enhancing behavioral parent training with anextended discipline ladder. Behavior Therapist, 28, 105–108.

Larzelere, R. (2005c). What alternatives can pass the scientific tests flunked byspanking? Paper presented at the 2005 American Psychological AssociationConvention.

Larzelere, R. E. (2008). Disciplinary spanking: The scientific evidence. Journal ofDevelopmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 29, 334–335.

Lerman, D. C., & Vorndran, C. M. (2002). On the status of knowledge for usingpunishment: Implications for treating behavior disorders. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 35, 431–464.

National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information. (2000). Whatis child maltreatment? Retrieved June 30, 2001, from http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factsheets/childmal.cfm.

Schenck, E. R., Lyman, R. D., & Bodin, S. D. (2000). Ethical beliefs, attitudes, andprofessional practices of psychologists regarding parental use of corporal pun-ishment: A survey. Children’s Services: Social Policy, Research, and Practice, 3,23–38.

Straus, M. A. (1994). Should the use of corporal punishment by parents be consideredchild abuse? Yes. In M. A. Mason & E. Gambrill (Eds.), Debating children’s lives:Current controversies on children and adolescents (pp. 197–203). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Straus, M. A., & Stewart, J. H. (1999). Corporal punishment by American parents:National data on prevalence, chronicity, severity, and duration, in relation tochild and family characteristics. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review,2, 55–70.

Straus, M. A. & Douglas, E. M. (2008). Research on spanking by parents: Implicationsfor Public Policy. Family Psychologist, 24, 18–20.

Ventrell, M., & Duzuette, D. (2005). Child Welfare Law and Practice. Denver,Colorado: Bradford Publishing Company.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

4:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4