Social Science and Public Policy

NEW EVIDENCE FOR THE BENEFITS OF NEVER SPANKING Murray A. Straus a revolution has o c c u r r e d in the last ur years in the state of scientific knowledge about the long-term effects of corporal punishment. This article summarizes the results of that r e s e a r c h and explains w h y the n e w r e s e a r c h shows, more clearly than ever before, the benefits of avoiding corporal punishment. Somewhat ironically, at the same time as these n e w studies were a p p e a r i n g , v o i c e s arose in state legislatures, the mass media, and in social science journals to defend corporal punishment. Consequently, a s e c o n d p u r p o s e is to put these recent defenses of corporal p u n i s h m e n t in perspective. This is followed by a section explaining a paradox c o n c e r n i n g trends in corporal punishment. Public belief in the necessity of corporal punishment and the percentage of parents w h o hit teenagers is about half of what it was only 30 years ago. Despite these dramatic changes, 94 p e r c e n t of parents of toddlers in a recent national survey r e p o r t e d spanking, w h i c h is about the same as it was in 1975 (Straus and Stewart, 1999). The article concludes with an estimate of the benefits to children, to parents, and to society as a w h o l e that could o c c u r if corporal p u n i s h m e n t were to cease. Defenders of corporal p u n i s h m e n t say or imply that no-corporal p u n i s h m e n t is the same as no-discipline or"permissiveness." Consequently, before discussing the n e w research, it is important to e m p h a s i z e that n o - c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t d o e s n o t m e a n no-discipline. Writers and organ i z a t i o n s l e a d i n g the m o v e m e n t a w a y f r o m c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t believe that rules and discipline are necessary, but that they will be more 52

SOCIETY 9 SEPTEMBER/ OCTOBER 2001

effective w i t h o u t c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t . T h e i r goal is to i n f o r m p a r e n t s a b o u t t h e s e m o r e effective d i s c i p l i n a r y strategies, as e x e m p l i f i e d in the very name of one such o r g a n i z a t i o n - - t h e Center For Effective Discipline (see their web site: http.'//www.stophitting.com; see also the web site of Positive Parenting p r o g r a m bttp://

parenting, umn. edu). Previous Research o n Corporal P u n i s h m e n t In order to grasp the i m p o r t a n c e of the n e w research, the limitations of the previous 45 years of research need to be understood. These 45 years saw the publication of more than 80 studies linking corporal p u n i s h m e n t to child behavior problems such as physical violence. A meta-analysis of these studies by Gershoff (in press) found that almost all s h o w e d that the more corporal punishment a child had experienced, the w o r s e the behavior of the child. Gershoff's review reveals a consistency of findings that is rare in social scie n c e research. T h o m p s o n c o n c l u d e d that "Alt h o u g h ... c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t d o e s s e c u r e children's immediate compliance,it also increases the likelihood of eleven [types of] negative outcomes [such as increased physical aggression by the child and depression later in life]. Moreover, even studies c o n d u c t e d by defenders of corporal punishment s h o w that, even w h e n the criterion is immediate compliance, non-corporal disciplinc strategies work just as well as corporal punishment. The studies in my b o o k Beating the Devil Out of Them are examples of the type of negative outc o m e reviewed by Thompson. For example, the m o r e c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t e x p e r i e n c e d , the

g r e a t e r the p r o b a b i l i t y of hitting a wife or husb a n d later in life. A n o t h e r study of k i n d e r g a r t e n c h i l d r e n used data on c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t obt a i n e d by i n t e r v i e w s w i t h the m o t h e r s of the children. Six m o n t h s later the children w e r e o b s e r v e d in school. I n s t a n c e s of p h y s i c a l aggression w e r e tallied for each child. The c h i l d r e n of m o t h e r s who used corporal punishment attacked other c h i l d r e n t w i c e as o f t e n as the c h i l d r e n w h o s e m o t h e r s did not. The c h i l d r e n of m o t h e r s w h o w e n t b e y o n d o r d i n a r y c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t had four times the rate of a t t a c k i n g o t h e r c h i l d r e n . This illustrates a n o t h e r p r i n c i p l e : that the psychologically harmful effects of c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t are p a r a l l e l to t h e h a r m f u l e f f e c t s of p h y s i c a l abuse, e x c e p t that the m a g n i t u d e of the effect is less. D e s p i t e the unusually high c o n s t a n c y in the f i n d i n g s of r e s e a r c h on c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t , t h e r e is a s e r i o u s p r o b l e m with all the p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h , t h e s e studies do not i n d i c a t e w h i c h is cause and w h i c h is effect. That is, t h e y do not take into a c c o u n t the fact that a g g r e s s i o n and o t h e r b e h a v i o r p r o b l e m s of the child lead p a r e n t s to spank. Consequently, a l t h o u g h t h e r e is clear e v i d e n c e that the m o r e c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t , the g r e a t e r the p r o b a b i l i t y of hitting a s p o u s e later in life, that finding c o u l d simply i n d i c a t e that the p a r e n t s w e r e r e s p o n d i n g to a high level of aggression by the child at Time 1. For e x a m p l e , t h e y might have s p a n k e d b e c a u s e the child r e p e a t e d l y g r a b b e d toys from or hit a b r o t h e r or sister. Since a g g r e s s i o n is a relatively stable trait, it is not surprising that the most aggressive c h i l d r e n at Time 1 are still the most aggressive at Time 2 and are n o w hitting their wives or husbands. To deal with that p r o b l e m , the r e s e a r c h n e e d s to take into acc o u n t the child's a g g r e s s i o n or o t h e r antisocial b e h a v i o r at Time 1 (the time of the spanking). Studies using that design can e x a m i n e w h e t h e r , in the m o n t h s or years following, the b e h a v i o r of c h i l d r e n w h o w e r e s p a n k e d i m p r o v e s (as most p e o p l e in the USA think will be the case) or gets w o r s e . T h e r e are finally n e w studies that use this d e s i g n and p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n on long t e r m c h a n g e in the child's behavior.

Five New Landmark Studies In the t h r e e - y e a r p e r i o d 1997-1999 five studies b e c a m e available that can be c o n s i d e r e d "landmark" studies b e c a u s e t h e y o v e r c a m e this serious d e f e c t in 45 years of p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h on the long-term effects of c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t . All five

of the n e w studies t o o k into a c c o u n t the child's behavior atTime 1, and all five were based on large and nationally representative samples of A m e r i c a n children. None of t h e m d e p e n d e d on adults recalling w h a t h a p p e n e d w h e n t h e y w e r e children.

Study 1: Corporal Punishment and Subsequent Antisocial Behavior This r e s e a r c h s t u d i e d o v e r 3,000 c h i l d r e n in tile National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (Straus, et al., 1997). T h e c h i l d r e n w e r e in t h r e e age groups: 3-5,6-9,and 10-14. The m o t h e r s of all three g r o u p s of c h i l d r e n w e r e i n t e r v i e w e d at the start of the study in 1988, and t h e n again in 1990 and 1992. The findings w e r e v e r y similar for all t h r e e age g r o u p s and for c h a n g e after two years and four years. To avoid e x c e s s detail only the results for the 6-9 year old c h i l d r e n and for the c h a n g e in antisocial b e h a v i o r t w o years after the first interv i e w will be d e s c r i b e d here. Measure of corporal punishment. To m e a s u r e corporal punishment, the mothers were told "Sometimes kids mind p r e t t y well and s o m e t i m e s t h e y don't," and asked "About h o w many times, if any, have you had to spank y o u r child in the past week?" Measure of Antisocial Behavior. To m e a s u r e Antisocial Behavior the mothers were asked w h e t h e r , in the past t h r e e m o n t h s , the child freq u e n t l y "cheats or tells lies," "bullies or is c r u e l / m e a n to o t h e r s , " " d o e s not feel sorry after misbehaving,""breaks things deliberately,""is d i s o b e d i e n t at school," "has t r o u b l e g e t t i n g along w i t h teachers." This was u s e d to c r e a t e a m e a s u r e of the n u m b e r of a n t i s o c i a l b e h a v i o r s f r e q u e n t l y e n g a g e d in by the child. Other Variables. We also t o o k into a c c o u n t several o t h e r variables that c o u l d affect antisocial b e h a v i o r by the child. These i n c l u d e the sex of child, c o g n i t i v e s t i m u l a t i o n p r o v i d e d by the p a r e n t s , e m o t i o n a l s u p p o r t by the mother, e t h n i c g r o u p of the mother, and s o c i o e c o n o m i c status of the family. Findings. The m o r e c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t used d u r i n g the first year of thc study, the g r e a t e r the t e n d e n c y f o r A n t i s o c i a l Behavior to increase subsequent to the corporal p u n i s h m e n t . It also shows that this effect a p p l i e d to b o t h Euro A m e r i c a n c h i l d r e n and c h i l d r e n of o t h e r e t h n i c groups. Of course, o t h e r things also i n f l u e n c e Antisocial Behavior. For e x a m p l e , girls have l o w e r rates of Antisocial Behavior than boys, and c h i l d r e n w h o s e m o t h e r s are w a r m and s u p p o r t i v e are less likely

NEW EVIDENCE FOR THE BENEFITS OF NEVER SPANKING

55

to behave in antisocial ways. M t h o u g h these other variables do lessen the effect of corporal punishment, w e found that the t e n d e n c y for corporal p u n i s h m e n t to make things worse over the long run applies regardless of race, s o c i o e c o n o m i c status, gender of the child, and regardless of the extent to w h i c h the m o t h e r p r o v i d e s c o g n i t i v e stimulation and emotional support. Study 2: A Second Study of Corporal Punishment and Antisocial Behavior Sample and Measures. G u n n o e and Mariner (1997) analyzed data from a n o t h e r large and representative sample of American c h i l d r e n - - t h e National Survey of Families and Households. They studied 1,112 children in two age groups: 4-7 and 8-11. In half of the cases the m o t h e r was interviewed and in the o t h e r half the father provided the information. The parents were first interv i e w e d in 1987-88, and t h e n five years later. G u n n o e and Mariner's measure of corporal punishment was the same as in the Straus et al. study just d e s c r i b e d ; that is, h o w o f t e n the p a r e n t spanked in the previous week. G u n n o e and Mariner examined the effect of corporal punishment on two aspects of the child's behavior: fighting at school and antisocial behavior. Their Antisocial Behavior measure was also the same as in the Straus et al. study. Findings on Fighting. G u n n o e and Mariner found that the more corporal punishment in 198788, the greater the a m o u n t of fighting at school five years later. This is consistent with the t h e o r y that in the long r u n c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t is counter-productive. However, for toddlers and for African-American children, they found the opposite, i.e. that corporal p u n i s h m e n t is associated with less fighting 5 years later. G u n n o e and Mariner suggest that this occurs because y o u n g e r children andAfrican-American children tend to regard corporal p u n i s h m e n t as a legitimate parental behavior rather than as an aggressive act. However, corporal punishment by parents of young children and byAfrican-American parents is so nearly universal (for example, 94 p e r c e n t of parents of toddlers) that it suggests an alternative explanation: that no-corporal punishment means no-discipline. If that is the case, it is no w o n d e r that children w h o s e parents exercise no-discipline are less well behaved. Corporal p u n i s h m e n t may not be g o o d for children, but failure to properly supervise and control is even worse. Findings on Antisocial Behavior. The findings

54

SOCIETY 9 SEPTEMBER/ OCTOBER 2001

on the relation of corporal p u n i s h m e n t toAntisocial Behavior s h o w that the more corporal punishment e x p e r i e n c e d by the children in Year 1, the higher the level of Antisocial Behavior five years later. Moreover, they found that the harmful effect of corporal p u n i s h m e n t applies to all the categories of children they s t u d i e d - - t h a t is, to children in each age group, to all races, and to both boys and girls. Thus, both of these major long-term prospective studies resulted in evidence that, although corporal p u n i s h m e n t may w o r k in the short run, in the long run it tends to boomerang and make things worse. An important sidelight of the Gunnoe and Mariner study is that it illustrates the way inconvenient findings can be ignored to give a desired "spin." The findings section includes one brief sentence acknowledging that their study "replicates the Straus et al. findings." This crucial finding is never again mentioned. The extensive discussion and conclusion sections omit mentioning the results showing that corporal p u n i s h m e n t at Time 1 was associated with more antisocial behavior subsequently for children of all ages and all ethnic groups. Marjorie G u n n o e told me that she is o p p o s e d to spanking and has never spanked her o w n children. So the spin she put on the findings is not a reflection of personal values or behavior. Perhaps it reflects teaching at a college affiliated with a c h u r c h w h i c h teaches that God expects parents to spank. Study 3: Corporal Punishment and Child-to-Parent Violence Timothy Brezina (1999) analyzed data on a nationally representative sample of 1,519 adolescent boys w h o participated in the Youth in Transition study. This is a three-wave panel study that was b e g u n in 1966. Although the data refer to a previous generation of high school students, there is no reason to think that the relationship b e t w e e n corporal p u n i s h m e n t and children hitting parents is different n o w that it was then, e x c e p t that the rate may have decreased because fewer parents n o w slap teen-agers. Measure of Corporal Punishment. Corporal p u n i s h m e n t was measured by asking the boys "How often do your parents actually slap you?" The response categories ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Twenty eight p e r c e n t of the boys r e p o r t e d being slapped by their parents during the year of the first wave of the study w h e n their

average age was 15, and 19 p e r c e n t w e r e s l a p p e d d u r i n g t h e w a v e 2 year (a year and half later). Measure of Child Aggression. The boys w e r e asked similar q u e s t i o n s a b o u t h o w often t h e y hit t h e i r father and t h e i r mother. Eleven p e r c e n t rep o r t e d hitting a p a r e n t the first year, and 7 perc e n t r e p o r t e d hitting a p a r e n t at Time 2 of the study. Findings. Brezina found that c o r p o r a l punishm e n t a t T i m c 1 was a s s o c i a t e d with an increased p r o b a b i l i t y of a child assaulting the p a r e n t a year and a half later. Thus, while it is true that c o r p o ral p u n i s h m e n t t e a c h e s the child a lesson, it is c e r t a i n l y n o t the l e s s o n i n t e n d e d by the parents. As w i t h the o t h e r four studies, the data analysis t o o k into a c c o u n t s o m e of the many o t h e r factors that affect the p r o b a b i l i t y of c h i l d - t o - p a r e n t v i o l e n c e . T h e s e i n c l u d e t h e s o c i o e c o n o m i c status a n d r a c e of t h e family, t h e age of t h e parents, the child's a t t a c h m e n t to the p a r e n t , c h i l d ' s a t t i t u d e t o w a r d aggression, and child's physical size.

Study 4: Corporal Punishment and Dating Violence Simons, Lin, a n d G o r d o n ( 1 9 9 8 ) t e s t e d t h e t h e o r y that c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t by the p a r e n t s i n c r e a s e s the p r o b a b i l i t y of later hitting a partn e r in a dating relationship. They studied 113 boys in a rural area of the state of Iowa, b e g i n n i n g w h e n t h e y w e r e in the 7th grade or a b o u t age 13. Measure of Corporal Punishment. The mothers and the fathers of these b o y s w e r e asked h o w often t h e y s p a n k e d or s l a p p e d the child w h e n he did s o m e t h i n g w r o n g , and h o w often t h e y used a belt or p a d d l e for c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t . These q u e s t i o n s w e r e r e p e a t e d in waves 2 and 3 of this 5-year study. The s c o r e s for the m o t h e r and the father for each of the t h r e e years w e r e c o m b i n e d to c r e a t e an o v e r a l l m e a s u r e of c o r p o r a l puni s h m e n t . More t h a n h a l f of t h e b o y s e x p e r i e n c e d c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t d u r i n g t h o s e years. Consequently, the findings about corporal puni s h m e n t a p p l y to the majority of boys in that c o m m u n i t y , n o t just to the c h i l d r e n of a small g r o u p of v i o l e n t parents. Measure of Dating Violence. The i n f o r m a t i o n on dating v i o l e n c e c a m e from the boys, so it is n o t i n f l u e n c e d by w h e t h e r the p a r e n t s v i e w e d t h e b o y as a g g r e s s i v e . T h e b o y s w e r e a s k e d w h e t h e r , in the last y e a r , " W h e n you had a disa g r e e m e n t w i t h your girlfriend, h o w often did you hit, push, shove her?"

Measure of Delinquency at Time 1. As exp l a i n e d earlier, it is critical to take into a c c o u n t the m i s b e h a v i o r that leads p a r e n t s to use c o r p o ral p u n i s h m e n t . In this study, that was d o n e by asking the b o y s at Time 1 h o w often t h e y had e n g a g e d in each of 24 d e l i n q u e n t acts such as s k i p p i n g school, stealing, and physically attacking s o m e o n e w i t h a w e a p o n ; and also h o w often they had used drugs and alcohol. Parental involvement and support. Finally the study also t o o k into a c c o u n t the e x t e n t to w h i c h the p a r e n t s s h o w e d w a r m t h and affection, w e r e c o n s i s t e n t in t h e i r discipline, m o n i t o r e d and sup e r v i s e d the child, and e x p l a i n e d rules and exp e c t a t i o n s . In a d d i t i o n , it also c o n t r o l l e d for witnessing p a r e n t a l v i o l e n c e . Findings. Simons and his colleagues fotmd that the m o r e c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t e x p e r i e n c e d by these boys, the g r e a t e r the p r o b a b i l i t y of t h e i r physically assaulting a girlfriend. Moreover, like the o t h e r p r o s p e c t i v e studies, the analysis t o o k into a c c o u n t the m i s b e h a v i o r that led p a r e n t s to use c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t , and also the quality of p a r e n t i n g This means that the relation of c o r p o ral p u n i s h m e n t to v i o l e n c e against a girlfriend is very unlikely to be due to p o o r p a r e n t i n g . Rather, it is a n o t h e r study s h o w i n g that the long r u n effect of c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t is to e n g e n d e r m o r e r a t h e r than less misbehavior. In short, s p a n k i n g boomerangs.

Study 5: Corporal Punishment and Child's Cognitive Development T h e last of t h e s e five s t u d i e s ( S t r a u s a n d Paschall, 1999) was p r o m p t e d by studies showing that talking to c h i l d r e n ( i n c l u d i n g p r e - s p e e c h infants) is a s s o c i a t e d w i t h an increase in neural c o n n e c t i o n s in the brain anti in c o g n i t i v e p e r f o r m a n c e . T h o s e f i n d i n g s led us to t h e o r i z e t h a t if p a r e n t s aw)id c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t , t h e y are m n r e l i k e l y to e n g a g e in v e r b a l m e t h o d s of beh a v i o r c o n t r o l s u c h as e x p l a i n i n g to t h e child, and that the i n c r e a s e d verbal i n t e r a c t i o n with the child will in turn e n h a n c e the c h i l d ' s c o g n i t i v e ability. This t h e o r y w a s t e s t e d on 806 c h i l d r e n of m o t h e r s in the N a t i o n a l L o n g i t u d i n a l Study of Youth w h o w e r e age 2 to 4 in the first year of our analysis, and the tests w e r e r e p e a t e d for an additional 7{)4 c h i l d r e n w h o w e r e age 5 to 9 in the first year. C o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t was m e a s u r e d by w h e t h e r the m o t h e r was o b s e r v e d h i t t i n g the child d u r i n g the i n t e r v i e w and by a q u e s t i o n on

NEW EVIDENCE FOR THE BENEFITS (.)F NEVER SPANKING

55

f r e q u e n c y of spanking in the past week. A corporal p u n i s h m e n t scale was created by adding the n u m b e r o f times the p a r e n t s p a n k e d in t w o sample weeks. Cognitive ability was measured in Year 1 and two years later by tests appropriate for the age of the child at the time of testing such as the Peabody Picture VocabularyTest. The study took into a c c o u n t the m o t h e r ' s age and education, w h e t h e r the father was present in the household, n u m b e r of children in the family, m o t h e r ' s supportiveness and cognitive stimulation, ethnic group, and the child's age, gender, and child's birth weight. The less corporal p u n i s h m e n t parents use on toddlers, the greater the probability that the child will have an above average cognitive growth. The greater benefit of avoiding corporal p u n i s h m e n t for the y o u n g e r children is consistent with the research showing the most rapid g r o w t h of neural c o n n e c t i o n s in the brain at early ages. It is also consistent with the theory that what the child learns as an infant and toddler is crucial because it provides the necessary basis for s u b s e q u e n t cognitive d e v e l o p m e n t . The greater adverse effect on cognitive d e v e l o p m e n t for toddlers has an extremely important practical implication because the defenders of corporal p u n i s h m e n t have n o w retreated to limiting their advocacy to toddlers. Their r e c o m m e n d a t i o n is not based on empirical evidence. The evidence from this study suggests that, at least in so far as cognitive develo p m e n t is c o n c e r n e d , supporters of corporal punishment have unwittingly advised parents to use corporal punishment at the ages w h e n it will have the most adverse effect.

The Message Of The Five Studies:"Don't Spank" Each of the five studies I briefly summarized is far from perfect. They can be picked apart one by one, as can just about every epidemiological study. This is what the t o b a c c o industry did for many years. The Surgeon General's c o m m i t t e e on smoking did the opposite. Their review of the research acknowledged the limitations of the studies w h e n taken one-by-one. But they c o n c l u d e d that despite the defects of the individual studies, the cumulative evidence indicated that smoking does cause lung c a n c e r and other diseases, and they called for an end to smoking. With respect to spanking, I believe that the cumulative weight of the evidence, and especially the five prospective studies provides sufficient evidence for a new Surgeon General's warning. A start in that direc-

56

SOCIETY 9 SEPTEMBER/ OCTOBER 2001

tion was made by the American Academy of Pediatrics, w h i c h in 1998 published "Guidelines for Effective Discipline" (Pediatrics I 01:723-728) that advises parents to avoid spanking.

Is There a Backlash? It is ironic that during the same period as the new and more definitive research was appearing, there were hostile or ridiculing articles in newspapers and magazines on the idea of never spanking a child. In 1999,Arizona and Arkansas passed laws to remind parents and teachers that they have the right to use corporal p u n i s h m e n t and to urge them to do so. There has also been a contentious debate in scientific journals on the appropriateness of corporal punishment. These dev e l o p m e n t s made some advocates for children c o n c e r n e d that there is a backlash against the idea of no-spanking. However, there are several reasons for doubting the existence of a backlash in the sense of a reversal in the trend of decreasing public s u p p o r t for corporal punishment, or in the sense of non-spanking parents reverting to using corporal punishment. One reason for d o u b t i n g the existence of a backlash is that, each year, a larger and larger prop o r t i o n of the American p o p u l a t i o n o p p o s e s corporal p u n i s h m e n t . In 1968, w h i c h was only a g e n e r a t i o n ago, almost e v e r y o n e (94 p e r c e n t ) believed that corporal p u n i s h m e n t is sometimes necessary. But in the last 30 years public s u p p o r t for corporal p u n i s h m e n t has been decreasing. By 1999, almost half of US adults rejected the idea that spanking is necessary. The Advocates Are Long-Time Supporters In 1968, those w h o favored corporal punishment did not need to speak out to defend their view because, as just indicated, almost everyone believed it was necessary. The dramatic decrease in s u p p o r t for corporal p u n i s h m e n t means that long time adw)cates of corporal p u n i s h m e n t n o w have reason to be worried, and they are speaking out. Consequently, their recent publications do not indicate a backlash in the sense of a change from being o p p o s e d to corporal p u n i s h m e n t to favoring it. I suggest that it is more like dying gasps of s u p p o r t for an ancient mode of bringing up children that is heading towards extinction. The efforts of those w h o favor corporal punishment have also been spurred on by tim increase in crime in many countries. The rise in y o u t h crime in the United States, although recently re-

versed, is a very d i s t u r b i n g trend, and it has p r o m p t e d a search for causes and corrective steps. It should be no surprise that p e o p l e w h o have always believed in the use of corporal punishment believe that a return to their favored mode of bringing up children will help cure the crime problem. They argue that children need "discipline," w h i c h is correct. However, they equate discipline with corporal p u n i s h m e n t , w h i c h is not correct. No-corporal p u n i s h m e n t does not mean no-discipline. Delinquency prevention does require, a m o n g o t h e r things, discipline in the sense of clear rules and standards for behavior and parental supervision and monitoring and enforcement. To the extent that part of the explanation for crime, especially crime by youth, is the lack of discipline, the appropriate step is not a return to corporal p u n i s h m e n t but parental standards, monitoring, and enforcement by non-violent methods. In fact, as the studies reviewed here indicate, if discipline takes the form of more corporal p u n i s h m e n t , the p r o b l e m will be e x a c e r b a t e d because, while corporal p u n i s h m e n t does work with some children, more typically it b o o m e r a n g s and increases the level of juvenile delinquency and other behavior problems. The criticism in scientific journals of research on corporal p u n i s h m e n t is also not a backlash. It has to be viewed in the light of the n o r m s of science. A standard aspect of science is to examine research critically, to raise questions, and to suggest alternative interpretations of findings. This results in a s o m e w h a t paradoxical tendency 6)r criticism to increase as the amount of research goes up. There has recently been an increase in research showing long-term harmful effects of corporal punishment. Given the critical ethos of science, it is only to be expected that the i n c r e a s e d research has elicited m o r e c o m m e n t a r y and criticism, e s p e c i a l l y on the part of t h o s e w h o believed in c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t in the first place.

Three Paradoxes About Corporal P u n i s h m e n t Three paradoxical aspects of the m o v e m e n t away from corporal p u n i s h m e n t are w o r t h noting. The first is that, although approval of corporal p u n i s h m e n t had declined precipitously in the last generation, almost all parents c o n t i n u e to spank toddlers. The s e c o n d p a r a d o x is that professionals advising parents, including those w h o are o p p o s e d to spanking, generally fail to tell parents not to spank. They call this aw)iding a"negative approach." Finally, anti most paradoxically of

all,focusing almost exclusively on a so-called "positive approach," unwittingly c o n t r i b u t e s to perpetuating corporal p u n i s h m e n t and helps explain the first paradox. Paradox 1: Contradictory Trends. Some aspects of corporal p u n i s h m e n t have changed in major ways. A smaller and smaller p e r c e n t of the public favors spanking (Straus and Mathur, 1996). Fewer parents n o w use belts, hairbrushes and paddles. The p e r c e n t of parents w h o hit adolescents has d r o p p e d by half since 1975. Nevertheless, other aspects of corporal p u n i s h m e n t continue to be prevalent, chronic, and severe. The 1995 (}allup national survey of parents (Straus and Stewart, 1999) found that: 9

Almost all parents of toddlers (94 p e r c e n t ) used corporal p u n i s h m e n t that year

9

Parents w h o spanked a toddler, did it an average of about three times a week

9

28 p e r c e n t of parents of children age 5-12 used an object such as a belt or hairbrush

9

Over a third of parents of 13-year-old children hit them that year

The myths about corporal p u n i s h m e n t in Beating The Devil Out Of Them provide important clues to understanding w h y parents w h o "don't believe in spanking" c o n t i n u e to do so. These myths also u n d e r m i n e the ability of professionals w h o advise parents to do what is needed to end corporal punishment.

Paradox 2: Opposing S p a n k i n g Out Failing to Sale Don't ,Spank. Many pediatricians, developmental psychologists, and parent educators are n o w o p p o s e d to corporal punishment, at least m principle. But most also c o n t i n u e to believe that there may be a situation w h e r e spanking by parents is necessary or acceptable (Schenck, 2000). This is based on cultural myths. One myth is that spanking works w h e n other things do not. Ano t h e r is that "mild" corporal p u n i s h m e n t is harmless. All but a small minority of parents and professionals continue to believe these myths despite the experimental and o t h e r e v i d e n c e s h o w i n g that other disciplinary strategies work just as well as spanking, even in the short run and are more effective in the long run as s h o w n by the first R)ur of the studies described earlier in this article. Consequently, w h e n I suggest to pediatricians, parent educators, or social scientists that it is es-

NEW EVIDENCE FOR THE BENEFITS OF NEVER SPANKING

~7

sential to tell parents that they should never spank or use any other type of corporal punishment, with rare exception, that idea has been rejected. Some, like one of America's leading developmental psychologists, object because of the u n p r o v e n belief that it w o u l d turn off parents. Some object on the false belief that it could be harmful because parents do not k n o w what else to do. They argue for a "positive approach" by w h i c h they mean teaching parents alternative disciplinary strategies, as c o m p a r e d to w h a t t h e y call the "negative approach" of advising to never spank. As a result, the typical pattern is to say nothing about spanking. Fortunately, that is slowly changing. Although they are still the exception, an increasing n u m b e r of books for parents, parent education programs, and guidelines for professionals advise never-spanking. Both the m o v e m e n t away from spanking, and an important limitation of that m o v e m e n t are illustrated by publication of the "Guidelines For Effective Discipline" o f the American Academy of Pediatrics. This was an important step forward, but it also reflects the same problem. It recommends that parents avoid corporal punishment. However, it also carefully avoids saying that parents should never spank. This may seem like splitting hairs, but because of the typical sequence of parent-child interaction that eventuates in corporal p u n i s h m e n t described in the next paragraph, it is a major obstacle to ending corporal punishment. Omitting a never-spank message is a serious obstacle because, in the absence of a commitment to never-spank, even parents w h o are against spanking c o n t i n u e to spank. It is important to u n d e r s t a n d what underlies the paradox of parents w h o are o p p o s e d to spanking, nonetheless spanking.

Paradox 3: Failing To Be Explicit A g a i n s t Spanking Results in More Spanking. The paradox that fewer and fewer parents are in favor of spanking, but almost all spank toddlers reflects a c o m b i n a t i o n of needing to c o p e with the typical behavior of toddlers and perceiving those behaviors through the lens of the myth that spanking works w h e n o t h e r things do not. W h e n toddlers are c o r r e c t e d for misbehavior (such as hitting a n o t h e r child or disobeying), the "recidivism" rate is about 80 p e r c e n t within the same day and about 50 p e r c e n t within two hours. For some children it is within two minutes. One researcher ( w h o is a defender of corporal punishment) found that these "time to failure" rates

58

SOCIETY 9 SEPTEMBER/ OCTOBER 2001

apply equally to corporal punishment and to other disciplinary strategies (Larzelere, et al., 1996). Consequently, on any given day, a parent is almost certain to find that so-called alternative disciplinary strategies such as explaining, deprivation of privileges and time out,"do not work." W h e n that happens, they turn to spanking. So, as pointed out previously, just about everyone (at least 94 percent) spanks toddlers. The difference b e t w e e n spanking and o t h e r disciplinary strategies is that, w h e n spanking does not work, parents do not question its effectiveness. The idea that spanking works w h e n o t h e r m e t h o d s do not is so ingrained in American culture that, w h e n the child repeats the misbehavior an h o u r or two later (or sometimes a few minutes later) parents fail to perceive that spanking has the same high failure rate as o t h e r modes of discipline. So they spank again, and for as many times as it takes to ultimately secure compliance. That is the c o r r e c t strategy because, with consistency and perseverance, the child will eventually learn. What so many parents miss is that it is also the c o r r e c t strategy for non-spanking methods. Thus, unless there is an absolute prohibition on spanking, parents will "see with their o w n eyes" that alternatives do not work and continue to find it is necessary to spank.

"Never-Spank" Must Be The Message Because of the typical behavior of toddlers and the almost inevitable information p r o c e s s i n g errors just described, teaching alternative disciplinary techniques by itself is not sufficient. There must also be an u n a m b i g u o u s "never-spank" message, which is needed to increase the chances that parents w h o disapprove of spanking will act on their beliefs. Consequently, it is essential for pediatricians and others w h o advise parents to aband o n their r e l u c t a n c e to say "never-spank." To achieve this, parent-educators must themselves be educated. They need to understand why, w h a t they n o w consider a "negative approach," is such an important part of ending the use of corporal punishment. Moreover, because they believe that a "negative approach" does not work, they also need to k n o w about the e x p e r i e n c e of Sweden. The Swedish experience shows that, c o n t r a r y to the currently prevailing opinion, a never-spank a p p r o a c h has w o r k e d (Durrant, 1999). In short, the first priority step to end or reduce spanking may be to educate professionals w h o advise parents. Once professionals are ready to

move, the key steps are relatively easy to implement and inexpensive, Parent-education programs, such as STEP, w h i c h are n o w silent on spanking, can be revised to include the evidence that spanking does n o t work better than other disciplinary tactics, even in the short run; and to specifically say "never spank." The Public Health Service can follow the Swedish m o d e l and s p o n s o r no-spanking public service a n n o u n c e m e n t s onTV and on milk cartons. There can be a "No-Spanking" p o s t e r and pamphlets in every pediatrician's office and every maternity ward. There could be a notice on birth certificates such as: WARNING: SPANKING HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE DANGEROUS TO THE HEALTH AND WELL BEING OF YOUR C H I L D - - D O N O T EVER, U N D E R A N Y CIRCUMSTANCES, SPANK OR HIT YOUR CHILD Until professionals w h o advise parents start advising parents to n e v e r spank, the paradox of parents b e c o m i n g less and less favorable to spanking while at the same continuing to spank toddlers will continue. Fortunately, that is starting to happen. The benefits of avoiding corporal p u n i s h m e n t are many, but they are virtually impossible for parents to perceive by observing their children, The situation with spanking is parallel to that of smoking. Smokers could perceive the short run satisfaction from a cigarette, but had no way to see the adverse health c o n s e q u e n c e s d o w n the road. Similarly, parents can perceive the beneficial effects of a slap (and, for the reasons explained in the previous section, fail to see the equal effectiveness of alternatives), they have no way of looking a year or more into the future to see if there is a harmful side effect of having hit their child to correct misbehavior. The only way parents can k n o w this w o u l d be if there were a public policy to publicize the results of research such as the studies summarized in this article. Another reason the benefits of avoiding spanking are difficult to see is that they are not dramatic in any one case. This is illustrated by the average increase of 3 or 4 points in mental ability

associated with no-corporal punishment. An increase of that size w o u l d hardly be noticed in an individual case. However, it is a well e s t a b l i s h e d p r i n c i p l e in p u b l i c h e a l t h and e p i d e m i o l o g y that a w i d e l y p r e v a l e n t risk f a c t o r w i t h small effect size, for e x a m p l e spanking, can have a m u c h g r e a t e r i m p a c t on public health t h a n a risk f a c t o r w i t h a large e f f e c t size, but l o w prevalence, for example, physical abuse. For example, assume that: (1) 50 million US children e x p e r i e n c e d CP and 1 million e x p e r i e n c e d physical abuse. ( 2 ) T h e probability of being depressed as an adult is increased by 2 percent for children w h o e x p e r i e n c e d CP and by 25 p e r c e n t for children w h o e x p e r i e n c e d physical abuse. Given these assumptions, the additional cases of depression caused by CP is 1.02 times 50 million, or 1 million. The additional cases of depression caused by p h y s i c a l a b u s e is 1.25 time 1 m i l l i o n or 250,000. Thus CP is associated with a four times greater increase in depression than is physical abuse. Another example of a major benefit resulting from reducing a risk factor that has a small effect, but for a large p r o p o r t i o n of the population, might be the increase in scores on intelligence tests that has been o c c u r r i n g worldwide. Corporal punishment has also been decreasing worldwide. The decrease in use of corporal p u n i s h m e n t and the increase in scores on IQ tests could be just a coincidence. However, the results of the study described earlier in this article w h i c h s h o w e d that less spanking is associated with faster cognitive d e v e l o p m e n t suggest that the trend away from corporal p u n i s h m e n t may be one of a n u m b e r of social changes (especially, better e d u c a t e d parents) that explain the increase in IQ scores in so many nations. The other four prospective studies reviewed in this article and the studies in B e a t i n g the Devil Out o f T h e m s h o w that ending corporal punishment is likely to also reduce juvenile violence, wife-beating, and masochistic sex, and increase the probability of c o m p l e t i n g higher education, holding a high i n c o m e job, and lower rates of depression and alcohol abuse. Those are not only humanitarian benefits, they can also result in huge m o n e t a r y savings in public and private costs for dealing with mental health problems, school problems, marital and family problems, and crime. I c o n c l u d e d the first edition of B e a t i n g the Devil Out o f T h e m in 1994 by suggesting that ending corporal punishment by parents "portends

NEW EVIDENCEFOR THE BENEFITS OF NEVER SPANKING

59

p r o f o u n d and far r e a c h i n g benefits fi)r humanity." T h e n e w r e s e a r c h s u m m a r i z e d in this a r t i c l e makes t h o s e w o r d s even m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e . We can look f o r w a r d to the day w h e n c h i l d r e n in alm o s t all c o u n t r i e s h a v e t h e b e n e f i t of b e i n g b r o u g h t up w i t h o u t b e i n g hit by t h e i r parents; and just as i m p o r t a n t , to the day w h e n many nations have the b e n e f i t of the healthier, wealthier, and wiser citizens w h o w e r e b r o u g h t up free from the v i o l e n c e that is n o w a part of t h e i r earliest and m o s t influential life e x p e r i e n c e s .

SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS Brezina,Timothy. 1999. "Teenage violence toward parents as an adaptation to family strain: Evidence from a national survey of male adolescents." Youth & Society 30:416-444. Durrant, Joan E. 1999. "Evaluating the success of Sweden's corporal punishment ban" ChildAbuse Neglect 23:435-448. Gershoff, ElizabethThompson. In press. "Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences:A meta-analytic and theoretical review." Psychological Bulletin, Gunnoe, Marjorie L., and Carrie L. Mariner. 1997. "Toward a developmental-contextual model of the effects of parental spanking on children's aggres-

sion."Archives of Pediatric andAdolescent Medicine 151 :768- 775. Larzelere, Robert E.,William N. Schneider, David B. Larson, and l~atricia L. Pike. 1996. "The effects of discipline responses in delaying toddler misbehavior recurrences." Child and Family Therapy 18:35-37. Neisser, Ulric. 1997. "Rising scores on intelligence tests: Test scores are certainly gong up all over the world, but whether intelligence itself has risen remains controversial." A m e r i c a n Scientist 85:440-447.

60

SOCIETY 9 SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2001

Schenck, Eliza R., Robert D. Lyman, and S. Douglas Bodin. 2000. "Ethical beliefs, attitudes, and professional practices of psychologists regarding parental use of corporal punishment:A survey."

Children's Services:Social Policy, Research, and Practice 3:23-38. Simons, Ronald L., Kuei-Hsiu Lin, and Leslie C. Gordon. 1998. "Socialization in the Family of origin and male dating violence:A prospective study."Jourhal of Marriage and the Family 60:467-478. Straus, MurrayA., and Anitia K. Mathur. 1996. "Social change and change in approval of corporal punishment by parents from 1968 to 1994." Pp. 91105 in Family violence against children.'A challenge f o r society., edited by D. Frehsee,W. Horn, and K-D Bussmann. NewYork:Walter deGruyter. Straus,MurrayA.,and MallieJ. Paschall. 1999. "Corporal punishment by mothers and children's cognitive development:A logitudinal study of two age cohorts." in 6th International Family Violence Research Conference. Durham, NH: Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire. Straus, Murray A., and Julie H. Stewart. 1999. "Corporal punishment by American parents: National data on prevalence, chronicity, severity, and duration, in relation to child, and family characteristics." Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 2:55-70. Straus, Murray A., David B. Sugarman, and Jean GilesSims. 1997. "Spanking by parents and subsequent antisocial behavior of children."Archives of pediatric and adolescent medicine 151:761-767.

M u r r a y A. Straus is professor o f sociology a n d codirector o f the Family Research Laboratory at the University o f N e w Hampshire. He is the author or co-author or editor o f 18 books including Stress, Culture, andAggression. This article is adapted f r o m Chapter 12 of Beating the Devil Out of Them: Corporal Punishment inAmerican Families and Its Effects on Children, 2 n d edition, published by Transaction.