negative effects of corporal punishment essay

Negative Effects of Children’s Corporal Punishment

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 institution 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 towards 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 society 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 programs 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 increased 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.

• 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/.

• 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
• Childhood Sexual Abuse and False Memories
• Child Abuse: Altruistic Behavior
• The Effects of Forgiveness Therapy

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

How do you read organization’s silence over rise of Nazism?

Got milk? Does it give you problems?

Cancer risk, wine preference, and your genes

Illustration by Gary Waters

How spanking may affect brain development in children

Manisha Aggarwal-Schifellite

Harvard Staff Writer

Researchers find similarities in neural response to more severe forms of abuse

Spanking may affect a child’s brain development in ways similar to more severe forms of violence, according to a new study led by Harvard researchers.

The research  builds on existing studies that show heightened activity in certain regions of the brains of children who experience abuse in response to threat cues.

The group found that children who had been spanked had a greater neural response in multiple regions of the prefrontal cortex (PFC), including in regions that are part of the salience network. These areas of the brain respond to cues in the environment that tend to be consequential, such as a threat, and may affect decision-making and processing of situations.

“We know that children whose families use corporal punishment are more likely to develop anxiety, depression, behavior problems, and other mental health problems, but many people don’t think about spanking as a form of violence,” said Katie A. McLaughlin , John L. Loeb Associate Professor of the Social Sciences, director of the Stress & Development Lab in the Department of Psychology, and the senior researcher on the study, which was published Friday in the journal Child Development. “In this study, we wanted to examine whether there was an impact of spanking at a neurobiological level, in terms of how the brain is developing.”

According to the study’s authors, corporal punishment has been linked to the development of mental health issues, anxiety, depression, behavioral problems, and substance use disorders. And recent studies show that approximately half of parents in U.S. studies reported spanking their children in the past year and one-third in the past week. However, the relationship between spanking and brain activity had not previously been studied.

McLaughlin and her colleagues — including Jorge Cuartas, first author of the study and a Ph.D. student in education at the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, and David Weissman , a postdoctoral fellow in the Stress & Development Lab — analyzed data from a large study of children between the ages of 3 and 11. They focused on 147 children around ages 10 and 11 who had been spanked, excluding children who had also experienced more severe forms of violence.

“… many people don’t think about spanking as a form of violence.” Katie A. McLaughlin, director of the Stress & Development Lab

Each child lay in an MRI machine and watched a computer screen on which were displayed different images of actors making “fearful” and “neutral” faces. A scanner captured the child’s brain activity in response to each kind of face, and those images were analyzed to determine whether the faces sparked different patterns of brain activity in children who were spanked compared to those who were not.

“On average, across the entire sample, fearful faces elicited greater activation than neutral faces in many regions throughout the brain … and children who were spanked demonstrated greater activation in multiple regions of PFC to fearful relative to neutral faces than children who were never spanked,” the researchers wrote.

By contrast, “There were no regions of the brain where activation to fearful relative to neutral faces differed between children who were abused and children who were spanked.”

The findings are in line with similar research conducted on children who had experienced severe violence, suggesting that “while we might not conceptualize corporal punishment to be a form of violence, in terms of how a child’s brain responds, it’s not all that different than abuse,” said McLaughlin. “It’s more a difference of degree than of type.”

Researchers said the study is a first step toward further interdisciplinary analysis of spanking’s potential effects on children’s brain development and lived experiences.

“These findings aligned with the predictions from other perspectives on the potential consequences of corporal punishment,” studied in fields such as developmental psychology and social work, said Cuartas. “By identifying certain neural pathways that explain the consequences of corporal punishment in the brain, we can further suggest that this kind of punishment might be detrimental to children and we have more avenues to explore it.”

However, they noted that their findings are not applicable to the individual life of each child.

“It’s important to consider that corporal punishment does not impact every child the same way, and children can be resilient if exposed to potential adversities,” said Cuartas. “But the important message is that corporal punishment is a risk that can increase potential problems for children’s development, and following a precautionary principle, parents and policymakers should work toward trying to reduce its prevalence.”

Ultimately, added McLaughlin, “We’re hopeful that this finding may encourage families not to use this strategy, and that it may open people’s eyes to the potential negative consequences of corporal punishment in ways they haven’t thought of before.”

This research was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health

Share this article

You might like.

Medical historians look to cultural context, work of peer publications in wrestling with case of New England Journal of Medicine

Biomolecular archaeologist looks at why most of world’s population has trouble digesting beverage that helped shape civilization

Biologist separates reality of science from the claims of profiling firms

Epic science inside a cubic millimeter of brain

Researchers publish largest-ever dataset of neural connections

Finding right mix on campus speech policies

Legal, political scholars discuss balancing personal safety, constitutional rights, academic freedom amid roiling protests, cultural shifts

Good genes are nice, but joy is better

Harvard study, almost 80 years old, has proved that embracing community helps us live longer, and be happier

The Effect of Spanking on the Brain

• Posted April 13, 2021
• By Jill Anderson
• Cognitive Development
• Counseling and Mental Health
• Early Education
• Families and Community
• Human Development

Research has long underscored the negative effects of spanking on children’s social-emotional development, self-regulation, and cognitive development, but new research , published this month, shows that spanking alters children’s brain response in ways similar to severe maltreatment and increases perception of threats.   “The findings are one of the last pieces of evidence to make sense of the research of the last 50 years on spanking,” says researcher Jorge Cuartas , a Ph.D. candidate at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, who coauthored the study with Katie McLaughlin , professor at the Department of Psychology at Harvard University. “We know that spanking is not effective and can be harmful for children’s development and increases the chance of mental health issues. With these new findings, we also know it can have potential impact on brain development, changing biology, and leading to lasting consequences.”   The study, “ Corporal Punishment and Elevated Neural Response to Threat in Children ,” published in Child Development , examined spanked children’s brain functioning in response to perceived environmental threats compared to children who were not spanked. Their findings showed that spanked children exhibited greater brain response, suggesting that spanking can alter children’s brain function in similar ways to severe forms of maltreatment.   The study looked at 147 children, including some who were spanked and some who were not spanked in the beginning years of their lives, to see potential differences to the brain. By using MRI assessment, researchers observed changes in brain response while the children viewed a series of images featuring facial expressions that indicate emotional response, such as frowns and smiles. They found that children who had been spanked had a higher activity response in the areas of their brain that regulate these emotional responses and detect threats — even to facial expressions that most would consider non-threatening.

Perhaps surprisingly, says Cuartas, spanking elicits a similar response in children’s brains to more threatening experiences like sexual abuse. “You see the same reactions in the brain,” Cuartas explains. “Those consequences potentially affect the brain in areas often engaged in emotional regulation and threat detection, so that children can respond quickly to threats in the environment.”

“Preschool and school age children — and even adults — [who have been] spanked are more likely to develop anxiety and depression disorders or have more difficulties engaging positively in schools and skills of regulation, which we know are necessary to be successful in educational settings."

While we tend to think of spanking as an “outdated” practice, it’s still an incredibly common form of discipline used among parents and even in schools — despite the research linking the practice to negative results. There are only 62 countries — not including the United States — with a ban on corporal punishment, Cuartas points out. Additionally, nearly one-third of parents in the United States report spanking their children every week, often to detrimental effects and implications.

“Preschool and school age children — and even adults — [who have been] spanked are more likely to develop anxiety and depression disorders or have more difficulties engaging positively in schools and skills of regulation, which we know are necessary to be successful in educational settings,” he says.   Cuartas offers three steps educators and caregivers can take toward eradicating spanking in schools and homes:

• Recognize that spanking is not an effective tool of discipline in the classroom or at home. When parents or teachers use spanking, it doesn’t lead to the desired outcomes in discipline or teach children how to regulate their emotions. “We know there are better techniques, like positive discipline, that are more effective,” Cuartas says. “The most important tool out there is explaining to children certain behaviors that are wrong and what type of behavior to seek through an example.”
• Work to eradicate forms of violence in the home and school environment by pushing for policies that can make corporal punishment illegal in the world . As Cuartas notes, the issue of corporal punishment is still widely accepted in the world and even in the United States.
• Provide better support to families. Research shows that parents aren’t always to blame for using corporal punishment. Cuartas points to many different reasons why parents rely on spanking, including aspects like what they learned growing up, emotional factors like stress, and different familial circumstances. He notes that it’s important to take care of the caregivers and offer tools that will help families and caregivers find other ways of discipline.  

Additional Resources:

• Tips on positive parenting from the CDC
• Unicef's "How to Discipline Positively"
• The Consequences of Corporal Punishment

Usable Knowledge

Connecting education research to practice — with timely insights for educators, families, and communities

Related Articles

Does Nature or Nurture Determine Musical Ability?

Tracing the Roots of Language and Literacy

A new study emphasizes the importance of the first year of life for long term language and literacy development

Hope and Resilience in Childhood

Disclaimer » Advertising

• HealthyChildren.org

• Previous Article
• Next Article

Introduction and Background

Recommendations, lead authors, council on school health executive committee, 2022–2023, corporal punishment in schools.

• Split-Screen
• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• CME Quiz Close Quiz
• Open the PDF for in another window
• Get Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Mandy A. Allison , Nathaniel Beers , Jaime W. Peterson , COUNCIL ON SCHOOL HEALTH; Corporal Punishment in Schools. Pediatrics September 2023; 152 (3): e2023063284. 10.1542/peds.2023-063284

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

The use of corporal punishment in schools is not an effective or ethical method for management of behavior concerns and causes harm to students. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that corporal punishment in all school settings be abolished in all states by law and replaced by alternative forms of student behavior management. Corporal punishment remains legal in many public and private schools in the United States and is disproportionately used among Black students and children with disabilities. The aims of this policy statement are to review the incidence of school-based corporal punishment; the negative physical, psychological, and developmental impact of corporal punishment on students; and the need for continued advocacy by pediatricians, educators, and parents to abolish corporal punishment in all schools.

Corporal punishment, defined as the infliction of pain upon a person’s body as punishment, is not an effective or ethical method for management of behavior concerns and causes harm to students. Therefore, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that corporal punishment in all school settings be abolished in all states by law and that alternative age-appropriate and nonviolent forms of student behavior management be used. This policy statement is aligned with the AAP policy statement “Effective Discipline to Raise Healthy Children,” 1   which provides evidence to support the recommendation that “adults caring for children use healthy forms of discipline, such as positive reinforcement of appropriate behaviors, setting limits, redirecting, and setting future expectations.” The AAP recommends “that parents do not use spanking, hitting, slapping, threatening, insulting, humiliating, or shaming.”

The Civil Rights Data Collection is conducted by the US Department of Education to measure key markers of education and civil rights in US public schools. 2   These data include children in preschool and children and adolescents in kindergarten through 12th grade in public schools. Corporal punishment is defined by the Civil Rights Data Collection as “paddling, spanking, or other forms of physical punishment imposed on a child.” In Ingraham v Wright , the US Supreme Court ruled school-based corporal punishment as constitutional, leaving states to decide on the issue. 3   Corporal punishment in schools remains legal despite the evidence that it is ineffective and harmful and despite the availability of effective and nonviolent discipline measures. At present, corporal punishment is legal in public schools in 18 states and legal in private schools in all states except Iowa and New Jersey ( Table 1 ). 4   Across the United States, 96% of public schools report not using corporal punishment. 5   However, the rates of corporal punishment in schools that do use it range from 0.6% to 9.0% of students per year, with the highest rates in states located in the southern United States. 5   These rates translate to almost 70 000 students being struck at least once by school personnel during the school year. 6  

States in Which Corporal Punishment Remains Legal in Public Schools in 2022

Corporal punishment may be banned in certain cities or schools; policy users should verify up-to-date laws in their states.

Banned in public schools for students with disabilities.

Among US schools that use corporal punishment, racial, gender, and ability disparities exist: students who have disabilities and identify as Black or male are more likely to experience corporal punishment than students who do not have disabilities and identify as white or female. 7 – 9   “Adultification bias,” in which “adults perceive Black youth as being older than they actually are,” 10   may be one type of bias that may lead educators to justify more harsh punishment of Black students. 11   National data show that Black boys are nearly twice as likely to be struck as white boys (14% vs 7.5%), and Black girls are more than 3 times as likely to be struck as white girls (5.2% vs 1.7%). 12   Analysis of state-level data shows that some states have even greater disparities in the use of corporal punishment against Black students compared with white students. 5 , 8 , 9 , 13  

Fourteen percent of children and adolescents age 3 through 21 years are identified as having a disability, defined by receiving services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (these are students with an Individualized Education Program). 14   National data show that among students who received physical punishment at school, 16.5% were served under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; therefore, students with disabilities are overrepresented among students who are physically punished at school. 6   Analysis of state-level data shows that some states have greater disparities in the use of corporal punishment against students with identified disabilities versus those without. 7   When students with disabilities are subjected to corporal punishment for behaviors associated with their disabilities, they are unjustly and excessively punished and deprived of access to quality education and a safe learning environment. 7   Students with intellectual disability who receive corporal punishment may find it challenging to understand social rules, the consequence of their actions, or the reason behind their punishment. In addition, they may be unable to communicate the incident to their parent(s). For students possessing more than 1 marginalized identity (eg, race and ethnicity, gender, ability, sexual orientation), the presence of these shared identities may target them for increased corporal punishment and demonstrates the unique perils described by Professor Kimberlé Crenshaw’s Intersectionality framework. 15  

Corporal punishment is not effective as a disciplinary method. 1   The majority of studies about the effects of corporal punishment on children and adolescents have focused on punishment used by parents or primary caregivers and have been reviewed elsewhere. 6 , 7   Meta-analyses conducted in 2013 and 2016 indicate that spanking by parents or primary caregivers is associated with worse, not better, behaviors among children. 12 , 16   A 2017 survey study among parents from a variety of countries and cultures suggests that use of corporal punishment is associated with more problematic, externalizing behaviors among children across cultures, regardless of parental perception of the severity or justness of the punishment. 17   In the short-term, corporal punishment may cause a child or adolescent to be fearful and immediately obedient. However, over the long-term, corporal punishment does not improve behavior. Corporal punishment by parents or caregivers is associated with a range of negative effects among children and adolescents, including a higher incidence of behavior and mental health problems, impaired cognitive development, poor educational outcomes, impaired social-emotional development, problems with the ongoing relationship between parents and children, a higher risk for physical abuse, increased aggression and perpetration of violence, antisocial behavior, and decreased moral internalization of appropriate behavior. 18   A meta-analysis of studies regarding spanking and child outcomes found that being spanked as a child was associated with adult antisocial behavior, adult mental health problems, and adult support for physical punishment. 12   Studies regarding use of physical punishment and outcomes necessarily use observational rather than experimental designs and show association rather than causation; however, the consistency of findings across studies and over time suggest that it may be appropriate to draw causal conclusions. 18  

Based on these findings, it follows that corporal punishment inflicted on students by school personnel also causes harm. A 2019 survey of 18 to 23 year old young adults who attended high school in US states where corporal punishment is legal found that 16% (128 of 803) had experienced corporal punishment at school. 18   Among those who experienced corporal punishment, 82% reported it was painful and 22% reported they had bruises or other injuries from corporal punishment. The young adults who reported experiencing corporal punishment reported lower cumulative high school grade point averages and lower feelings of school belonging. Most studies about the effects of corporal punishment in schools have been conducted in countries other than the United States. One ecological study across 88 countries found that countries that prohibited corporal punishment at home and in schools had a lower self-reported prevalence of physical fighting among male and female adolescents attending school. 19   This effect was reduced to less physical fighting among female adolescents only when countries prohibited corporal punishment in schools but not at home. 19   Although an ecological study cannot determine whether a true association exists between the independent (corporal punishment) and dependent (physical fighting) variables, this study does suggest that additional research to establish a true association should be conducted. A longitudinal survey study conducted among students in Korea showed that students who reported being verbally or physically aggressive toward others were more likely to receive corporal punishment from teachers and that this resulted in students continuing to be more aggressive in the future, resulting in a cycle that perpetuates aggression. 20   Finally, a longitudinal study conducted in Ethiopia, India, Peru, and Vietnam found that in at least 2 out of the 4 countries, students who experienced corporal punishment at school had lower self-efficacy, self-esteem, and math scores over time compared with students who did not experience corporal punishment at school. 21  

Children cannot learn when they do not feel safe. A large number of effective, age-appropriate, nonviolent, and evidence-based alternatives to corporal punishment exist to promote desired student behaviors. 22   There are opportunities for schools to promote the behaviors by having curricula in place to support the social-emotional learning as well as alternative interventions for behaviors when they do occur, including: Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports, restorative justice, conflict resolution, mentoring, and individual therapy. 5   For children exposed to corporal punishment in school settings, schools must not only implement alternative discipline strategies, but simultaneously use trauma informed practices to repair trust between students and school adults and establish safe learning environments wherein adults are role-modeling positive alternative behaviors. When advocating for policies and practices that support the well-being of students, pediatrician advocates should be aware and respectful of the expertise of those in the field of education. The US and states’ Departments of Education provide information on tools, resources, and technical assistance for creating a supportive school climate and promoting desired student behaviors ( https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/support.html ).

Given the harm caused by corporal punishment in schools and the availability of alternative, effective nonviolent behavior interventions, the AAP recommends that corporal punishment in all school settings be abolished in all states by law and that alternative age-appropriate and nonviolent forms of student behavior management be used. Several factors continue to prevent some states from passing laws prohibiting corporal punishment, including concern about infringement on school district rights, cultural practices, and even some parents’ preference for paddling over suspension. 23 – 25   Therefore, federal legislation may be required to overcome these barriers. 26  

Pediatricians, educators, and parents play a critical role in advocating for the end of corporal punishment in schools within the US as well as internationally.

As noted in the AAP policy statement, “The Impact of Racism on Child and Adolescent Health,” 27   pediatricians and other child health providers are in a position to “address and ameliorate the effects of racism on children and adolescents.” Advocating to end corporal punishment, which is disproportionately used among Black, male students, is one way to address inequities based on race and reduce harm to Black students.

Children with disabilities are particularly vulnerable to corporal punishment. When students with disabilities are subjected to corporal punishment for behaviors associated with their disabilities, they are unjustly and excessively punished and deprived of access to quality education and a safe learning environment. Advocating to end corporal punishment, which is disproportionately used among children with disabilities, is also a way to address inequities based on disability status and reduce harm to students with disabilities.

Alternative age-appropriate and nonviolent behavioral strategies should be encouraged in place of corporal punishment, such as Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports, restorative justice, conflict resolution, mentoring, and individual therapy.

Mandy A. Allison, MD, MSPH, Med, FAAP

Nathaniel Beers, MD, MPA, FAAP

Jaime W. Peterson, MD, MPH, FAAP

Sonja C. O’Leary, MD, FAAP, Chairperson

Sara Bode, MD, FAAP, Chairperson-Elect

Marti Baum, MD, FAAP

Katherine A. Connor, MD, MSPH, FAAP

Emily Frank, MD, FAAP

Erica Gibson, MD, FAAP

Marian Larkin, MD, FAAP

Tracie Newman, MD, MPH, FAAP

Yuri Okuizumi-Wu, MD, FAAP

Ryan Padrez, MD, FAAP

Heidi Schumacher, MD, FAAP

Anna Goddard, PhD, APRN, CPNP-PC – School-Based Health Alliance

Kate King, DNP, RN, MSN – National Association of School Nurses

Erika Ryst, MD – American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

Carolyn McCarty, PhD

All authors drafted the initial manuscript, critically reviewed and revised the manuscript, approved the final manuscript as submitted, and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Policy statements from the American Academy of Pediatrics benefit from expertise and resources of liaisons and internal (AAP) and external reviewers. However, policy statements from the American Academy of Pediatrics may not reflect the views of the liaisons or the organizations or government agencies that they represent.

The guidance in this statement does not indicate an exclusive course of treatment or serve as a standard of medical care. Variations, taking into account individual circumstances, may be appropriate.

All policy statements from the American Academy of Pediatrics automatically expire 5 years after publication unless reaffirmed, revised, or retired at or before that time.

This document is copyrighted and is property of the American Academy of Pediatrics and its Board of Directors. All authors have filed conflict of interest statements with the American Academy of Pediatrics. Any conflicts have been resolved through a process approved by the Board of Directors. The American Academy of Pediatrics has neither solicited nor accepted any commercial involvement in the development of the content of this publication.

American Academy of Pediatrics

Advertising Disclaimer »

Citing articles via

Email alerts.

Affiliations

• Editorial Board
• Editorial Policies
• Journal Blogs
• Pediatrics On Call
• Online ISSN 1098-4275
• Print ISSN 0031-4005
• Pediatrics Open Science
• Hospital Pediatrics
• Pediatrics in Review
• AAP Grand Rounds
• Latest News
• Pediatric Care Online
• Red Book Online
• Pediatric Patient Education
• AAP Toolkits
• AAP Pediatric Coding Newsletter

First 1,000 Days Knowledge Center

Institutions/librarians, group practices, licensing/permissions, integrations, advertising.

• Privacy Statement | Accessibility Statement | Terms of Use | Support Center | Contact Us
• © Copyright American Academy of Pediatrics

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

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.

Corporal punishment affects brain activity, anxiety, and depression

Don't spank your kids. That's the conventional wisdom that has emerged from decades of research linking corporal punishment to a decline in adolescent health and negative effects on behavior, including an increased risk for anxiety and depression. Now, a new study explores how corporal punishment might impact neural systems to produce those adverse effects.

Corporal punishment can be simply defined as the "intentional infliction of physical pain by any means for the purpose of punishment, correction, discipline, instruction, or any other reason." This violence, particularly when inflicted by a parent, evokes a complex emotional experience. The researchers, led by Kreshnik Burani, MS, and working with Greg Hajcak, PhD, at Florida State University, wanted to understand the neural underpinnings of that experience and its downstream consequences.

The study appears in Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging , published by Elsevier.

The researchers conducted a longitudinal study on 149 boys and girls ages 11 to 14 from the Tallahassee, FL, area. Participants performed a video game-like task and a monetary guessing game while undergoing continuously recorded electroencephalography, or EEG -- a noninvasive technique to measure brain-wave activity from the scalp. From the EEG data, the researchers determined two scores for each participant -- one reflecting their neural response to error and the other reflecting their neural response to reward.

Two years later, participants and their parents completed a series of questionnaires to screen for anxiety and depression and to assess parenting style. As expected, kids who had experienced corporal punishment were more likely to develop anxiety and depression.

"Our paper first replicates the well-known negative effect that corporal punishment has on a child's wellbeing: we found that corporal punishment is associated with increased anxiety and depressive symptoms in adolescence. However, our study goes further to demonstrate that corporal punishment might impact brain activity and neurodevelopment," said Burani.

That was reflected by larger neural response to error and a blunted response to reward in the adolescents who received physical punishments.

"Specifically," Burani added, "our paper links corporal punishment to increased neural sensitivity to making errors and decreased neural sensitivity to receiving rewards in adolescence. In previous and ongoing work with Dr. Hajcak, we see that increased neural response to errors is associated with anxiety and risk for anxiety, whereas decreased neural response to rewards is related to depression and risk for depression. Corporal punishment, therefore, might alter specific neurodevelopmental pathways that increase risk for anxiety and depression by making children hypersensitive to their own mistakes and less reactive to rewards and other positive events in their environment."

Cameron Carter, MD, Editor of Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging , said of the findings, "Using EEG, this study provides new insights into the mechanisms that may underlie the adverse effects of corporal punishment on mental health in children as well as the neural systems that may be affected."

The work provides new clues as to the neural underpinnings of depression and anxiety and could help guide interventions for at-risk youth.

• Mental Health Research
• Psychology Research
• Children's Health
• Workplace Health
• Brain-Computer Interfaces
• Environmental impact assessment
• Personalized medicine
• Postpartum depression
• Health benefits of tea

Story Source:

Materials provided by Elsevier . Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

• Kreshnik Burani, C.J. Brush, Chandler Spahr, George M. Slavich, Alexandria Meyer, Greg Hajcak. Corporal Punishment is Uniquely Associated with a Greater Neural Response to Errors and Blunted Neural Response to Rewards in Adolescence . Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging , 2022; DOI: 10.1016/j.bpsc.2022.09.004

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• High-Efficiency Photonic Integrated Circuit
• Life Expectancy May Increase by 5 Years by 2050
• Toward a Successful Vaccine for HIV
• Highly Efficient Thermoelectric Materials
• Toward Human Brain Gene Therapy
• Whale Families Learn Each Other's Vocal Style
• AI Can Answer Complex Physics Questions
• Otters Use Tools to Survive a Changing World
• Monogamy in Mice: Newly Evolved Type of Cell
• Sustainable Electronics, Doped With Air

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.