Bella Capelli Physical Punishment as A Disciplinary Method Discussion In this paper, strike a balance between reviewing and summarizing, critiquing the ide

Bella Capelli Physical Punishment as A Disciplinary Method Discussion In this paper, strike a balance between reviewing and summarizing, critiquing the ideas that were presented, and providing your own ideas and interpretations. Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
The case against physical punishment
Andrew Grogan-Kaylor1, Julie Ma2 and Sandra A Graham-Bermann3
We review the literature on parental physical punishment of
children, laying out foundations of a case against physical
punishment as a form of discipline. We consider the research
on physical punishment finding that physical punishment is
associated with a number of undesirable outcomes for children
and adolescents. We pay special attention to questions of:
parent effects versus child effects; whether parental use of
physical punishment is moderated by family, neighborhood, or
cultural context, and whether physical punishment can be
considered to be part of a continuum of family violence. We
close with recommendations for positive parenting policies and
practices.
Addresses
1
University of Michigan—School of Social Work, USA
2
University of Michigan Flint—Department of Social Work, USA
3
University of Michigan—Department of Psychology, USA
Corresponding author: Grogan-Kaylor, Andrew (agrogan@umich.edu)
Current Opinion in Psychology 2018, 19:22–27
This review comes from a themed issue on Aggression and violence
Edited by Brad J Bushman
For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial
Available online 6th April 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.022
2352-250X/ã 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
undesirable consequences for children’s development,
even into early adulthood [2]. We conclude that parents
would do well to adopt more positive parenting strategies
that increase children’s prosocial behavior and emotional
well-being.
Broad overview of empirical research on
physical punishment
A large tradition of research has found that the parental
use of physical punishment is associated with undesirable
outcomes for children. Much of this research has made
use of large broadly representative samples with longitudinal research designs [3,4,5,6,7]. The most comprehensive assessments of this literature can be found in
large meta-analytic reviews [2,8]. A more recent review
that examined 111 effect sizes from 75 studies, spanning
50 years of research, found that parents’ use of spanking
was associated with increases in undesirable outcomes
such as aggression and child mental health problems [2].
These findings have been echoed in cross-cultural studies
conducted with participants from many countries
[9,10,11].
Plausible theoretical mechanisms
Theoretically, the discussion about the impact of physical
punishment on children has largely centered around three
theories: (1) attachment theory, (2) social learning theory,
and (3) coercion theory. We discuss each theory below.
Attachment theory
Background and introduction
The behavior of children is always of interest to parents,
advocates for children, and researchers alike. All of these
groups would like children to behave in ways that are
prosocial, and would like to minimize the amount of
children’s behavior that is antisocial or aggressive. Physical punishment is one way that many parents have used in
their attempts to control children’s aggressive behavior.
Certainly, in the empirical research literature on parenting, one of the focal areas of research over the past few
decades has been the outcomes of physical punishment.
Although support for spanking has declined over time, a
majority of Americans continue to endorse the use of
physical punishment, with 70% of respondents in the
most recent wave of the General Social Survey indicating
that they support the use of physical punishment [1]. This
article provides a broad overview of research on the
physical punishment of children, arguing that physical
punishment is not effective and is associated with many
Current Opinion in Psychology 2018, 19:22–27
Attachment theory highlights the beneficial role of a
secure attachment in the parent-child relationship [12].
A plethora of research has found that parental empathy
and sensitivity towards children’s needs foster trust,
safety, and emotional security in children [13]. However,
when parents respond to their child’s need for attention,
comfort, and care with physical punishment, the child
easily feels rejected and degraded and the much-needed
secure attachment in the parent-child relationship is
likely to be eroded [14]. Thus, children who were physically punished are at risk of developing a sense of unworthiness and maladaptive developmental pathways such as
anxiety and depression [5,15].
Social learning theory
Social learning theory underlines observation and reinforcement as mechanisms through which physical punishment affects externalizing problems such as aggression
[16]. When parents physically punish their children for
unacceptable behaviors, children observe their parents
endorsing the use of violence, and unintentionally, are
modeled and taught the legitimacy of violent behaviors to
www.sciencedirect.com
Case against physical punishment Grogan-Kaylor, Ma and Graham-Bermann 23
correct the misconduct of others. In addition, by observing that parental physical punishment resulted in successfully stopping their own misbehaviors in the short
term, children are reinforced in the idea of the effectiveness of violence in controlling and resolving social and
interpersonal conflicts [17–19].
Coercion theory
With its roots within social learning theory, coercion
theory further explains the continuation and escalation
of coercive parent-child interactions that may put children who are physically punished at higher risk of physical abuse [20,21]. For example, a child’s intense reaction
to parental physical punishment with hostility and aversive behaviors is likely to elicit intensified levels of
punishment and anger from the parent, which in turn
escalates the child’s resistance. This coercive cycle is
exacerbated until either the parent gives up the disciplinary process or the child gives in to the fear and pain from
the intensified punishment.
Parent effects and child effects
In debates over parental use of physical punishment, a
great deal of attention has been focused on the question
of whether a causal case can be made against physical
punishment, or whether physical punishment is in fact
elicited from parents by child behavior [22]. Any case
against parental use of physical punishment is arguably
less strong if punishment does lead to children’s behavior
problems but it is in fact a result of earlier child behavior.
Physical Punishment (x)
undesirable outcomes were the following understood to
be true:
1) Parental use of physical punishment is associated
(correlated) with poor developmental outcomes for
children and youth.
2) Parental use of physical punishment comes before the
poor child developmental outcomes.
3) The relationship between parental use of physical
punishment and undesired outcomes for children cannot be accounted for by other alternative variables (e.g.,
family income, overall emotional climate in the home,
stress of living in a disadvantaged neighborhood).
The research literature has clearly demonstrated associations, many of them longitudinal, between physical punishment and a host of undesirable outcomes for children
and youth. These results have been brought together
clearly in two large meta-analytic reviews of research on
the outcomes of corporal punishment [2,8].
Empirical research on physical punishment has also paid
ample attention to the question of time order, particularly
through the use of cross lagged regression models
[4,15,24] as well as through the use of longitudinal regression models with a rich set of independent variables,
including variables controlling for children’s earlier
behavior and temperament [5]. Despite the presence
of strong statistical controls, clear evidence emerges from
1
Child Behavior (y)
Other possibly
confounding factor (Z)
e.g.
Earlier child
behavior
Neighborhood
conditions
Parental warmth
Cultural group
3
2
Time
Attention to such matters requires some consideration of
the standard model of causality in the social sciences
[23]. In discussing this standard model, we phrase ideas
in terms of studying the outcomes of the physical punishment of children. Of course, the original conceptualization of this set of ideas was not focused on any one
specific social issue and was phrased in more abstract and
general terms. Applying the standard model, physical
punishment could be understood to be a cause of
www.sciencedirect.com
these studies that physical punishment precedes bad
outcomes for children.
Lastly, and perhaps most challengingly, researchers have
attempted to rule out a myriad of other factors that might
possibly explain both increased use of physical punishment by parents as well as undesirable outcomes for
children. For example, the stress of living in a disadvantaged neighborhood could possibly contribute to both
Current Opinion in Psychology 2018, 19:22–27
24 Aggression and violence
increased use of physical punishment by parents, and
might also contribute to increased behavior problems and
mental health problems in children and youth. Although a
full treatment is beyond the purview of this manuscript,
several statistical strategies, some drawn from econometrics, can address this concern. Generally, research has
found the association between physical punishment and
child behavior problems persists even when strong statistical controls are applied [25,26].
Thus, accusations that studies of the outcomes of physical
punishment are simply indicators of ‘correlation not
causation’ are unfounded, given the voluminous number
of methodologically rigorous studies that have been
applied to the question. Rather, the causal case against
using physical punishment to discipline children is actually very strong.
Moderation by neighborhood, parental
warmth, culture, or race and ethnicity
Another question within the research literature concerns
statistical moderation; that is to say, the question of
whether the negative effects of corporal punishment
are equally salient across social contexts. Theoretically,
this might be considered a question of whether physical
punishment would be less injurious in families where
parents show warmth and affection, and in social contexts
where physical punishment is more normative. Key contextual differences of potential concern in the research
literature have been: families with higher or lower levels
of emotional warmth [11,27,28,29,30]; more advantaged
and disadvantaged neighborhoods [5,31]; different
countries and cultures [10,32]; and racial and ethnic
groups within the United States [33,34]. Generally,
studies of whether associations of spanking with poor
outcomes for children are moderated by any of these
factors found that although there is some degree of
statistical moderation, the relationship of spanking with
negative outcomes for children is remarkably similar
across contexts.
Neighborhood context
Recently, there has been an increased interest in understanding the concurrent effects of the immediate environments associated with parents and family and the more
distal social contexts of the communities and neighborhoods that underlie the course of child development [35].
Two lines of empirical inquiry have found the importance
of neighborhood context in understanding both parental
physical punishment and child developmental outcomes.
The first stream of research suggests that the relationship
between physical punishment and adverse child outcomes may be dependent on neighborhood contexts.
This literature found a significant link between corporal
punishment and behavior problems regardless of neighborhood conditions using models with strong statistical
controls [26] and with an international sample [36]. In
Current Opinion in Psychology 2018, 19:22–27
addition, a study using a sample of children in Trinidad
and Tobago notes that the deleterious relationship
between corporal punishment and behavioral issues is
stronger in neighborhoods with low collective efficacy
than in neighborhoods with higher levels of collective
efficacy [36].
The second body of literature focuses on disadvantaged
neighborhoods as a determinant of less optimal family
environment in which punitive parenting behavior such
as corporal punishment is more common. Empirical studies using this parent mediational model explored whether
physical punishment mediates the relationship between
neighborhood conditions and child outcomes. Findings of
this literature are mixed, however. A study of children in
Trinidad and Tobago found that lower levels of neighborhood collective efficacy as indicated by the lack of
social support and control in communities were linked to
greater use of corporal punishment, which in turn
increased child behavior problems [36]. In contrast, a
study using a nationally representative, longitudinal sample of U.S. children did not find a significant mediating
role of corporal punishment in the association of neighborhood collective efficacy with behavior problems, suggesting that low collective efficacy is not indicative of
parental corporal punishment [5].
Physical punishment as part of a continuum of
violence
Much of the debate in the popular parenting literature
concerning physical punishment, and in the empirical
research literature as well, centers around the question of
whether physical punishment should be considered part
of a customary parenting disciplinary ‘tool kit’, or whether
physical punishment should be considered a type of
family violence, qualitatively similar to child physical
abuse, though arguably somewhat less severe in degree.
Theoretically, the idea is that in cases where physical
punishment fails to result in the desired child behavior,
parental frustration then escalates into full-blown physical abuse [21]. Much of the research surrounding this
question results in rigorously examining the outcomes
associated with corporal punishment to ascertain the
degree to which outcomes of physical punishment and
physical child abuse are qualitatively similar, and whether
physical punishment and physical child abuse have outcomes of similar magnitude [20,31].
A recent longitudinal study examined the relationships of
parental spanking of 1-year-old children, and subsequent
involvement of that family with Child Protective Services
between child’s age 1 and age 5 [37]. This study found
that reports of spanking of a child when child was one year
old were associated with a 33% increase in the chances
that a family would become involved with Child Protective Services.
www.sciencedirect.com
Case against physical punishment Grogan-Kaylor, Ma and Graham-Bermann 25
In a related line of research, the most recent large
meta-analytic study of 50 years of research on corporal
punishment examined a subset of studies that contained
estimates of both outcomes associated with corporal
punishment as well as outcomes associated with physical
child abuse [2]. This study found that on average, outcomes associated with corporal punishment were approximately two thirds the size of those associated with
physical child abuse. Most recently, a study examined
the relationship of physical punishment with negative
mental health outcomes, comparing the size of those
effects with the effects of other Adverse Childhood
Experiences [38]. The study found that spanking has
a comparable, although slightly smaller, set of effects as
do other Adverse Childhood Experiences.
Conflict of interest statement
Toward positive parenting and positive
policies
There is an ongoing global discussion on the importance
of a violence-free environment for optimal child development [39,40]. Since its implementation in 2006, the
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child continues to
urge the global movement towards legal elimination of all
forms of physical punishment to ensure children’s rights
and dignity [41]. To date, almost all countries have
ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
and 52 nations have passed laws that prohibit physical
punishment in all contexts including children’s homes.
The bulk of this article has consisted of arguing the case
against physical punishment. Although a full treatment of
positive parenting approaches is certainly beyond the
purview of this article, it seems appropriate to conclude
by at least pointing in the direction of parenting practices
that appear to be beneficial. Certainly, a key dimension of
parenting appears to be that of warmth and acceptance
[42,43]. Sometimes termed attachment parenting, a good,
universal parenting guide can be found in the parenting
book Positive Discipline in Everyday Parenting published by Save the Children Sweden [44].
We believe it appropriate to close by noting that the Latin
origin for the word ‘discipline’ means instruction and
knowledge. Following these roots, the goal of positive
child discipline is to teach and guide appropriate behavior,
self-regulation, and problem solving skills over the long
term, rather than to reduce immediate misconduct in the
short term [44]. The foundational step to reaching the
long-term goal of parenting is to communicate clear and
developmentally appropriate expectations for children
that are firmly grounded in an understanding of children’s
developmental needs and agendas. When necessary, positive and effective disciplinary strategies that researchers
and practitioners strongly recommend to parents are,
redirecting misbehavior, teaching consequences of misbehavior, and withholding privileges at a developmentally appropriate level [45–47].
www.sciencedirect.com
Nothing declared.
References and recommended reading
Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review,
have been highlighted as:
of special interest
of outstanding interest
1.
T.W. Smith, P., Marsden, M., Hout, J. Kim, General Social Surveys,
1972–2014, Mach. – Readable Data File Princ. Investig. Tom W
Smith Co-Princ. Investig. Peter V Marsden Co-Princ. Investig.
Michael Hout Spons. Natl. Sci. Found. – NORC E – Chic. NORC
Univ. Chic. Prod. Distrib. (2015). gssdataexplorer.norc.org.
2.
Gershoff ET, Grogan-Kaylor A: Spanking and child outcomes:
old controversies and new meta-analyses. J. Fam. Psychol.
2016, 30:453-469 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/fam0000191.
3.
Berlin LJ, Ispa JM, Fine MA, Malone PS, Brooks-Gunn J, BradySmith C, Ayoub C, Bai Y: Correlates and consequences of
spanking and verbal punishment for low-income White,
African American, and Mexican American toddlers. Child Dev.
2009, 80:1403-1420 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14678624.2009.01341.x.
4.
Gershoff ET, Lansford Jennifer E, Sexton HR, Davis-Kean P,
Sameroff AJ: Longitudinal links between spanking and
children’s externalizing behaviors in a national sample of
White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian American families. Child
Dev. 2012, 83:838-843 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14678624.2011.01732.x.
5.

Ma J, Grogan-Kaylor A: Longitudinal associations of
neighborhood collective efficacy and maternal corporal
punishment with behavior problems in early childhood. Dev.
Psychol. 2017 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000308. in press.
These authors found that both low neighborhood collective efficacy and
maternal spanking in the early years are predictors of child behavior
problems, even after controlling for a range of covariates at the child,
family, and neighborhood levels.
6.

Straus DB: Spanking by parents and subsequent antisocial
behavior of children. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 1997,
151:761-767 http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/
archpedi.1997.02170450011002.
In an important early contribution to the literature, Straus et al. used the
National Longitudinal Survey of Youth and found that corporal punishment was associated with antisocial behavior.
7.
Straus MA, Paschall MJ: Corporal punishment by mothers and
development of children’s cognitive ability: a longitudinal
study…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment