Article
Physical Punishment, Culture, and Rights: Current Issues for Professionals
Department of Family Social Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics (Impact Factor: 2.13). 03/2008; 29(1):55-66. DOI: 10.1097/DBP.0b013e318135448a Source: PubMed
| Get notified about updates to this publication Follow publication |
Full-text
Available from: Joan E Durrant
Physical Punishment, Culture, and Rights: Current Issues for
Professionals
Joan E. Durrant, PhD
ABSTRACT: Once considered a legitimate parenting tool, physical punishment is increasingly being redefined as
a developmental risk factor by health professionals. Three forces that have contributed to this significant social
change are the evolution of pediatric psychology, increasing understanding of the dynamics of parental vio-
lence, and growing recognition of children as rights bearers. However, despite the consistency of research
findings demonstrating the risks of physical punishment, some practitioners still struggle with the question of
whether physical punishment is an appropriate practice among some cultural or ethnic groups. This issue is
explored through an analysis of studies examining cultural differences and similarities in physical punishment’s
effects, as well as legal decisions made throughout the world. Despite practitioners’ awareness of the preva-
lence and impact of parental violence, some still struggle with deciding where to “draw the line” in advising
parents about spanking. This issue is addressed through an examination of the role that physical punishment
plays in child maltreatment. Finally, the human rights perspective on physical punishment is offered as a new
lens through which practitioners may view physical punishment to clarify the fuzzy issues of cultural relativity
and the punishment-abuse dichotomy.
(J Dev Behav Pediatr 29:55–66, 2008) Index terms: physical punishment, culture, parental violence, child abuse, children’s rights
Not long ago, physical punishment was considered by
many health professionals to be an acceptable, appropri-
ate, and even necessary part of child rearing. It was
classified as a method of discipline, one tool in the par-
enting toolbox, and an effective, harmless way to main-
tain parental control. As recently as 1992, 70% of family
physicians and 59% of pediatricians were in support of
mild spanking in some disciplinary situations.
1
Today, however, physical punishment has been rede-
fined as a developmental risk factor by leading organiza-
tions concerned with children’s health. For example,
after conducting an independent review of the literature,
the Canadian Paediatric Society stated that “the research
that is available supports the position that spanking and
other forms of physical punishment are associated with
negative child outcomes. The Canadian Paediatric Society
therefore recommends that physicians strongly discour-
age disciplinary spanking and all other forms of physical
punishment”
2
(p. 40). Similarly, the American Academy of
Pediatrics has recommended “that parents be encouraged
and assisted in developing methods other than spanking
in response to undesired behavior”
3
(p. 726). Accord-
ingly, physical punishment is becoming a focus of public
health initiatives
4
and violence prevention strategies.
5
In 2004, the American Psychological Association, in
collaboration with the American Pediatric Society, pub-
lished a pamphlet for parents that states, “Don’t hit your
children.”
6
In the same year, the Canadian Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry recommended against
the use of corporal punishment in the raising of children.
7
Also in 2004, the Canadian Psychological Association is-
sued a policy statement: “Physical punishment has been
consistently demonstrated to be an ineffective and poten-
tially harmful method of managing children’s behaviour.
It places children at risk of physical injury and may inter-
fere with psychological adjustment. To reduce the prev-
alence of physical punishment of children and youth,
public awareness campaigns must deliver a clear message
that physical punishment may place children at risk of
physical and psychological harm. Second, public educa-
tion strategies that increase Canadians’ knowledge of
child development should be supported. Third, evidence-
based programs for developing parenting skills should be
supported.”
8
This shift in conceptualizations of physical punish-
ment from appropriate parenting to an indicator of risk
represents a massive cultural change that is being seen
not only in North America, but around the globe—in Asia,
South America, Africa, Australasia, and Europe. This trans-
formation reflects the convergence of three areas of so-
cial change over the past decade: (1) the emergence and
growth of pediatric psychology, (2) greater understand-
ing of the nature of parental violence against children,
and (3) increasing recognition of children as bearers of
rights. In this article, I highlight the developments in each
of these areas that have contributed to a rapidly evolving
perspective on the physical punishment of children. I
also address practice issues—specifically, the question of
culture and the discipline-abuse dichotomy—that have
challenged professionals and provide perspectives that
may contribute to their resolution.
From the Department of Family Social Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg,
Manitoba, Canada
Address for reprints: Joan E. Durrant, PhD, Department of Family Social Sciences,
University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N2, Canada; E-mail:
durrant@cc.umanitoba.ca
Copyright © 2008 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Special Article
Vol. 29, No. 1, February 2008 55
THE EMERGENCE AND GROWTH OF PEDIATRIC
PSYCHOLOGY
Developmental psychology has a relatively brief his-
tory. Although its origins can be found in the writing of
Aristotle and Descartes, its modern version dates back
only a century. The integration of developmental psychol-
ogy and pediatrics is even younger; it can be traced to
Jerome Kagan’s 1965 recognition of the contribution that
child development research could make to pediatric prac-
tice.
9
The subsequent growth of this “new marriage” has
brought with it an ever-increasing understanding of the
factors influencing children’s behavior, psychosocial ad-
justment, and physical health.
Many behaviors that once confounded teachers and
parents and likely resulted in untold incidents of physical
punishment in schools and homes are better understood
today. For example, behaviors associated with attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder, learning disabilities, and fe-
tal alcohol spectrum disorder might have been consid-
ered defiance or a refusal to comply resulting from
inadequate parental discipline. Ab Chudley, pediatrician
and medical geneticist specializing in fetal alcohol spec-
trum disorder has stated that “in the past, professionals
tended to blame, or were perceived to blame the parents
for being poor caregivers, failing their children and con-
tributing to the child’s out-of-control behaviour. We now
recognize that this behavior is often the result of brain
damage, and is not controllable through traditional disci-
pline and child-rearing practices”
10
(p. xiv).
Growing understanding of typical development also
has shed light on effective solutions to parent-child con-
flict. Through the past generation, knowledge of child
development, bidirectional influences, family dynamics,
attribution, parental effects, temperament, attachment,
and a host of other dimensions of parent-child relations
has increased tremendously. In addition, a paradigm shift
in theoretical emphasis from strict behavioral models to
cognitive-behavioral and social information processing
models has refocused attention from the child’s behavior
per se to the thoughts and feelings that mediate children’s
and parents’ behavior and their interactions.
The rapid growth in knowledge of children’s typical
and atypical behaviors has led to new approaches to
improving children’s physical and mental health. It has
identified avenues for prevention, health promotion, and
harm reduction. And it has led to a renewed emphasis on
parent-child relationships as the foundation of children’s
health.
Research investigating the predictors of children’s psy-
chosocial adjustment has consistently demonstrated the
importance of parental warmth to children’s mental
health. It also has uncovered the relationship between
punitive parenting—and physical punishment in particu-
lar—and poorer psychological adjustment. A meta-analy-
sis of 88 studies found that, almost without exception,
the literature reveals negative relationships between “nor-
mative” physical punishment and children’s mental
health.
11
While short-term compliance might sometimes
result, it can come at a high cost over the long term.
For example, physical punishment’s erosion of parent-
child relationships is seen among children as young as
2.
12
Physical punishment has been consistently associated
with poorer child and adult mental health, including
depression,
13–16
unhappiness and anxiety,
17,18
and feel-
ings of hopelessness.
19
Rather than teaching children
right from wrong, physical punishment predicts weaker
internalization of moral values (e.g., empathy, altruism,
resistance to temptation).
20
It should not come as a sur-
prise, then, that physical punishment consistently pre-
dicts increased levels of antisocial behavior in children,
including aggression against siblings,
21
peers,
22
and par-
ents,
23,24
as well as dating violence.
25,26
Practice Issue: The Question of Culture
The consistency of research findings linking physical
punishment to negative developmental outcomes has led
to a shift from opinion-based to evidence-based perspec-
tives on the issue. In the public health arena, initiatives
have been developed to reduce the prevalence of this
practice at a population level.
4,5,27
In the academic arena, however, it has given rise to
attempts to identify the circumstances under which phys-
ical punishment might not predict negative outcomes.
For example, some researchers have hypothesized that in
cultures where physical punishment has a positive con-
notation (e.g., viewed as a sign of love or caring), its
relationship to maladjustment might not be as strong as it
is in cultures where it has a negative connotation (e.g.,
viewed as violence). Some data have suggested that this
might indeed be the case, raising questions about the
messages that professionals should be giving to parents.
Evidence of Cross-Cultural Differences
Several studies have revealed different patterns in the
relationship between physical punishment and external-
izing behaviors among African American and European
American
a
children. Deater-Deckard and colleagues
28
found a positive relationship between early physical pun-
ishment and mother-rated externalizing behavior prob-
lems among both African American and European Amer-
ican children from kindergarten through the third grade.
However, the relationship between physical punishment
and teacher- and peer-rated externalizing behavior prob-
lems was only significant among European American chil-
dren.
In another longitudinal study,
29
African American and
European American mothers reported on their use of
physical punishment at three points in time: prior to their
child’s starting kindergarten, when their child was in
sixth grade, and when their child was in eighth grade.
Then they took two measures of mother-reported exter-
nalizing behaviors and five measures of child-reported
externalizing behaviors when the children were in 11th
grade. They found that race moderated the relationship
between prekindergarten physical punishment and later
externalizing behaviors for three of the seven externaliz-
a
Throughout this section, I use the terms adopted by the authors of the original
studies to categorize children by culture/race/ethnicity.
56 Physical Punishment, Culture, and Rights Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics
ing measures. However, race moderated the relationship
between physical punishment in grades six and eight and
later externalizing behaviors for all seven of the external-
izing measures.
Gunnoe and Mariner
30
found a positive relationship
between physical punishment and fighting at elementary
school among white children, but this relationship was
negative among black children. Nonsignificant relation-
ships have been found between physical punishment and
childhood violence
31
and behavior problems
32
among
black children. McLeod et al
33
found the usual relation-
ship between spanking and antisocial behavior, but its
pathway differed across races; spanking both preceded
and followed antisocial behavior of white children, but it
largely followed the antisocial behavior of black children,
suggesting different causal relationships in the two
groups.
Three primary explanations have been put forth for
these findings. The first is that physical punishment may
be more common and viewed as more acceptable and
appropriate among African American than European
American families. If this is the case, African American
children may consider it to be a legitimate practice that is
carried out in their best interests.
29,30,34
Its cultural mean-
ing, then, might buffer children from its potential nega-
tive effects. A second explanation offered is that because
African American families are more likely to live in dan-
gerous environments, physical punishment might be nec-
essary to protect children.
34
The third explanation is that physical punishment be-
came internalized by African Americans as a result of
colonization, slavery, and oppression.
35
During the British
Colonial period in Africa, institutionalized corporal pun-
ishment, including whipping, flogging, and caning, was
applied to African laborers, soldiers, prisoners, and
schoolchildren.
36
During the antebellum period in the
United States, whipping was “the scene of initiation into
slavery itself” and was central to the perpetuation of such
an asymmetrical power balance.
37
Perhaps it could be
argued that this history has contributed to an internaliza-
tion of corporal punishment as a legitimate means of
control and discipline and a legitimate expression of
power hierarchies.
Whatever the explanation, researchers have given
thought to how these findings might be applied. Some view
these findings as interesting theoretically, but not as a justi-
fication for physical punishment. As Deater-Deckard and
Dodge
38
have stated, “We presume that most researchers
would agree that the use of physical discipline is by no
means necessary, and that efforts to reduce the use of this
and related discipline behaviors are worthwhile” (pp. 234 –
235). Lansford et al
29
state, “We want to be clear that we are
not advocating the use of spanking” (p. 810).
Baumrind,
34
on the other hand, suggests that “spank-
ing is not violent” and that “spanking may be used to
control the short-term behavior of the child and to rein-
force the authority of the parent,” particularly when it is
accompanied by warmth and concern (p. 177). “If chil-
dren and their parents believe that disciplinary spanking
signifies love and concern, they will respond more posi-
tively than if they believe that the practice is socially
unacceptable or intended to do them harm”
34
(p. 180).
She concludes that de-legitimating physical punishment
might actually contribute to family maladjustment
34
and
opposes universal initiatives to reduce this practice.
39
However, the conclusion that physical punishment’s
effects vary by culture has been challenged. These chal-
lenges have sprung from three groups of studies: (1)
those demonstrating a consistent relationship between
physical punishment and externalizing behavior across
cultural groups, (2) those considering outcomes other
than externalizing behavior, and (3) those examining the
heterogeneity of parenting practices within cultural
groups.
Evidence of Cross-Cultural Consistency:
Externalizing Behaviors
Several well-controlled investigations have found that
the relationship between physical punishment and exter-
nalizing behavior is consistent across cultural groups. In a
prospective study of 6- to 9-year-old children controlling
for initial level of child antisocial behavior, as well as
child-rearing style and socioeconomic status, physical
punishment predicted higher levels of antisocial behavior
2 years later across ethnic groups and regardless of pa-
rental warmth.
40
In a three-wave longitudinal study with stringent con-
trols, even a low level of physical punishment was related
to increased antisocial behavior among white, African
American, and Latino children.
41
Another study, control-
ling for initial levels of and rate of growth in antisocial
behavior, again revealed that parental use of physical
punishment predicted increases in children’s antisocial
behavior among white, black, and Hispanic children.
42
Other studies also have found that physical punish-
ment is associated with behavior problems in children
across racial and ethnic groups. In a five-wave longitudi-
nal study, a significant relationship was found between
spanking and behavior problems across European Amer-
ican, African American, and Hispanic children.
43
Among a
sample of 64 African American children, parental use of
physical punishment was positively related to children
acting out.
44
Gunnoe and Mariner
30
found that physical
punishment predicted higher levels of antisocial behavior
among both black and white children. In a study con-
ducted in China, India, Italy, Kenya, the Philippines, and
Thailand, adverse outcomes of physical punishment were
moderated to some degree by its cultural normativeness,
but it was still associated with higher levels of aggression
and anxiety in every country studied.
45
Evidence of Cross-Cultural Consistency: Other
Outcomes
Another challenge to the argument that physical pun-
ishment might actually be a protective factor among chil-
dren in some cultural groups comes from research that
considers developmental outcomes beyond externalizing
behaviors. Even if physical punishment was found to have
neutral or positive effects on the externalizing behaviors
of some groups of children, would this necessarily mean
that it is a positive force in their lives? Before drawing
Vol. 29, No. 1, February 2008 © 2008 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 57
such a conclusion, a much broader range of outcomes
must be considered.
Studies examining the relationship between physical
punishment and mental health have found that it does not
vary by race. In a study of black adolescents, corporal
punishment was positively and significantly related to
depression.
46
Similarly, childhood corporal punishment
predicted depression across white and nonwhite college
students, even when the frequency of other punishments,
as well as physical and sexual abuse, were controlled.
47
In
a study using structural equation modeling, maternal use
of physical punishment added to the negative effect of
poverty on children’s mental health among black, His-
panic, and white children; “poor children appear to ex-
perience the same parenting disadvantages regardless of
race, at least with respect to the frequency of spanking
and emotional responsiveness”
48
(p. 361).
Studies examining the relationship between physical
punishment and other negative outcomes also have dem-
onstrated its consistency across cultural groups. For ex-
ample, in a study of urban African American preschoolers,
corporal punishment predicted quality of attachment;
caregivers who used corporal punishment were more
likely to have insecurely attached children, regardless of
levels of child noncompliance, child gender, or degree of
shared caregiving.
49
Physical punishment is associated
with intellectual development; in a longitudinal study,
receptive vocabulary and reading recognition were neg-
atively related to spanking among African American, Eu-
ropean American, and Hispanic children.
43
Cultural Heterogeneity
A third challenge to the position that physical punish-
ment’s effects vary across racial groups because of its
differing meaning across those groups comes from re-
search on the heterogeneity of cultures. First, African
American families have been assumed to be homoge-
neous in their reliance on physical punishment as a nor-
mative part of their parenting, but this assumption is not
necessarily founded. For example, in a sample of work-
ing- and middle-class African American mothers, a range
of parenting practices was used, but most mothers re-
ported using child-centered discipline characterized by
reasoning, responsiveness, nonrestrictive attitudes, and
low use of physical punishment.
50
In fact, reasoning was
the most frequent and physical punishment the least
frequent response to child misbehavior. Similarly, Horn et
al
51
found that African American parents were more likely
to endorse teaching the child or removing a dangerous
object than to endorse spanking. Virtually all the parents
in this sample had praised (93%), distracted (97%), or
explained to the child (100%) in the previous week; 26%
had spanked the child. Endorsement of spanking was
more likely among parents of lower than higher socioeco-
nomic status.
Second, it has been assumed that physical punishment
is used in African American families because it is highly
valued. However, some studies suggest that it is more
likely to be an outcome of parental depression than eth-
nicity. Wissow
52
identified four clusters of parents in a
sample of more than 2000. The two clusters with the
highest proportions of spankers also had the highest rates
of depression. The first cluster was ethnically diverse and
had the largest proportion of poor parents; 94% had
spanked and 60% reported symptoms of depression. The
second spanking cluster was primarily white (79%) and
male (61%) and had the highest proportion of affluent
parents; 78% had spanked and 94% reported symptoms of
depression.
In a sample of working- and middle-class African Amer-
ican mothers, 24% of the variance in child-centered par-
enting was explained by higher levels of education, lower
levels of depression, and less rejection, hostility, and
neglect in the mother’s own childhood.
50
The findings of
this study suggested that depression may mediate the
relationship between mothers’ child-rearing history and
child-centered parenting. Because depression did not
contribute to punishment in this sample, the authors
speculate that depression might affect positive parenting
in low-risk families (such as those in their sample), but
exacerbate punishment in high-risk families. Indeed, in a
sample of 774 largely single, uninsured, low-income
young African American mothers, those with persistent
depressive symptoms were twice as likely to physically
punish their infants as those without depressive symp-
toms.
53
Third, it has been assumed that African American par-
ents physically punish their children in a context of
warmth, but the validity of this assumption is question-
able. Corporal punishment was found to be negatively
related to parental warmth in a sample of urban African
American youths.
44
It also cannot be assumed that black
children interpret parental corporal punishment as more
fair, just and loving than white children. No differences
were found in the perceived justness of physical punish-
ment or in perceived parental acceptance between Euro-
pean American and African American college students in
the rural southern United States.
54
Conclusion
The consistency of research findings demonstrating
that physical punishment predicts negative developmen-
tal outcomes—and the paucity of research showing a link
to positive outcomes—has resulted in efforts to reduce or
eliminate its use. While some studies have raised ques-
tions about whether its link to externalizing behaviors is
consistent across cultures, others have indicated that (1)
such consistency does exist, (2) physical punishment
predicts a range of negative outcomes beyond external-
izing behaviors across cultures, and (3) the heterogeneity
of practices within cultures weakens arguments that
physical punishment is highly valued, and therefore less
harmful, among particular cultural groups.
RESEARCH ON PARENTAL VIOLENCE AGAINST
CHILDREN
The year 1962 marked the formal revelation of child
physical abuse within the medical community.
55
Subse-
quently, a search began for evidence-based explanations
of why parents would harm their own children. The first
studies were psychiatrically based, searching for signs of
58 Physical Punishment, Culture, and Rights Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics
psychopathology in abusive parents, but they found that
this explanation accounted for very few cases.
56
The next
phase of research was sociologically oriented.
57
These
studies identified sociocultural risk factors for abuse, such
as poverty and economic stress, but they also found that
parental violence exists in all social classes, rendering this
explanation inadequate. The third research phase drew
attention to psychological and relationship factors, ad-
dressing the bidirectional influences of parent and child
behavior and beliefs, reciprocal conditioning, and coer-
cive family dynamics.
58
Wherever the search for causes led, a common theme
emerged: most physical abuse is an attempt to punish. In
the early days of child abuse research, David Gil
59
con-
ducted a national study of the dynamics underlying phys-
ical abuse incidents. He concluded that the majority de-
veloped “out of disciplinary action taken by caretakers”
(p. 126). His conclusions were supported by Kadushin
and Martin
60
who studied more than 800 cases of sub-
stantiated nonsexual abuse. They found that almost all the
parents defined their harmful actions as disciplinary mea-
sures that were required in response to their child’s
behavior. These findings have been repeatedly replicat-
ed.
61–63
The second cycle of Canada’s national longitudinal
study of child maltreatment, the Canadian Incidence
Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (CIS-2003)
specifically investigated the role of physical punishment
in physical maltreatment cases.
64
It yielded the following
findings: (1) of the 25,141 cases of physical maltreatment
substantiated in 2003, 75% were incidents of physical
punishment; (2) across all ages (younger than 1 to 15
years of age), the most common type of physical maltreat-
ment is hitting with the hand; and (3) in the majority of
families for whom physically punitive violence was sub-
stantiated, spanking was typically used as a form of disci-
pline.
65
Child physical maltreatment most often results
not from sadism or desire to harm, but from intent to
punish or teach.
Practice Issue: The Discipline-Abuse Dichotomy
Increasing recognition of the role played by physical
punishment in the physical abuse of children has begun
to shift the focus of violence prevention to the culturally
acceptable forms of physical punishment.
27
While this
shift is increasingly understood in the public health arena,
it continues to present a challenge for individual practi-
tioners who struggle with “drawing the line” for parents.
This struggle has its roots in the pervasive conceptual
dichotomy of discipline versus abuse. Many of us sub-
scribe to the notion that discipline is delivered by parents
who love and care for their children, while abuse is
inflicted by cruel and uncaring parents. As described
above, research has consistently demonstrated that this
dichotomy is a false one.
59–63,65,66
Kadushin and Martin
provide many illustrative quotes from parents found to
have abused their children, such as: “I hoped that by
disciplining him this way it would shake something up in
him to say, ‘I got to do better’. That’s why I did it.” “It
wasn’t so much to make her hurt, it was to stop her from
doing what she was doing.” “I did it for them not to do it
again. I think that was the thing. Maybe if I discipline this
one time, they won’t do it again.” “I just wanted him to
stop peeing in his pants.”
60
For some, difficulty in confronting the punitive foun-
dation of most child physical abuse is a personal one.
Those who experienced physical punishment as children
are more likely to consider it an appropriate response to
parent-child conflict. In fact, the strongest predictor of
adult approval of a particular punishment is having expe-
rienced that punishment as a child.
67
Even among those
who have been severely punished (e.g., punched,
choked), most do not consider these acts to have been
abusive.
68–72
Definitions of punishment and abuse are
intimately connected to one’s childhood experiences.
These definitions are carried into the parenting role.
When a sample of British parents was asked about the
physical punishments they had used, they included push-
ing, throwing, “punishment by example” (e.g., biting,
pinching, and squeezing), and ingestion (e.g., soap and
water in the mouth as a punishment for swearing) in that
category.
73
These acts were viewed as normative by these
parents. Ultimately, the normalizing and legitimating ef-
fect of the forms of physical punishment that one expe-
rienced as a child reinforces the notion of a discipline-
abuse dichotomy.
Another obstacle to the recognition of the role pun-
ishment plays in physical abuse is a tendency to think of
physical punishment as occurring in discrete episodes,
under the complete physical and emotional control of the
parent. If a spanking is thought of as an isolated incident,
deserved by the child and delivered in a controlled way
by the parent, one might define it as a disciplinary act.
But, in fact, physical punishment happens within the
context of an evolving, bidirectional, multilayered family
relationship. Its immediate outcome depends on a range
of child-related factors (e.g., ability to comply), parent-
related factors (e.g., appropriateness of expectations),
and family-related factors (e.g., coercive family interac-
tion patterns, conditioned emotional responses). The
complex factors operating in the disciplinary moment
can contribute to an escalation of physical punishment to
increasingly severe levels. In a study of more than 3000
families in Que´bec, children who experienced minor
physical violence (pinching, shaking, spanking) were
seven times more likely to also experience severe vio-
lence (punching, kicking, hitting with an object) than
those who had not experienced minor physical vio-
lence.
74
While not all incidents of physical punishment esca-
late, the use of physical force by an adult toward a child
carries an inherent risk. If the child does not or cannot
comply, the parent’s frustration and sense of powerless-
ness can quickly increase and the punishment can easily
intensify to unintended levels.
75
Even if the child does
comply, physical punishment can escalate. In this situa-
tion, the likelihood of the parent repeating this behavior
has been reinforced, but over time its effectiveness de-
creases as the child habituates. To compensate, the par-
ent might increase the intensity of the punishment. The
Vol. 29, No. 1, February 2008 © 2008 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 59
American Academy of Pediatrics has recognized this as-
pect of physical punishment: “Although spanking may
immediately reduce or stop an undesired behavior, its
effectiveness decreases with subsequent use. The only
way to maintain the initial effect of spanking is to system-
atically increase the intensity with which it is delivered,
which can quickly escalate into abuse.”
3 p.726
Conclusion
One of the challenges for practitioners in encouraging
parents to eliminate physical punishment from their rep-
ertoires is the notion of a clear distinction between pun-
ishment and abuse. This dichotomy, however, is more a
product of personal experiences than of evidence. In
most cases, physical abuse is physical punishment. By
discouraging the use of all physical punishment and sup-
porting parents in their efforts to develop positive ap-
proaches to discipline, practitioners could play a critical
role in the success of broader violence prevention efforts.
CHILDREN AS BEARERS OF RIGHTS
The third area of social change that has contributed to
the de-legitimation of physical punishment is the move-
ment toward recognizing children as rights bearers. The
rights perspective is rapidly changing conceptualizations
of childhood and, in particular, of physical punishment.
76
1–15.From a human rights point of view, physical
punishment should be a target of prevention on the basis
of principle. From this perspective, if one accepts that the
use of physical punishment to correct a wife, an elderly
parent, or a friend’s child is a violation of that individual’s
rights then one must conclude that the use of physical
punishment to correct one’s own students or children
also is a violation of their rights. According to this per-
spective, the children are autonomous being with inher-
ent rights, including the right to physical security. By
virtue of their humanity and their vulnerability, they are
entitled to protection of their physical integrity and dig-
nity equal to the protection that adults enjoy. From this
point of view, physical punishment should be a target of
prevention, just as spousal violence and peer violence
are—on principle.
If one begins with this assumption, many of the de-
bates in this area become moot. The search for “beneficial
outcomes” of physical punishment of children becomes
equivalent to a search for the benefits of physical punish-
ment of wives, seniors, employees, or other groups of
human beings. The argument becomes one of ethics
rather than academics. The search for ethnic subgroups
who benefit more from, or are less harmed by, physical
punishment than others becomes unpalatable. Attempts
to delineate an acceptable level of violence against a child
become irrelevant.
An historic moment in corporal punishment’s evolu-
tion from a parenting tool to an act of violence came with
the 1989 implementation of the United Nations Conven-
tion on the Rights of the Child (CRC), an international
human rights treaty that has been ratified by all countries
but two, Somalia and the United States. This document
has led to real change in the status of children and
policies affecting their health around the world. In Africa,
for example, Children Acts, children’s parliaments, and
child-centered policies have become common.
77
Chil-
dren’s ombudspersons and children’s commissioners
have been appointed in many European countries.
b
There
are now 60 children’s ombudspersons in 38 countries
around the world. The CRC has been incorporated into
the national laws of at least 50 countries. Many Latin
American countries, for example, have adopted compre-
hensive legal codes on children’s rights.
78
Therefore, the
notion that children’s rights are culturally relative is rap-
idly disappearing.
The CRC has been particularly relevant to the corporal
punishment issue. Long considered a legitimate parenting
tool, corporal punishment has been redefined by the CRC
as a violation of children’s rights. Article 19 of the CRC
calls upon ratifying states to take “all appropriate legisla-
tive, administrative, social and educational measures to
protect the child from all forms of physical or mental
violence, injury or abuse.” Article 28 obligates ratifying
nations to “ensure that school discipline is administered
in a manner consistent with the child’s human dignity.”
The International Committee on the Rights of the Child,
the treaty body that monitors states’ compliance with the
CRC, has repeatedly interpreted these articles to call for
the prohibition of all physical punishment.
79,80
In 2006,
the Committee issued a general comment on corporal
punishment that states: “Once visible, it is clear that the
practice directly conflicts with the equal and inalienable
rights of children to respect for their human dignity and
physical integrity. The distinct nature of children, their
initial dependent and developmental state, their unique
human potential as well as their vulnerability, all demand
the need for more, rather than less, legal and other pro-
tection from all forms of violence.”
81
Corporal Punishment, Human Rights, and
Culture
The human rights perspective on corporal punishment
renders debate on its relative cultural appropriateness
impotent. Just as societies gradually came to the conclu-
sion that violence against women was a matter of rights,
not of culture, they are increasingly drawing the same
conclusion about violence against children. Recently,
high courts in India, Israel, Italy, Fiji, Kenya, Namibia,
Nepal, South Africa, and Zambia have ruled in favor of the
rights of children in corporal punishment cases. For ex-
ample, the High Court of New Delhi ruled that “funda-
mental rights of the child will have no meaning if they are
not protected by the state”
82
The Fiji Court of Appeal
stated that “children have rights no wit inferior to the
rights of adults.”
83
Israel’s Supreme Court ruled that cor-
poral punishment “violates the right of the population of
children in our society to dignity, and to integrity of mind
and body.”
84
International human rights treaty bodies, such as the
Human Rights Committee that monitors implementation
of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
b
See www.ombudsnet.org/enoc/members/index.asp for a list and contact infor-
mation.
60 Physical Punishment, Culture, and Rights Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics
Rights
85
; the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cul-
tural Rights
86
; and the European Committee of Social
Rights have been consistent in condemning corporal pun-
ishment of children. The Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe has called for a Europe-wide ban on all
corporal punishment of children.
87
The Commissioner
for Human Rights of the Council of Europe has stated:
“There is no more telling symbol of [children’s] down-
grading than adults’ assumption that they have a ‘right,’
even a duty, to hit children”
87
(p. 1). “How can we expect
children to take human rights seriously and to help build
a culture of human rights, while we adults not only
persist in slapping, spanking, smacking and beating them,
but actually defend doing so as being ‘for their own
good?’”
88
(p. 6)
The African Commission on Human and People’s
Rights, which monitors the implementation of the African
Charter on Human and People’s Rights (ratified by all 50
member states of the African Union), has found that
“there is no right for individuals, and particularly the
government of a country to apply physical violence to
individuals for offenses.” Article 11(5) of the African Char-
ter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child requires that
“States Parties to the present Charter shall take all appro-
priate measures to ensure that a child who is subjected to
school or parental discipline shall be treated with human-
ity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the child
and in conformity with the present Charter.”
The question of religious justifications for physical
punishment has been dismissed by the Committee on the
Rights of the Child. The Committee has stated that “prac-
tice of a religion or belief must be consistent with respect
for others’ human dignity and physical integrity.”
89
Corporal Punishment and International Law
Reform
The human rights perspective is the basis of the legal
prohibitions on corporal punishment increasingly found
around the world. More than 100 countries have banned
all corporal punishment in schools.
c
Moreover, 23 coun-
tries have banned corporal punishment in all settings,
including the home.
d
These laws are aimed at affirming
children’s rights to physical security, dignity, and a safe
upbringing.
In all cases, these countries eliminated their criminal
defenses to corrective assault of a child (where they
existed), rendering corporal punishment technically a
criminal assault equal to an assault of an adult. In addition,
these countries placed explicit bans in their Civil Codes
as a clear statement of their recognition of children’s
rights to protection.
e
However, prosecutorial decisions
are to be made in the best interests of the child. For
example, in addressing this issue with regard to Sweden’s
prohibition of corporal punishment, the Minister of Jus-
tice stated that “the rules governing warrant for prosecu-
tion also ensure the right of refusal to prosecute trifling
acts.”
90
In its 2000 decision to prohibit corporal punish-
ment, the Israeli Supreme Court granted the prosecution
discretion not to charge in the absence of public inter-
est.
84
Similarly, the German government stated in 2000
that “the public prosecutor’s office will still only press
criminal charges in serious cases and can, in particular,
waive these when the family accepts social education,
family-oriented therapy or other supporting measures”
91
(p. 5).
Despite their nonpunitive intent and implementation,
these laws appear to be contributing to the redefinition of
corporal punishment from a legitimate parenting practice
to an act of violence, at least in the countries where
attitudinal data have been collected. In Sweden, for ex-
ample, 53% of the population believed that physical pun-
ishment was necessary in child rearing in 1965.
92
By
1994, only 11% of the population was “positively inclined
toward even the mildest forms of corporal punish-
ment.”
93
In Germany, the proportion of adults who define
a slap on the face, a forceful slap on the bottom, or a
thrashing as “violence” increased by 29%, 46%, and 30%,
respectively, between 1994 and 2001.
91
In Israel, the
proportion of adults who believe that hitting children is
acceptable decreased from 75% to 33% between 1996 and
2006.
94
Bills proposing the abolition of all corporal punish-
ment are under consideration by the governments of
Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Peru, Phil-
ippines, and South Africa. The governments of 16 coun-
tries, including Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Slovakia, Slov-
enia, and Taiwan, have stated their intention to prohibit
all corporal punishment.”
f
Banning Corporal Punishment: The Question of
Culture
Some have argued that, because corporal punish-
ment’s effects might vary on the basis of the child’s
culture, it should not be banned.
39
In the United States,
this argument has been made primarily in relation to
African American children.
From a human rights perspective, however, perpetu-
ating corporal punishment of children from any culture is
a violation of their fundamental rights and the notion that
some groups merit protection more than others is not
justifiable. This perspective has been highlighted in de-
bates regarding school corporal punishment in the United
States. There, black children are corporally punished dis-
proportionately to white children.
95,96
For many mem-
bers of the African American community, this situation
cannot be justified on the basis that corporal punishment
is more culturally appropriate for black children than for
white children. In 2004, a proclamation was issued by
c
See www.endcorporalpunishment.org for a list of these countries.
d
Sweden (1979), Finland (1983), Norway (1987), Austria (1989), Cyprus (1994),
Denmark (1997), Croatia (1998), Latvia (1998), Germany (2000), Israel (2000),
Bulgaria (2000), Iceland (2003), Ukraine (2004), Hungary (2004), Romania (2005),
Greece (2007), New Zealand (2007), Portugal (2007), Uruguay (2007), Venezuela
(2007), Chile (2007), Spain (2007).
e
While Italy has not enacted explicit prohibitions, its Supreme Courts has struck
down the criminal defense to the use of corrective force with a child.
87
This court
decision has been interpreted by the European Committee of Social Rights as a
prohibition on all corporal punishment (July 2005, Conclusions XVII-2).
f
See www.endcorporalpunishment.org for details on the legal status of corporal
punishment in all countries of the world.
Vol. 29, No. 1, February 2008 © 2008 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 61
African American leaders,
g
calling for a nationwide ban
on corporal punishment of all schoolchildren. These in-
dividuals view the disproportionate amount of corporal
punishment meted out to African American children to be
an injustice. To them, it matters not whether research
findings suggest that African American children who are
physically punished are less aggressive than white chil-
dren who are physically punished. Rather, what matters is
that African American children are entitled to the same
protection as white children.
In a discussion of theories of spousal abuse in African
American families, Barnes
97
addressed the notion that
African Americans normalize violence and contribute to a
subculture of violence. “Researchers who conclude that
various subcultural groups consider violence normal be-
cause of social values represent a stereotypical viewpoint
that devalues African American lives” (p. 363), citing
Hawkins
98
and Brice-Baker.
99
The fact that there is some
debate about whether physical punishment of African
American children should be considered differently than
that of white children could lead to a conclusion that the
former should receive less protection than the latter.
From a rights-based perspective, such a conclusion would
be unacceptable.
The United Nations Secretary-General’s Study
on Violence Against Children
In 2003, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan
launched the first comprehensive global study on all
forms of violence against children. Its aim was to provide
a global picture of violence against children and put forth
recommendations to improve the prevention of and re-
sponses to violence against children around the world.
Professor Paulo Se´rgio Pinheiro was appointed to lead the
study.
The data were collected through questionnaires to
governments, field visits, submissions from individuals
and organizations around the world, major research re-
ports commissioned for the study, and thematic meetings
with experts in various dimensions of violence against
children. In addition, extensive consultations were held
in every region of the world.
h
At every consultation,
prohibition and elimination of all corporal punishment
were among the key recommendations put forth for the
prevention of violence against children.
The study’s final report was released in 2006 and
states: “The central message of the study is that no vio-
lence against children is justifiable, and all violence
against children is preventable. The Study reveals that in
every region, in stark contradiction to human rights obli-
gations and children’s developmental needs, much vio-
lence against children remains legal, State-authorized and
socially approved. The Study aims to mark a definitive
global turning point: an end to the justification of vio-
lence against children, whether accepted as ‘tradition’ or
disguised as “discipline”
100
, (p. 3, original emphasis).
Conclusion
Consensus is increasingly evident around the world
that violence against children must be prevented, physi-
cal punishment must be a target of prevention efforts, and
prevention initiatives must reach children of all cultures.
The results of the global study on violence against chil-
dren demonstrate that corporal punishment is a funda-
mental issue in all regions and that, regardless of cultural
variation, it has been identified as a key target of violence
prevention strategies. From a rights perspective, the issue
is not whether a particular culture equates physical pun-
ishment with discipline or whether statistical analyses
produce different values for different groups of children.
The issue is one of equality, respect, and dignity for all
children.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Over recent decades, a worldwide shift has been wit-
nessed in the definition of corporal punishment from a
legitimate parenting practice to a risk to children’s
healthy development. This shift reflects a relatively recent
explosion of developmental research and its resulting
knowledge about typical and atypical behavioral develop-
ment, increasing understanding of the dynamics of paren-
tal aggression, and the growing recognition of children’s
status as bearers of fundamental human rights. Together,
these forces have culminated in a social change equiva-
lent to that seen in the redefinition of spousal aggression
in the late 1900s.
This shift is not merely a North American or even
Western phenomenon. It is taking place around the
globe, across cultures and political ideologies, religions
and races. It is changing violence prevention strategies at
a population level and contributing to a reconceptualiza-
tion of the child-patient as a person with the inherent
right to physical integrity and dignity. It is facilitating the
development of new frameworks for understanding the
interactions among children’s mental and physical health,
parental health, and family well-being.
An indicator of the extent to which professional atti-
g
The Proclamation can be viewed at www.stophitting.com/disatschool/aaLeads-
BanCP.php. It has been signed by Dr. Carl C. Bell, President and CEO of Commu-
nity Mental Health Council, Chicago, IL; Dr. Marilyn Benoit, Past President of
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Washington, DC; Yvette
McGee Brown, President of Child and Family Advocacy Center, Columbus, OH;
Julian Bond, Chairman of the Board of NAACP, Baltmore, MD; Dr. Michelle Clark,
Committee on Black Psychiatrists, American Psychiatric Association, Los Angeles,
CA; Bishop Phillip Robert Cousin, Fourth District, AME Church, Chicago, IL;
Marion Wright Edelman, President of Children’s Defense Fund, Washington, DC;
Bishop Cornal Garnett Henning, Eighth Episcopal District, AME Church, New
Orleans, LA; Reverend Jesse Jackson Sr., Founder and President of PUSH/EXCEL,
Judith Jackson, President of National Association of Black Social Workers, Wash-
ington, DC; Dr. Michael Lomax, President of the United Negro College Fund,
Faixfax, VA; Bishop E. Earl McCloud, Ecumenical Officer, AME Church, Atlanta,
GA; Kweisi Mfume, Past President and CEO of NAACP, Baltimore, MD; Marc
Morial, President and CEO of the Urban League, New York, NY; Dr. Alvin Pous-
saint, Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, MA; Dr. Win-
ston Price, President of National Medical Association, Washington, DC; Dr. Deloris
M. Saunders, President of National Alliance of Black School Educators, Washing-
ton, DC; Reverend Fred L. Shuttlesworth, Past President of Southern Christian
Leadership Conference; Brother Reynaldo S. Taylor, President, National Black
Catholic Seminarian Association, Cincinnati, OH; Bishop McKinley Young, Elev-
enth District, AME Church, Jacksonville, FL.
h
Consultations were carried out in the Caribbean, South Asia, West and Central
Africa, Latin America, North America, East Asia and the Pacific, the Middle East,
North Africa, Europe, Central Asia, and Eastern and Southern Africa. On average,
350 individuals participated in each consultation, including government officials;
parliamentarians; representatives of intergovernmental organizations, nongovern-
mental organizations, national human rights institutions, media and faith-based
organizations; other parts of civil society; and children.
62 Physical Punishment, Culture, and Rights Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics
tudes have changed in recent years is the number of
professional organizations that have taken official posi-
tions discouraging physical punishment and encouraging
greater support for parents. In Canada, for example, lead-
ing health organizations have endorsed the Joint State-
ment on Physical Punishment of Children and Youth.
101
These organizations include the Canadian Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Canadian Association of
Child Life Leaders, Canadian Association of Occupational
Therapists, Canadian Association of Paediatric Health
Centres, Canadian Dental Association, Canadian Institute
of Child Health, Canadian Nurses Association, Canadian
Paediatric Society, Canadian Physiotherapy Association,
Canadian Psychological Association, Canadian Public
Health Association, Canadian Red Cross, and College of
Family Physicians of Canada.
The health field is rapidly moving toward targeting
corporal punishment as a key component of violence
prevention. This is the case not only at the population
level, but at the individual practitioner level as well. The
American Academy of Pediatrics, for example, recom-
mends that pediatricians discourage spanking and advise
parents to adopt effective discipline approaches that in-
clude the fostering of positive, supportive parent-child
relationships; proactive methods of teaching; and nonvi-
olent responses to unwanted behaviors.
3
Given the role
that physical punishment plays in child maltreatment,
some professionals have recommended that spanking not
only be discouraged, but that “a broad array of acts of
parent-to-child physical aggression [become] part of rou-
tine diagnostic screening in clinical practice”
102
(p. 278).
Waiting until a child has been physically injured or relying
on parents to spontaneously disclose their physically ag-
gressive responses to child misbehavior is insufficient and
amplifies risk. Mahoney et al
102
suggest that direct, sys-
tematic assessment at intake promotes nonthreatening
discussion and effective treatment planning.
But how does a clinical practitioner go about helping
parents to change the beliefs and behaviors? A useful
starting point is that many parents who physically punish
their children actually regret it
103
; most would prefer to
use alternative methods to resolve conflict with their
children,
104
and almost all believe that information about
discipline should be made available on a wide scale.
105
A
series of empirical studies conducted by Robinson et al
106
revealed that negative feelings toward corporal punish-
ment combined with a desire for greater knowledge
might create the ideal circumstance for changing parental
attitudes and behaviors.
The findings of Robinson et al are supported by those
of a qualitative study by Davis
107
of parents who had
stopped using physical punishment. He found that two of
the factors precipitating the change were highly affective.
The first was parents’ realization of how their children
feel when they are spanked. “Parents point to especially
moving or perplexing moments when the child’s reac-
tions to being hit made them feel so guilty, concerned, or
hypocritical that they decided to stop hitting”
107
(p. 498).
Davis provides an example of an African American
mother who was deeply moved by her daughter’s cow-
ering in fear of her. Others were overcome with empathy
for their children’s feelings. The second affective context
in which spanking cessation occurred was some parents’
acknowledgement of their own childhood memories of
being hit. These parents decided to break the family
“tradition” so as not to hurt their own children as they
had been hurt.
A third cessation context was more cognitive than
affective, reflecting changes in parents’ thinking about
“who children were, how they should be treated, and
whether physical force was something they wanted to
use on smaller beings that they loved and for whom they
were responsible”
107
(p. 500). Davis illustrates this con-
text with the example of an African American mother
who came to believe that spanking contributed to vio-
lence against women as a result of her experience as a
counselor in a battered women’s shelter. Another
changed her thinking within the context of her personal
experience with peaceful social activism.
In whatever way affective or cognitive change comes
about, it provides an opportunity for health professionals
to offer support with information and assistance. As
Davis
107
points out, it is not known whether parent edu-
cation and support have their primary benefits through
information and instruction or through the supportive
context they provide for adopting new approaches. The
findings of Robinson et al
106
suggest that both may be the
case. They demonstrated that as individuals’ feelings and
knowledge become more consistent, they are more likely
to behave in ways that reflect that consistency. In other
words, parents who feel badly about spanking their chil-
dren but who do not believe in or know about alternative
responses are less likely to change their behavior than
those who feel badly about spanking and have knowledge
of effective approaches.
Robinson et al
106
recommend a two-stage approach to
behavior change. In the first stage, parents should be
provided with information about the negative outcomes
associated with spanking. This information affirms their
negative feelings about it and begins to shift their behav-
ioral intent. In the second stage, they should be given
information about alternative solutions to disciplinary chal-
lenges to help them reframe these challenges and recognize
the range of options open to them. As their knowledge
increasingly aligns with their affect, they will become in-
creasingly likely to abandon physical punishment.
Providing Guidance to Parents
Providing Guidance on an Individual Basis
Practitioners who see patients individually can encour-
age and support parents in adopting positive discipline
methods in a number of ways. First, they can provide
information about typical developmental stages to nor-
malize parenting challenges and reduce angry and puni-
tive parental responses. Second, they can provide a list of
resources on positive discipline. An example of such a list
can be found in the Joint Statement on Physical Punish-
ment of Children and Youth.
101
Third, they can refer
parents to certified family life educators, parent educa-
tors, child psychologists, parent resource centers, posi-
Vol. 29, No. 1, February 2008 © 2008 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 63
tive parenting programs, and other relevant sources of
expertise and social support within their communities.
For some parents, it could also be helpful to discuss their
own memories of childhood physical punishment to help
them sort through emotional conflicts or issues that
might arise.
Providing Guidance on a Population Basis
Public health practitioners can contribute to attitudinal
and behavioral change on a broad scale. Many countries
have adopted public health strategies aimed at informing
parents about the physical and psychological impacts of
physical punishment and encouraging them to adopt pos-
itive disciplinary approaches. These initiatives are increas-
ingly erasing the arbitrary line between punishment and
abuse because it is recognized that a public education
message must be clear and unambiguous—and because
the ultimate target of violence prevention efforts is the
elimination of the notion of nonabusive violence. Such
broad messages can be complemented by more individ-
ualized parent support and education delivered by health
care professionals.
Examples of messages that have been adopted in var-
ious countries are “No to smacking” (National Council for
Children, Denmark); “I’ll never, ever hit my own chil-
dren” (Ministry of Justice, Sweden); “Childhood without
violence” (Nobody’s Children Foundation, Poland); “Help
instead of punishment” (Federal Ministry for Family Af-
fairs, Senior Citizens, Women, and Youth and Federal
Ministry of Justice, Germany); “Smacking or hitting
doesn’t teach your child what they did wrong. It teaches
them that hitting other people is okay” (Ministry of Social
Development, New Zealand); “Spanking hurts more than
you think” (Toronto Public Health, Canada); “Never
spank!” (Public Health Agency of Canada).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the dramatic change witnessed in re-
cent years in professional advice regarding physical pun-
ishment reflects an ever-increasing body of knowledge
and depth of understanding of children’s mental and
physical health, as well as their political and legal status.
With the continued growth of pediatric psychology, in-
creasing recognition of the dynamics of parental violence
and growing support for the rights of children, slapping
one’s child could come to be viewed with the same
derision as slapping one’s grandparent. By supporting
parents in their desire to find new ways of resolving
conflict with their children, professionals can build their
competence, decrease their sense of powerlessness, and
prepare the way for a new generation of nonviolent
parents.
REFERENCES
1. McCormick KF. Attitudes of primary care physicians toward
corporal punishment. JAMA. 1992;267:3161–3165.
2. Canadian Paediatric Society. Effective discipline for children.
Paediatr Child Health. 2004;9:37–41.
3. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Psychosocial
Aspects of Child and Family Health. Guidance for effective
discipline. Pediatrics. 1998;101:723–727.
4. Toronto Public Health, 2005. Available at:
www.toronto.ca/health/children/discipline.htm. Accessed
November 30, 2006.
5. Public Health Agency of Canada, 2004. Available at: www.phac-
aspc.gc.ca/dca-dea/publications/spanking_e.html. Accessed
January 30, 2008.
6. American Psychological Association. Raising Children to Resist
Violence: What You Can Do. Public Interest: APA Online; 2004.
Available at: www.apa.org/pi/raisingchildren.html. Accessed
7. Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Policies
and Guidelines: Corporal Punishment. 2004. Available at:
www.irm-systems.com/onottaca/doc.nsf/doc/ProfAffairs_
CorPunishment.cm
8. Canadian Psychological Association. Policy Statement on Physical
Punishment of Children and Youth. 2004. Available at:
www.cpa.ca/aboutcpa/policystatements. Accessed January 24,
2008.
9. Kagan J. The new marriage: pediatrics and psychology. Am J Dis
Child. 1965;110:272–278.
10. Chudley A. Foreword. In: Buxton B, Damaged Angels: A Mother
Discovers the Terrible Cost of Alcohol in Pregnancy. Toronto:
Knopf; 2004.
11. Gershoff ET. Corporal punishment by parents and associated
child behaviors and experiences: a meta-analysis and theoretical
review. Psychol Bull. 2002;128:539–579.
12. Crockenberg S. Predictors and correlates of anger toward and
punitive control of toddlers by adolescent mothers. Child Dev.
1987;58:964–975.
13. Afifi TO, Brownridge DA, Cox BJ, Sareen J. Physical punishment,
childhood abuse and psychiatric disorders. Child Abuse Negl.
2006;30:1093–1103.
14. Czorba J, Rozsa S, Vetro A, et al. Family and school-related
stresses in depressed Hungarian children. Eur Psychiatry. 2001;
16:18–26.
15. MacMillan HL, Boyle MH, Wong MY-Y et al. Slapping and
spanking in childhood and its association with lifetime
prevalence of psychiatric disorders in a community sample.
Am J Psychiatry. 1999;158:1878–1883.
16. Turner HA, Finkelhor D. Corporal punishment as a stressor
among youth. J Marriage Fam. 1996;58:155–166.
17. Eamon MK. Antecedents and socioemotional consequences of
physical punishment on children in two-parent families. Child
Abuse Negl. 2001;25:787–802.
18. Lau JTF, Liu JLY, Cheung JCK, et al. Prevalence and correlates of
physical abuse in Hong Kong Chinese adolescents. A population-
based approach. Child Abuse Negl. 1999;23:549–557.
19. DuRant RH, Cadenhead C, Pendergrast RA, et al. Factors
associated with the use of violence among urban black
adolescents. Am J Public Health. 1994;84:612–617.
20. Lopez NL, Boneneberger JL, Schneider HG. Parental disciplinary
history, current levels of empathy, and moral reasoning in young
adults. North Am J Psychol. 2001;3:193–204.
21. Straus MA. Ordinary violence, child abuse, and wife beating:
What do they have in common? In: Straus MA, Gelles RJ, eds.
Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and
Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction; 1990:403– 424.
22. Strassberg Z, Dodge KA, Pettit GS, et al. Spanking in the home
and children’s subsequent aggression toward kindergarten peers.
Dev Psychopathol. 1994;6:445–461.
23. Brezina R. Teenage violence toward parents as an adaptation to
family strain: evidence from a national survey of male
adolescents. Youth Society. 1999;416:424–425.
24. Ulman A, Straus MA. Violence by children against mothers in
64 Physical Punishment, Culture, and Rights Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics
relation to violence between parents and corporal punishment
by parents. J Comp Fam Studies. 2003;34:41–60.
25. Douglas EM, Straus MA. Assault and injury of dating partners by
university students in 19 countries and its relation to corporal
punishment experienced as a child. Eur J Criminol.
2006;3:293–318.
26. Simons RL, Lin KH, Gordon LC. Socialization in the family of
origin and male dating violence: a prospective study. J Marriage
Fam. 1998;60:467–478.
27. Straus MA. (2000). Corporal punishment and primary prevention
of child abuse. Child Abuse Negl. 2000;24:1109–1114.
28. Deater-Deckard K, Dodge KA, Bates JE, et al. Physical discipline
among African American and European American mothers: links
to children’s externalizing behaviors. Dev Psychol.
1996;32:1065–1072.
29. Lansford JE, Deater-Deckard K, Dodge KA, et al. Ethnic
differences in the link between physical discipline and later
adolescent externalizing behaviors. J Child Psychol Psychiatry.
2004;45:801–812.
30. Gunnoe ML, Mariner CL. Toward a developmental-contextual
model of the effects of parental spanking on children’s
aggression. Arch Pediatr Adolescent Med. 1997;151:768–775.
31. Stewart EA, Simons RL, Conger RD. Assessing neighborhood and
social psychological influences on childhood violence in an
African-American sample. Criminology. 2002;40:801–829.
32. Slade EP, Wesson LS. Spanking in early childhood and later
behavior problems: a prospective study of infants and young
toddlers. Pediatrics. 2004;113:1321–1330.
33. McLeod JD, Kruttschnitt C, Dornfeld M. Does parenting explain the
effects of structural conditions on children’s antisocial behavior? A
comparison of blacks and whites. Soc Forces. 1994;73:575–604.
34. Baumrind D. Necessary distinctions. Psychol Inquiry. 1997;8:
176–229.
35. Lassiter RF. Child rearing in black families: child-abusing
discipline. In: Hampton RL, ed. Violence in the Black Family:
Correlates and Consequences. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books;
1998:39–54.
36. Killingray D. The “Rod of Empire’: the debate over corporal
punishment in the British African colonial forces, 1888 –1946. J
African History. 1994;35:201–216.
37. Brodhead RH. Sparing the rod: discipline and fiction in
antebellum America. Representations. 1988;21:67–96.
38. Deater-Deckard K, Dodge KA. Spare the rod, spoil the authors:
emerging themes in research on parenting and child
development. Psychol Inquiry. 1997;8:230–235.
39. Baumrind D. A blanket injunction against disciplinary use of
spanking is not warranted by the data. Pediatrics. 1996;98:828–
831.
40. Straus MA, Sugarman DB, Giles-Sims J. Spanking by parents and
subsequent antisocial behavior of children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc
Med. 1997;151:761–767.
41. Grogan-Kaylor A. The effect of corporal punishment on antisocial
behavior in children. Social Work Res. 2004;28:153–161.
42. Grogan-Kaylor A. Corporal punishment and the growth
trajectory of children’s antisocial behavior. Child Maltreat. 2005;
10:283–292.
43. Bradley RH, Corwyn RF, Burchinal M, et al. The home
environments of children in the United States. Part II: relations
with behavioral development through age thirteen. Child Dev.
2001;72:1868–1886.
44. McCabe KM, Clark R, Barnett D. Family protective factors
among urban African American youth. J Clin Child Psychol.
1999;28:37–150.
45. Lansford JE, Dodge KA, Malone PS, et al. Physical discipline and
children’s adjustment: cultural normativeness as a moderator.
Child Dev. 2005;76:1234–1246.
46. DuRant RH, Getts A, Cadenhead C, et al. Exposure to violence
and victimization and depression hopelessness, and purpose in
life among adolescents living in and around public housing. J
Dev Behav Pediatr. 1995;16:233–237.
47. Turner HA, Muller PA. Long-term effects of child corporal
punishment on depressive symptoms in young adults: potential
moderators and mediators. J Fam Issues. 2004;25:761–782.
48. McLeod JD, Shanahan MJ. Poverty, parenting, and children’s
mental health. Am Sociol Rev. 1993;58:351–366.
49. Barnett D, Kidwell SL, Leung KH. Parenting and preschooler
attachment among low-income urban African American families.
Child Dev. 1998;69:1657–1671.
50. Bluestone C, Tamis-LeMonda CS. Correlates of parenting styles
in predominantly working- and middle-class African American
mothers. J Marriage Fam. 1999;61:881–893.
51. Horn IB, Cheng TL, Joseph J. Discipline in the African American
community: The impact of socioeconomic status on beliefs and
practices. Pediatrics. 2002;113:1236–1241.
52. Wissow LS. Ethnicity, income, and parenting contexts of
physical punishment in a national sample of families with young
children. Child Maltreat. 2001;6:118–129.
53. Chung EK, McCollum KF, Elo IT, et al. Maternal depressive
symptoms and infant health practices among low-income
women. Pediatrics. 2004;113:523–529.
54. Smith MS, Lindsey CR, Hansen CE. Corporal punishment and the
mediating effects of parental acceptance-rejection and gender on
empathy in a southern rural population. Cross-Cultural Res.
2006;40:287–305.
55. Kempe CH, Silverman FN, Steele BF. The battered child
syndrome. JAMA. 1962;181:17.
56. Gelles R. Child abuse as psychopathology: a sociological critique
and reformulation. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1973;43:611–621.
57. Garbarino J, Stocking SH. Protecting Children from Abuse and
Neglect. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1980.
58. Wolfe DA. Child Abuse: Implications for Child Development
and Psychopathology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1987.
59. Gil DG. Violence Against Children: Physical Child Abuse in the
United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1970.
60. Kadushin A, Martin JA. Child Abuse: An Interactional Event.
New York, NY: Columbia University Press; 1981.
61. Margolin L. Child abuse by babysitters: an ecological-
interactional interpretation. J Fam Violence. 1990;5:95–105.
62. Trocme´ N, MacLaurin B, Fallon B, et al. Canadian Incidence
Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect: Final Report.
Ottawa, ON, Canada: Minister of Public Works and Government
Services Canada. 2001.
63. Trocme´ N, Fallon B, MacLaurin B, et al. Ontario Incidence
Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (OIS 1998).
Toronto, ON, Canada: Centre of Excellence for Child Welfare,
Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto; 2002.
64. Trocme´ N, Fallon B, MacLaurin B, et al. Canadian Incidence
Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect–2003: Major
Findings. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Minister of Public Works and
Government Services Canada; 2005.
65. Durrant JE, Trocme´ N, Fallon B, et al. Punitive Violence against
Children in Canada. Technical Paper Series (#HT091-02001/
001/SS). Ottawa, ON, Canada: Public Health Agency of Canada;
2006.
66. Trocme´ N, Durrant JE. Physical punishment and the response of
the Canadian child welfare system: implications for legislative
Vol. 29, No. 1, February 2008
© 2008 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 65
reform. J Soc Welfare Fam Law. 2003;25:39–56.
67. Buntain-Ricklefs JJ, Kemper KJ, Bell M, et al. Punishments: what
predicts adult approval. Child Abuse Negl. 1994;18:945–955.
68. Bower-Russa ME, Knutson JF, Winebarger A. Disciplinary history,
adult disciplinary attitudes, and risk for abusive parenting.
J Community Psychol. 2001;29:219–240.
69. Knutson JF, Selner MB. Punitive childhood experiences reported
by young adults over a 10-year period. Child Abuse Negl. 1994;
18:155–166.
70. Berger AM, Knutson JF, Mehm JG, et al. The self-report of
punitive childhood experiences of young adults and adolescents.
Child Abuse Negl. 1988;12:251–262.
71. Bower ME, Knutson JF. Attitudes toward physical discipline as a
function of disciplinary history and self-labelling as physically
abused. Child Abuse Negl. 1996;20:689–699.
72. Miller KS, Knutson JF. Reports of severe physical punishment
and exposure to animal cruelty by inmates convicted of felonies
and by university students. Child Abuse Negl. 1997;2:59–82.
73. Nobes G, Smith M, Upton P, et al. Physical punishment by
mothers and fathers in British homes. J Interpers Violence.
1999;14:887–902.
74. Cle´ment ME, Bouchard C, Jette´ M, Laferrie`re S. La Violence
Familiale dans la Vie des Enfants du Que´bec. Que´bec, QC,
Canada: Institute de la Statistique du Que´bec; 2004.
75. Vasta R. Physical child abuse: a dual-component analysis. Dev
Rev. 1982;2:125–149.
76. Bitensky S. Corporal Punishment of Children: A Human Rights
Violation. Ardsley, NY: Transnational; 2006.
77. Onyango P, Lynch MA. Implementing the right to child
protection: a challenge for developing countries. Lancet 2006;
367:693–694.
78. Pais MS, Bissell S. Overview and implementation of the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child. Lancet 2006;367:689–
690.
79. Committee on the Rights of the Child. UN Doc CRC/C/34; 1994.
80. Committee on the Rights of the Child. UN Doc CRC/C/15/Add
215; 2003.
81. Committee on the Rights of the Child. UN Doc CRC/C/GC/8,
paragraph 21; 2006.
82. Parents’ Forum for Meaningful Education v Union of India; 2000.
83. Naushad Ali v State; 2002.
84. Criminal Appeal 4596/98 Plonit v A.G. 54(1) P.D. p. 145.
85. Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 20. HRI/GEN/
1/Rev. 5; 1992.
86. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General
Comment No. 13, HRI/GEN/1/Rev. 5, 2001; p. 81.
87. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
Recommendation 1666; p. 6, 2004.
88. Commissioner for Human Rights, Council of Europe. Children
and corporal punishment: the rights not to be hit, also a
children’s right. Issue Paper 1; 2006.
89. Committee on the Rights of the Child. UN Doc CRC/C/GC/8,
paragraph 29; 2006.
90. Minister of Justice. Extract from the Grounds for the Swedish
Legislation Relating to Prohibition of Corporal Punishment.
Stockholm; 1979.
91. Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and
Youth, and Federal Ministry of Justice. Violence in Upbringing:
An Assessment After the Introduction of the Right to a Non-
Violent Upbringing. Berlin: Authors; 2003.
92. SIFO (Svenska Institutet fo¨r Opinionsunderso¨ kningar; Swedish
Institute for Opinion Research) Aga och barnmisshandel.
Unpublished report; 1981.
93. Statistics Sweden. Spanking and other forms of physical
punishment: a study of adults’ and middle school students’
opinions, experience, and knowledge. Demografiska Rapporter
1996;1.2.
94. Survey conducted by Orr Shalom, cited in ynetnews.com,
November 19, 2006.
95. Gregory JF. The crime of punishment: racial and gender
disparities in the use of corporal punishment in U.S. public
schools. J Negro Educ. 1995;64:454–462.
96. McFadden AC, Marsh GEII, Price BJ, et al. A study of race and
gender bias in the punishment of handicapped school children.
Urban Rev. 1992;24:239–251.
97. Barnes SY. Theories of spouse abuse: relevance to African
Americans. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 1999;20:357–371.
98. Hawkins DF. Devalued lives and racial stereotypes: ideological
barriers to the prevention of family violence among blacks. In:
Hampton RL, ed. Violence in the Black Family: Correlates and
Consequences. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books; 1987:189-205.
99. Brice-Baker JR. Domestic violence in African-American and
African-Caribbean families. J Social Distress Homeless. 1994;3:
23–39.
100. Pinheiro PS. World Report on Violence against Children.
Geneva: United Nations Secretary-General’s Study on Violence
against Children; 2006.
101. Durrant JE, Ensom R, Coalition on Physical Punishment of
Children and Youth. Joint Statement on Physical Punishment
of Children and Youth. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Coalition on
Physical Punishment of Children and Youth; 2004.
102. Mahoney A, Donnelly WO, Lewis T, et al. Mother and father
self-reports of corporal punishment and severe physical
aggression toward clinic-referred youth. J Clin Child Psychol.
2000;29:266–281.
103. Durrant JE. Public attitudes toward corporal punishment in
Canada. In: Frehsee D, Horn W, Bussman K-D, eds. Family
Violence Against Children. New York, NY: de Gruyter; 1996:
19–26.
104. Graziano A, Hamblen JL, Plante WA. Subabusive violence in
childrearing in middle-class American families. Pediatrics. 1996;
98(4 Suppl):845–851.
105. Ateah C. Disciplinary practices with children: Potential sources
of information, attitudes, and educational needs. Issues Compr
Pediatr Nurs. 2003;26:89–101.
106. Robinson DH, Funk DC, Beth A, et al. Changing beliefs about
corporal punishment: Increasing knowledge about
ineffectiveness to build more consistent moral and informational
beliefs. J Behav Educ. 2005;14:117–139.
107. Davis PW. Corporal punishment cessation: social contexts and
parents’ experiences. J Interpers Violence. 1999;14:492–510.
66 Physical Punishment, Culture, and Rights Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.
-
- "Advocates assert that physical punishment is not harmful provided it is implemented in a calm and controlled manner for corrective purposes within the context of a warm and supportive parent–child relationship (Baumrind, 1997). Opponents of physical punishment have argued that physical punishment not only violates children's basic human rights (Durrant, 2008), but also that research consistently indicates that physical punishment is associated with adverse mental health, physical health, developmental and behavioral outcomes across the lifespan (Afifi, Brownridge, Cox, & Sareen, 2006; Afifi et al., 2014; Afifi, Mota, Dasiewicz, MacMillan, & Sareen, 2012; Afifi, Mota, MacMillan, & Sareen, 2013; Douglas & Straus, 2006; Durrant & Ensom, 2012; Gershoff, 2002). As a consequence, a number of key health organizations have issued position statements advocating against Both sex and racial differences in the prevalence of physical punishment have been reported in the literature. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this research was to examine age, sex, and racial differences in the prevalence of harsh physical punishment in childhood in a nationally representative sample of the United States. Data were from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) collected in 2004 and 2005 (n = 34,653). Logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine age, sex, and racial differences in the prevalence of harsh physical punishment. Results suggest that the prevalence of harsh physical punishment has been decreasing among more recently born age groups; however, there appear to be sex and racial differences in this trend over time. The magnitude of the decrease appears to be stronger for males than for females. By race, the decrease in harsh physical punishment over time is only apparent among Whites; Black participants demonstrate little change over time, and harsh physical punishment seems to be increasing over time among Hispanics. Prevention and intervention efforts that educate about the links of physical punishment to negative outcomes and alternative non-physical discipline strategies may be particularly useful in reducing the prevalence of harsh physical punishment over time. -
- "Inappropriate discipline, including the use of physical punishment, is a risk factor for antisocial behavior, depression, anxieties , and many other adverse consequences (Durrant & Ensom, 2012; Durrant, 2008; Gershoff, 2002; Lansford, Chang, Dodge, Malone , Oburu , & Palmerus , 2005 ; MacMillan , Boyle , Wong , Duku , Fleming , & Walsh , 1999 ; Slade & Wissow , 2004 ; Straus , "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Consecutive English and Spanish speaking caregivers of 6–24 month old children were randomly assigned to either a control or intervention group. Parents in the intervention group were instructed to view at least 4 options to discipline a child in an interactive multimedia program. The control group participants received routine primary care with their resident physician. After the clinic visit, all parents were invited to participate in a research study; the participation rate was 98% (258/263). The key measure was the Attitudes Toward Spanking (ATS) scale. The ATS is correlated with parents’ actual use of physical punishment. Parents with higher scores are more likely to use physical punishment to discipline their children. Parents in the intervention group had an ATS score that was significantly lower than the ATS score of parents in the control group (median = 24.0, vs. median = 30; p = 0.043). Parents in the control group were 2 times more likely to report that they would spank a child who was misbehaving compared with parents in the intervention group (16.9% vs. 7.0%, p = 0.015). In the short-term, a brief intervention, integrated into the primary care visit, can affect parents’ attitudes toward using less physical punishment. It may be feasible to teach parents to not use physical punishment using a population-based approach. The findings have implications for how to improve primary care services and the prevention of violence. -
- "The main social groups that influence children's lives are their family, school, and peers. Child rearing in Fiji follows the principles that until recently were customary in most parts of the world, including correcting children by use of corporal punishment, a practice with growing evidence of troublesome side effects [33–37]. An extensive review from 2002 showed that children who received corporal punishment, more often experienced physical ill-health and injuries, short- and long-term externalizing and internalizing mental problems, and impaired relations with parent and peers [35]. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The health and wellbeing of children in lower-income countries is the focus of much international effort, yet there has been very little direct measurement of this. Objective. The current objective was to study the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in a general population of secondary school children in Fiji, a low middle-income country in the Pacific. Methods. Self-reported HRQoL was measured by the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory 4.0 in 8947 school children (aged 12–18 years) from 18 secondary schools on Viti Levu, the main island of Fiji. HRQoL in Fiji was compared to that of school-aged children in 13 high-and upper middle-income countries. Results. The school children in Fiji had lower HRQoL than the children in the 13 comparison countries, with consistently lower physical, emotional, social, and school functioning and wellbeing. HRQoL was particularly low amongst girls and Indigenous Fijians. Conclusions. These findings raise concerns about the general functioning and wellbeing of school children in Fiji. The consistently low HRQoL across all core domains suggests pervasive underlying determinants. Investigation of the potential determinants in Fiji and validation of the current results in Fiji and other lower-income countries are important avenues for future research.