physical punishment research paper

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Physical punishment and child outcomes: a narrative review of prospective studies

Anja heilmann.

Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK

Anita Mehay

Richard g watt, yvonne kelly, joan e durrant.

Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

Jillian van Turnhout

Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, Faculty of Paediatrics, Dublin, Ireland

Elizabeth T Gershoff

Population Research Center and Department of Human Development and Family Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

Contributors

Associated Data

Physical punishment is increasingly viewed as a form of violence that harms children. This narrative review summarises the findings of 69 prospective longitudinal studies to inform practitioners and policy makers about physical punishment’s outcomes. Our review identified seven key themes. First, physical punishment consistently predicts increases in child behaviour problems over time. Second, physical punishment is not associated with positive outcomes over time. Third, physical punishment increases the risk of involvement with child protective services. Fourth, the only evidence of children eliciting physical punishment is for externalising behaviour. Fifth, physical punishment predicts worsening behaviour over time in quasi-experimental studies. Sixth, associations between physical punishment and detrimental child outcomes are robust across child and parent characteristics. Finally, there is some evidence of a dose–response relationship. The consistency of these findings indicates that physical punishment is harmful to children and that policy remedies are warranted.

Introduction

The WHO–UNICEF- Lancet Commission 1 on children has highlighted social, economic, commercial, and environmental threats to child health and has called for urgent government action to ensure that children grow up in safe and healthy environments. Yet the home environments of most children worldwide are not safe because they include physical punishment. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has definitively stated that physical punishment is a form of violence that violates children’s rights to protection, dignity, and physical security. 2 The UN General Assembly has included the protection of children from all forms of violence as Sustainable Development Goal 16.2. 3 Such human rights arguments, along with an aligned body of research indicating that physical punishment is harmful to children, 4 – 6 have led to a growing consensus among health professionals that physical punishment of children is detrimental and ineffective, 7 – 9 and have led 62 countries to prohibit physical punishment of children in all settings and a further 27 countries to commit to doing so. 10

Most of the world’s children live in countries where physical punishment is allowed by law; as a result, 63% of children aged 2–4 years—250 million children—are regularly subjected to physical punishment by their caregivers. 11 The continued prevalence of physical punishment suggests that parents are not receiving, or not believing, the message that it is both ineffective and potentially harmful to their children’s health and development. This lack of knowledge could be because the research to date is summarised in hundreds of specialist research studies or in detailed meta-analyses 5 , 12 – 14 that are not easily accessible to health professionals whom parents consult for advice about discipline. 15 Furthermore, most countries have not prohibited physical punishment in homes or schools, or both. Policy makers might not be aware of the strength of the research evidence against physical punishment or of the likelihood that legislating against physical punishment would prevent harm to children.

The purpose of this narrative review is thus to summarise the past two decades of research on physical punishment in a format that is accessible to policy makers, community leaders, and practitioners. Although psychological punishments such as yelling, humiliating, or shaming children are also prevalent around the world 11 and are harmful to children, 16 we focused our review on physical punishment in response to growing interest around the world in legislating against its use.

Three strategic decisions guided our review. First, we began our review with studies published in 2002, the year that the first comprehensive meta-analysis of research into physical punishment was published. 12 Second, we included only studies that examined physical punishment specifically and excluded studies of severe assaults against children. Third, we restricted our review to longitudinal studies that followed up children prospectively and took initial levels of the outcome into account, thereby meeting the minimum criterion for causality that physical punishment must precede the measured outcome in time and addressing concerns regarding the possibility of reverse causality. 17

The database searches identified 3855 unduplicated records, of which 2198 were excluded after initial title screening. An additional five studies were identified through Web of Science search alerts and expert communication. After two independent reviewers assessed 1303 abstracts and 359 full texts, they identified 68 articles describing 69 studies (one article reported on two samples) that met the inclusion criteria. These were retained for review ( figure ).

Study selection

The field is heavily dominated by research from the USA (60 articles), including a large number of studies that used the same datasets—eg, 23 studies used the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS), and eight used the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY). The remaining eight studies came from Canada, China, Colombia, Greece, Japan, Switzerland, Turkey, and the UK. No non-English studies met the inclusion criteria. Characteristics of included studies are provided in the appendix pp 2–11.

We describe outcome measures using the terminology adopted by authors of the original research. We grouped studies into nine broad categories: externalising behaviours (behavioural difficulties that manifest outwardly and refer to acts towards the external environment that violate social norms or are harmful to others, or both), 18 , 19 internalising behaviours (behaviours that are directed inwards, including symptoms of anxiety and depression, withdrawal, fearfulness, and somatic complaints), 18 , 19 total behaviour difficulties (composite measures of both externalising and internalising), prosocial behaviours, inattention or symptoms of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), cognitive abilities, interpersonal relationships, stress reactivity, and involvement with child protective services (CPS).

The table presents an overview of the included studies. Many studies examined more than one outcome, such that 98 effect sizes were presented across the studies. Additionally, some outcomes were examined multiple times with the same dataset; to ensure the independence of the findings within each outcome category, each dataset was counted only once per outcome. When multiple studies from the same dataset had discrepant findings, the majority finding was coded. For example, of the three studies that used data from the FFCWS to examine cognitive abilities, one found a detrimental effect and two found no significant association; the FFCWS was counted only once in the table in the row for cognitive abilities as having no association. With each independent dataset counted once only per outcome, the total number of effect sizes was 64.

Physical punishment was significantly (p<0.05) associated with worse outcomes over time in 38 independent samples (59%). No significant associations were found in 15 independent samples (23%). None of the studies reported main effects of beneficial child outcomes associated with physical punishment. Mixed findings across studies using the same dataset were found for 11 independent samples (17%); however, it is important to note that associations between physical punishment and beneficial outcomes were not found as main effects for any study and were only found in four subgroups across all of the studies examined ( appendix p 2).

Externalising behaviours

Externalising behaviours were by far the most studied outcomes. 38 of 55 (69%) studies used advanced statistical methods, including structural equation models, fixed effects models, growth curve models, and propensity score matching. Almost all adjusted for a wide range of covariates. Some studies examined the broad category of externalising behaviours whereas others examined subcategories, such as aggression.

Externalising behaviour, typically measured with standardised questionnaires such as the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist, 34 was the outcome in 27 studies from 19 independent samples with follow-up periods of up to 12 years. These included five studies using FFCWS data, 35 – 39 two using the US Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Kindergarten Class of 1998–1999 (ECLS-K), 40 , 41 and three using data from the US Child Development Project. 42 – 44 Apart from one Chinese, 20 one Greek, 22 and one Turkish 45 study, all research into externalising behaviour was from the USA.

In 13 of the 19 independent samples, physical punishment was associated with increases in externalising behaviour over time. 27 , 35 – 43 , 45 – 53 In three independent samples, no associations were identified. 44 , 54 – 56 Mixed findings were reported in another three independent samples. 20 – 22

Children’s aggressive behaviour was assessed in 20 studies and six independent samples. Most were undertaken in early childhood. In five of the six samples, physical punishment predicted increases in aggressive behaviour over time. 15 studies used FFCWS data with consistent findings of detrimental effects of physical punishment across different analytical methods and age groups. 57 – 71 Associations with increases in aggressive behaviours were observed in four of the remaining five independent samples, including in Canada, 72 Switzerland, 73 and the USA. 30 , 74 Only one study found no association between physical punishment and aggressive behaviour. 75

Antisocial behaviour and conduct problems were assessed in eight studies from five independent samples. Follow-up periods ranged from 2 to 12 years. Four studies analysed NLSY data, with conflicting results: physical punishment predicted increases in antisocial behaviour in two studies, 23 , 24 whereas the other two studies found no associations. 25 , 26 The remaining four studies on independent samples found associations between physical punishment and increases in antisocial behaviour, 76 conduct problems, 72 , 77 and oppositional defiant disorder symptoms. 78

Internalising behaviours

Internalising behaviour was the outcome in 15 studies from ten independent samples. Apart from one study that measured depressive symptoms, 77 all studies reported on an overall measure of internalising behaviour symptoms. Six studies analysed data from the FFCWS. 38 , 39 , 59 , 64 , 66 , 67 Most studies were undertaken in early childhood, although some followed up children into early adolescence. Overall, the findings were mixed. Physical punishment predicted increases in internalising behaviour over time in five of the ten independent samples, including all six studies using FFCWS data. 38 , 39 , 52 , 53 , 59 , 64 , 66 , 67 , 76 , 77 Three independent studies found no associations. 47 , 54 , 55 One study reported mixed findings from subgroup analyses, 22 and another reported beneficial associations from age 3 years to 5 years but detrimental associations for physical punishment at age 5 years predicting internalising outcomes in middle childhood (age 9 years). 27

Total behaviour problems

Six studies from five independent samples examined total behaviour problems, a combination of internalising and externalising behaviours. 28 , 29 , 31 , 79 – 81 All were undertaken with young children, with a baseline age of 2–4 years and follow-up periods of 2–6 years. Physical punishment was related to increased behaviour problems over time in four independent samples. 31 , 79 , 80 , 81 The fifth sample was the NLSY; of the two studies using this dataset, one found that physical punishment predicted increased behaviour problems over time 28 and the other reported mixed findings. 29

Prosocial behaviour or social competence

None of the five included studies on prosocial behaviour or social competence found any evidence that physical punishment affected these outcomes. 30 , 53 , 55 , 57 , 72

Inattention and ADHD

Physical punishment was unrelated to later inattention in a sample from the US Head Start Impact study. 30 However, data from the ECLS-K suggested that physical punishment at 5 years of age increased the risk of both moderate and severe symptoms of ADHD and the risk of severe symptoms of ADHD-conduct disorder 8 years later. 82

Cognitive abilities

Cognitive abilities were assessed in eight studies using data from six independent samples. 30 – 32 , 36 , 37 , 67 , 83 , 84 Outcomes included children’s vocabulary, literacy, reading and mathematics skills, school readiness, school engagement, and approaches to learning. Findings were highly heterogeneous. Two independent studies showed that physical punishment was associated with poorer cognitive abilities in early childhood. 83 , 84 Of three analyses of FFCWS data that used the same vocabulary test but at different ages and with different follow-up periods, only one found an association between physical punishment and lower vocabulary scores, 36 whereas the other two studies did not. 37 , 67 Three studies reported mixed results with detrimental effects for some but not all cognitive outcomes. 30 – 32 One study reported associations with better cognitive performance but weaker school engagement in middle childhood and adolescence. 32

Interpersonal relationships

Cross-lagged path models showed reciprocal associations between physical punishment and the parent–child relationship: physical punishment at 36 months was associated with lower quality of observed parent–child interaction 1·5 years later, and better interaction quality at 36 months was associated with less physical punishment over time. 51

Peer isolation among young children (such as having nobody to talk to at school) was assessed in a study using the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being and was unrelated to physical punishment. 32

Data from an evaluation of a US dating violence prevention programme found mixed results, with no overall associations between child-reported physical punishment at age 14 years and self-reported initiation of dating violence assessed 7 and 19 months later for the subsample of single mothers. However, the study found a detrimental association for physical punishment by married mothers and a non-significant association between physical punishment by married fathers and dating violence. 33

Stress reactivity

One small US study measured physical punishment at 1 year of age and children’s cortisol production during a laboratory visit between ages 1 and 2 years, after exposure to a stressful situation (introducing a stranger and separating the child from the mother). 85 A higher frequency of physical punishment at 1 year of age predicted increased cortisol levels post separation after controlling for baseline cortisol, indicating a heightened stress response. 85

Involvement with CPS

When a family reports that they are involved with CPS, such involvement is typically an indication of suspected child maltreatment. Three US studies assessed associations between physical punishment in early childhood and subsequent involvement with CPS for suspected child abuse or neglect. We did not require that a study controlled for previous maltreatment or involvement with CPS because we would not expect reciprocal associations between physical punishment and CPS involvement. Additionally, we felt that any future maltreatment was of concern, regardless of whether it had happened in the past. In fact, one of the studies did control for previous CPS involvement, 86 whereas two studies using data from the FFCWS did not. 87 , 88 In both samples, physical punishment increased the risk of subsequent CPS involvement 87 , 88 and of CPS-reported neglect after controlling for previous CPS involvement. 86

Thematic overview

We identified seven themes from our review of the longitudinal research into physical punishment and change in children’s outcomes over time.

Theme 1: physical punishment consistently predicts child behaviour problems over time

Physical punishment is commonly believed to be an effective method to improve child behaviour. However, the overwhelming conclusion from the studies that we examined is that physical punishment predicts an increase in behaviour problems over time. This finding is consistent with three meta-analyses that have found parents’ use of physical punishment to be associated with increased child behaviour problems, including aggression. 5 , 12 , 14 Therefore, physical punishment is ineffective in achieving parents’ goal of improving child behaviour and instead appears to have the opposite effect of increasing unwanted behaviours.

Theme 2: physical punishment is not associated with positive outcomes over time

Few studies of outcomes other than behaviour problems met our strict criteria in that they examined potential outcomes of physical punishment prospectively while accounting for initial levels of the child outcome. The results were largely mixed between findings of detriments and findings of no association; across these studies, there was no evidence of associations with positive outcomes related to children’s attention, 30 , 82 cognitive abilities, 30 – 32 , 36 , 37 , 67 , 83 , 84 relationships with others, 32 , 33 , 51 or stress reactivity. 85 Physical punishment also does not predict improvements in children’s prosocial behavior or social competence over time. 30 , 53 , 55 , 57 , 72

Theme 3: physical punishment increases the risk of child maltreatment

Three studies from two independent datasets, one of which took into account previous involvement with CPS, 86 – 88 found that parents who used physical punishment were at heightened risk of perpetrating maltreatment that would trigger CPS involvement. This finding is consistent with previous meta-analyses that have found physical punishment to be significantly associated with higher risk of maltreatment, 5 , 12 and with the finding from a study of Canadian CPS records, not included in our narrative review, that 75% of cases of substantiated incidents of physical abuse occur in the context of punishment. 89 Taken together, these findings indicate that physical punishment is linked with an increased risk of maltreatment. They also call into question the arbitrary distinction between acceptable and non-acceptable violence towards children.

Theme 4: the only evidence of children’s behaviour eliciting physical punishment is for externalising behaviour

A criticism of past research into physical punishment is that cross-sectional studies cannot determine whether physical punishment causes behaviour problems, in part because observed correlations could reflect reverse causality—namely, children’s behaviour problems eliciting physical punishment. We addressed this concern by including in our review only prospective longitudinal studies that included initial levels of a child’s behaviour; doing so allows us to be certain that we are examining whether physical punishment predicts a change in children’s behaviour over and above their initial behaviour.

In addition, 15 studies in our review used a cross-lagged panel design, which simultaneously models both the longitudinal association between physical punishment and child behaviour as well as the association between initial child behaviour and parents’ use of physical punishment at a subsequent wave. In the six studies with independent samples, 27 , 40 , 45 , 46 , 51 , 77 and the nine studies using data from the FFCWS, 35 , 57 , 59 , 60 , 62 , 63 , 67 , 70 , 71 physical punishment consistently predicted worsening externalising behaviour problems over time, even after accounting for the tendency of externalising behaviour to elicit physical punishment.

In contrast, studies that used cross-lagged models to examine associations between physical punishment and internalising behaviour found no evidence that internalising elicited more physical punishment over time. 59 , 67 Similarly, no reciprocal effects were found for children’s social competence 57 or for children’s vocabulary scores. 67 The lack of evidence of a child elicitation effect for these outcomes indicates there is little evidence of potential reverse causation for outcomes other than externalising behaviour problems.

Theme 5: physical punishment is linked with worsening behaviour over time in studies using quasi-experimental methods

The primary criticism of empirical studies of physical punishment is that they are largely non-experimental, given that random assignment of children to a physical punishment condition would be unethical, and thus cannot rule out other potential explanatory factors. 41 However, several of the studies in our review used methodological designs that help to rule out other potential explanations and thereby increase our confidence that the findings are consistent with a causal conclusion.

Three studies created quasi-experimental comparisons through propensity score matching (PSM), which matches children on a range of individual and family background characteristics so that the only observed difference between them is whether they experienced physical punishment. Using PSM with data from the US ECLSK study (12 112 families), one study found that children who were physically punished increased their externalising behaviour from age 5–8 years significantly more than did those who had not been physically punished. 41 A second study from Japan (29 182 families) used PSM to determine that children who were physically punished exhibited more behaviour problems over time than did their peers who were not. 80 The third study, based in Colombia (1167 families), found that young children who were physically punished gained fewer cognitive skills than did those who were not physically punished. 83 The fact that these studies using rigorous statistical methods with large samples from three different countries all found that physical punishment predicted poorer outcomes over time lends considerable credence to the conclusion that physical punishment is harmful to children’s development.

A second method of ruling out alternative explanations is fixed effects regression, which uses difference scores for both predictor and outcome to control for time invariant unobserved characteristics that could account for associations between physical punishment and child outcomes. Two studies in our review used this method. One used data from the NLSY to find that increases in physical punishment predicted increases in children’s externalising behaviours. 47 The other used fixed effects regressions with data from the FFCWS and found that physical punishment predicted increases in child aggressive behaviour. 65

Finally, two studies in our review used data from randomised controlled trials of interventions that reduced physical punishment; although the physical punishment was not randomly assigned, the experimentally induced reductions in physical punishment predicted improvements in children’s problem behaviours over time. 30 , 48

Theme 6: the associations of physical punishment with increases in detrimental child outcomes are robust across child and parent characteristics

Many of the studies in our review considered whether the associations between physical punishment and child outcomes might vary by characteristics of the child or parent. We highlight the findings for the most commonly considered modifiers: sex of the child, race or ethnicity, and parenting style.

With regard to the sex of the child, studies with four independent samples in the USA found no modification of the link between physical punishment and increased behaviour problems. 35 , 37 , 42 , 74 Two US studies found a stronger association with problem behaviours for boys than girls, 24 , 69 whereas a Chinese study reported an association with externalising behaviours for girls but not boys. 20 A study in Canada found no modification by child sex for the outcome of child aggression or conduct problems, but did find that physical punishment was linked with improved prosocial behaviour, but only for girls. 72 In a national study in Greece, physical punishment predicted more externalising behaviours for boys but fewer externalising or internalising behaviours for girls. 22 Most of these studies thus found physical punishment to be linked with increased problem behaviour for both boys and girls, with differences only in the strength of the association.

Previous research has argued that the effects of physical punishment might vary on the basis of the acceptance of physical punishment by the family’s culture, an argument referred to as cultural normativeness theory. 90 Several of the studies we reviewed accordingly tested for effect modification by a family’s race or ethnicity. However, no modification of the link to increased externalising behaviour was found in the ECLSK, 40 , 82 the FFCWS, 35 , 70 or five other independent samples. 27 , 42 , 52 , 56 , 77 Findings with the NLSY for child behaviour problems were mixed, with some finding modification by race or ethnicity 26 , 29 but others finding no modification. 23 , 24 , 28

Another study with data from the NLSY found no modification by race or ethnicity for achievement in mathematics or reading ability. 84 Three studies did find modification, but not in the direction predicted by cultural normativeness theory. 27 , 33 , 50 Overall, these US-based studies provided no support for the notion that the associations of physical punishment with child outcomes are modified by the race or ethnicity of the child.

Some have argued that any negative effects of physical punishment are buffered when parents have an overall positive parenting style. One study using data from the NLSY did find evidence of a buffering effect of responsiveness for the link between physical punishment and behaviour problems, 28 but another study that used data from NLSY found neither responsiveness nor cognitive stimulation buffered the links between physical punishment and worse achievement in reading ability and mathematics. 84 Three other studies found that parental warmth did not buffer the effect of physical punishment on an increase in behaviour problems. 60 , 74 , 77 There is thus little evidence that parenting style modifies the associations between physical punishment and detrimental child outcomes.

Theme 7: physical punishment shows a dose–response relationship with some child outcomes

Seven studies measured the relationship between frequency of physical punishment and level of the outcome variable. Five of these studies found evidence of a dose–response effect—ie, the magnitude of the effect varied with the frequency of the punishment. Three studies using data from the FFCWS found that the association with child aggression became stronger as the frequency of physical punishment increased. 37 , 61 , 64 Two studies used data from the NLSY, one of which did not find a dose–response effect for antisocial behaviour (both one instance and two or more instances of physical punishment predicted antisocial behaviour). 23 The other study found that the association with lower achievement in mathematics and reading ability became stronger as the frequency of physical punishment increased. 84 Such findings of dose–response associations between physical punishment and increases in detrimental child outcomes over time are indicative of a causal relationship as per Hill’s criteria for establishing causality. 17 , 91

Limitations

The purpose of this narrative review was to summarise and interpret the extant research on physical punishment from prospective studies. Because it is not a meta-analysis or systematic review, this narrative review does not take into account the number of participants in a study or the magnitude of effect sizes. The vast majority of studies that met our selection criteria were undertaken in the USA; only eight studies were from other countries (one each from Canada, 72 China, 20 Colombia, 83 Greece, 22 Japan, 80 Switzerland, 73 Turkey, 45 and the UK 81 ). More research is needed in countries outside the USA, and in low-income and middle-income countries in particular.

Implications for policy

The evidence is consistent and robust: physical punishment does not predict improvements in child behaviour and instead predicts deterioration in child behaviour and increased risk for maltreatment. There is thus no empirical reason for parents to continue to use physical punishment. Moreover, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has explicitly stated that physical punishment is a violation of a child’s right to protection and should be prohibited. 2

So far, 62 of the world’s countries have prohibited all physical punishment of children, thereby ensuring that their laws protect children and adults equally. These prohibitions are found throughout the world: ten in Africa, ten in Central and South America, six in Asia-Pacific, 35 in Europe, and one in the Middle East. 10 They are found across the world’s cultures, faiths, levels of economic development, political leanings, and legal systems. Two constituent countries of the UK, Scotland and Wales, also passed laws prohibiting all physical punishment of children in 2019 and 2020, respectively.

Evidence is growing that such laws are associated with rapid and dramatic changes in parents’ attitudes and behaviour, reducing both approval and prevalence of physical punishment of children. 92 Sweden, which prohibited all physical punishment of children in 1979, provides an example of how a prohibition can lead to steady declines in physical punishment over time. In a study of three cohorts of young to middle-aged adults, the proportion of participants who reported being slapped during childhood decreased from 83% in 1958, to 51% in 1981, and then to 27% in 2011—a two-thirds reduction over 53 years. 93 Although public education can help to increase knowledge and shift attitudes, these efforts are slowed and undermined when the law contradicts them. A study of five European countries found that the greatest changes in attitudes about and use of physical punishment occur when public education and law are consistent. 94 , 95

There is no evidence that laws giving children full protection create an influx of caregivers into the justice system. 5 years of police monitoring following the implementation of New Zealand’s prohibition found that prosecution was limited to severe acts (eg, kicking, holding by the neck, causing injuries) and none led to prison sentences. After passage of the legal prohibition on physical punishment, police worked more closely with the child protection authority, diverting cases from the justice system to agencies that could respond supportively. 96 Indeed, in almost all countries with prohibitions, these laws serve an educational rather than punitive function, aiming to increase awareness, shift attitudes, and clarify the responsibilities of parents in their caregiving role. 92

In addition to national legal bans, communities and institutions can assist in preventing and reducing physical punishment. One example is No Hit Zones, which have been successfully introduced in many locations in the USA, particularly hospitals. No Hit Zones prohibit the hitting of children in those settings and are effective in increasing both hospital staff’s willingness to intervene in situations of parent–child hitting and parents’ acceptance of staff advice to avoid physical punishment. 97 No Hit Zones are low-cost interventions that can be instituted widely across communities and in a variety of settings (eg, schools, libraries, supermarkets). A second strategy is for governments, stakeholders, and practitioners to prioritise educational campaigns and interventions that teach parents and caregivers disciplinary strategies that focus on enhancing children’s understanding rather than enforcing their compliance, and that are based on children’s rights to protection and dignity. 98 – 100

Conclusions

Our review of prospective longitudinal studies has shown that physical punishment is linked with increases in negative child outcomes. Many of these studies used statistical methods to minimise potential confounding and selection bias. The review has documented compelling evidence that physical punishment is harmful to children’s development and wellbeing and has shown no evidence that it is beneficial for children. Given the high prevalence of physical punishment around the world, there is no time to waste—all countries should heed the UN’s call to uphold children’s human rights and promote their wellbeing by prohibiting physical punishment in all forms and all settings.

Overview of included studies, by child outcome

Det=detrimental. Ben=beneficial. NS=not significant. ADHD=attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. CPS=child protective services.

Search strategy and selection criteria

We undertook a literature search of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science in June, 2020, and updated the search in October, 2020. The search terms were “physical discipline”, “physical punishment”, “corporal punishment”, “physical chastisement”, “smack”, “spank”, and “slap”. The search syntax for each database can be found in the appendix p 1.

We searched for articles published from January, 2002, onwards, and did not restrict by language or country. We also identified articles from reference lists of earlier reviews and through expert authors. Included studies were peer reviewed; assessed one or more outcomes measured in childhood (up to age 18 years); measured physical punishment by a parent or parental figure (ie, not a teacher); included only parent behaviours that fit our operationalisation of physical punishment; and reported empirical findings from quantitative, prospective designs that adjusted for initial levels of the outcome(s) under study.

We excluded studies that examined severe forms of physical punishment, such as: hitting a child with an object; hitting or slapping on the face, head, or ears; throwing an object at a child; beating; hitting with a fist; punching; kicking; washing a child’s mouth out with soap; throwing down; choking; burning; scalding; and threatening with a knife or gun. We also excluded studies that did not distinguish between physical and verbal forms of punishment. When necessary, study authors were contacted for details to ensure that inclusion criteria were met.

After initial database searches and removal of duplicate articles, all records were divided between two reviewers (AH and AM), who did an initial title screen to exclude irrelevant records that did not relate to physical punishment of children by a parent. Remaining articles were subject to abstract and full-text screening through blind review by AH and AM. Studies were included if both reviewers agreed that inclusion criteria were met. In case of disagreement, consensus was reached through discussion and, when required, a third reviewer (ETG).

For the included studies, data on key study characteristics and findings were extracted ( appendix pp 2–11). We then summarised these characteristics and findings for each outcome category and analysed patterns to identify key themes. Given that some studies used the same datasets, we report findings for independent samples or datasets rather than individual studies.

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments.

ETG is supported by grant P2CHD042849 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development in the USA. YK is supported by the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ES/R008930/1). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. We gratefully acknowledge Ms Caroline Fearn who assisted with extracting the data.

Declaration of interests

We declare no competing interests.

See Online for appendix

Contributor Information

Anja Heilmann, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK.

Anita Mehay, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK.

Richard G Watt, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK.

Yvonne Kelly, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK.

Joan E Durrant, Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.

Jillian van Turnhout, Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, Faculty of Paediatrics, Dublin, Ireland.

Elizabeth T Gershoff, Population Research Center and Department of Human Development and Family Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.

• Open access
• Published: 20 December 2022

Physical punishment and child, adolescent, and adult outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

• Jorge Cuartas   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0451-3298 1 , 2 ,
• Elizabeth T. Gershoff 3 ,
• Drew Bailey 4 &
• Dana C. McCoy 1  

Systematic Reviews volume  11 , Article number:  276 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

4561 Accesses

2 Citations

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

Physical punishment at home and in schools is widespread around the world. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have synthesized evidence, mostly from high-income countries (HICs), showing that physical punishment relates to multiple detrimental individual outcomes. Yet, less work has been done to synthesize the evidence on the association between physical punishment at home and schools and child, adolescent, and adult outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where more than 90% of children live and physical punishment is most socially normative and prevalent. In this manuscript, we present a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis on the characteristics of the research, associations, and variation in associations, between physical punishment at home and in schools and child, adolescent, and adult outcomes in LMICs.

We will conduct a review of studies published in peer-reviewed journals using quantitative methods to assess the association between physical punishment in childhood and/or adolescence and individual outcomes in LMICs. We will search for studies in 10 different databases using keywords in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, and Chinese related to physical punishment. We will extract qualitative data from the studies and the statistics needed to transform all study-level effect sizes into standardized mean difference effect sizes. For the analyses, we will employ multi-level meta-analyses to use multiple effect sizes per study and leverage within-study variation as well as between study variation using moderation analysis. Besides the meta-analyses, we will also conduct a narrative synthesis of the findings.

The proposed systematic review and meta-analysis will provide timely evidence to inform global research, policy, and practice on the links between physical punishment and lifelong individual outcomes.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42022347346

Peer Review reports

At least two out of three children younger than five living in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are exposed to physical punishment (also known as corporal punishment) in the home, early childhood care and education centers, or schools [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Extensive evidence from meta-analyses and reviews of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies—conducted mostly with samples from the USA and other high-income countries (HICs)—suggests that physical punishment relates to an array of detrimental child, adolescent, and adult outcomes [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ]. In addition, the United Nations (UN) has firmly stated that physical punishment is a form of violence against children and a violation to children’s rights [ 8 ].

Despite evidence that physical punishment might be harmful, there is still some academic and extensive societal debate on the specific consequences of physical punishment. Most of the ongoing controversies are fueled by concerns of internal and external validity. First, there is disagreement on whether physical punishment causes worse child, adolescent, and adult outcomes versus whether confounding factors that plausibly influence both the likelihood of punishment and later individual outcomes (e.g., children’s initial levels of behavior) can fully explain observed associations between physical punishment and such outcomes [ 9 , 10 , 11 ]. Second, there has been a vast underrepresentation of samples from LMICs in prior meta-analyses and systematic reviews about physical punishment [ 5 , 6 , 9 , 12 ]. This lack of studies in LMICs calls into question the generalizability of past findings given that 90% of children in the world live in LMICs and that physical punishment is prevalent in these countries [ 1 ]. Finally, most meta-analyses to date have focused on physical punishment at home and less is known about the potential links between physical punishment in schools and child, adolescent, and adult outcomes, with some recent exceptions [ 13 , 14 ].

Defining physical punishment considering a global perspective

Physical punishment is the use of physical force intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort to correct or punish a child’s behavior [ 4 , 15 , 16 , 17 ]. As such, physical punishment could vary in its frequency and severity, and could include actions like spanking, hitting a child with objects, or forcing a child to stay in an uncomfortable position, among others. A key feature of physical punishment is that adults have the intention to punish, correct, or control the child’s behavior [ 4 , 16 ]. Some scholars have tried to distinguish between physical punishment (i.e., spanking) and abuse (e.g., hitting with hard objects or hitting the child frequently) based on how socially normative are different behaviors [ 18 ]. Yet, these US-centered distinctions, which have been common in the literature [ 9 , 19 ], are far from universal and are difficult to operationalize (e.g., there is not a clear threshold that divides physical punishment from abuse and the same behaviors are not normative across countries/cultures). Despite this, to date little is known about the specific forms of physical punishment that have been studied in research conducted with samples from LMICs, where, in contrast with US-centered perspectives, behaviors like hitting with objects are as socially normative as spanking [ 3 , 20 ].

Theoretical and empirical links between physical punishment and child, adolescent, and adult outcomes

Developmental and educational theories and empirical evidence indicate that physical punishment can compromise children’s, adolescents’, and adults’ development, learning, and well-being through several biological and social mechanisms. According to traditional developmental and educational theories like social learning theory [ 21 ], social information processing theory [ 22 ], and attachment theory [ 23 ], by using physical punishment, caregivers and educators (intentionally or unintentionally) model aggression as a means to solve problems, inculcate in the child expectations of aggression, and erode the attachment bond, with downstream negative consequences on the relationship between children and their caregivers and children’s social-emotional development, behaviors, and mental health.

Contemporary neurodevelopmental models like the dimensional model of adversity [ 24 ] indicate that physical punishment can also affect children’s social-emotional and cognitive skills through neural mechanisms. The dimensional model of adversity predicts that exposure to threatening experiences, such as physical punishment, influence neural networks that facilitate the rapid identification of and response to environmental threats, including heightened response to negative emotional cues in brain regions that tend to underlie social and emotional processing and some cognitive functions [ 25 , 26 ] Furthermore, the model predicts that the neural consequences of exposure to threatening experiences scale in relation to the severity of the threat involved. Finally, neurodevelopmental perspectives also indicates that threatening experiences might be more consequential if they occurred early in life, when the brain is more malleable and sensitive to experiences and contexts [ 27 ]. Consistent with these models, nascent evidence from neuroimaging studies shows associations between experiencing physical punishment early in life and atypical brain structure and function [ 28 , 29 ], in ways that may lead to downstream behavioral, emotional, and cognitive consequences.

These theoretical perspectives also align with a growing number of studies from LMICs that have shown consistent associations between physical punishment and individual outcomes, which do not seem to vary across settings. A rapid review of 42 studies using samples from LMICs concluded that there is robust evidence on the associations between physical punishment and individual social-emotional and mental health outcomes, but the evidence for cognitive outcomes is scarcer and mixed [ 17 ]. In addition, studies using nationally representative samples for more than 49 countries across LMICs indicated that social normativeness does not modify the associations between physical punishment and individual outcomes [ 30 , 31 ].

With these theoretical perspectives and empirical findings, we can hypothesize that: (1) physical punishment will likely be more strongly associated with social-emotional and mental health outcomes than with cognitive outcomes, (2) physical punishment could lead to stronger consequences if it occurs in early childhood relative to later in life (3) different forms of physical punishment could lead to different consequences that will likely scale in relation to the severity of threat involved, and (4) the same mechanisms linking physical punishment and individual outcomes might be relevant in different settings (e.g., in LMICs and HICs, between regions and countries, or if physical punishment takes place at home vs. schools).

Issues of internal validity and effect sizes

Despite consistent evidence on the associations between physical punishment and negative individual outcomes, establishing credible causal links between physical punishment and child, adolescent, and adult outcomes is not straightforward. It would be unethical to randomly assign children to physical punishment vs. non-physical punishment conditions and to date it has proven impossible to identify arguable exogenous sources of variation for physical punishment to conduct instrumental variables or regression discontinuity designs. For example, programs aimed at preventing physical punishment tend to include other components that might promote positive parenting (for example, content on the importance of play and/or emotional communication), therefore making them endogenous (see as examples the ACT Raising Safe Kids program [ 32 ], the Irie Toolbox [ 33 , 34 ], and Parenting for Lifelong Health [ 35 , 36 ]). Therefore, researchers have mostly relied on observational designs, with some exceptions using fixed effects models [ 11 , 37 ] and matching methods, in an attempt to improve the internal validity of estimates [ 38 , 39 ]. Yet, none of these approaches rules out all potential confounders (i.e., characteristics that might simultaneously affect physical punishment and outcomes), even if researchers have longitudinal data [ 38 , 40 ]. Failing to control for most confounders will likely lead to overestimating the association between physical punishment and different outcomes. For example, maternal depression will likely have a positive correlation with physical punishment and negative association with individual outcomes. As such, failing to account for it may lead to an artificially inflated estimate of the relation between physical punishment and individual outcomes. A similar situation will arise with variables related to socioeconomic status (SES), self-efficacy, and even genetics.

Given these challenges to establishing causal links between physical punishment (and other developmental characteristics/exposures) and child, adolescent, and adult outcomes, researchers have increasingly recognized the importance of strong theory and assessing the sensitivity or robustness of estimates to the inclusion of covariates, multiple methodological approaches, and different identifying assumptions [ 11 , 38 , 41 ]. While even meta-analyses of physical punishment have recognized the importance of sensitivity/robustness checks in research on the consequences of physical punishment, to date all meta-analyses have included only one effect size per outcome per study, therefore making it impossible to test how robust are effect sizes within studies.

Besides allowing to assess the robustness of estimates, the inclusion of more than one effect size per outcome per study is useful to exploit all available data, increasing statistical power and leveraging informative within-study variability. Including multiple effect sizes in a meta-analysis is not entirely straightforward, as conventional meta-analytic methods assume independence of effect sizes. However, multiple effect sizes from the same study (e.g., different outcomes) are likely to be non-independent for different reasons, including correlations between sampling errors (due to the use of same sample) or nesting within the primary study [ 42 ]. Under such circumstances, the results from conventional meta-analytic methods are inappropriate and could even be misleading [ 42 , 43 ] and researchers have recommended the use of multilevel random-effects models to analyze datasets that include more than one effect size per study [ 43 ].

The proposed systematic review and meta-analysis

The proposed study has two main objectives. The first aim is to conduct a systematic review of the literature examining the associations between physical punishment in childhood or adolescence and child, adolescent, and adult outcomes in LMICs to describe the quantity and characteristics of studies, including geographic distribution, definitions of physical punishment used, methodological approaches, and main findings, among other basic characteristics. The second objective is to conduct a series of meta-analyses of the associations between physical punishment and child, adolescent, and adult outcomes in LMICs. We will conduct searches in multiple languages and databases to find more studies from LMICs in addition to those considered in prior meta-analyses. Furthermore, we will include all relevant effect sizes and use state-of-the-art multilevel random effects models to analyze the data. In addition, these meta-analyses will, for the first time in the literature, include physical punishment both at home and in schools. Finally, we will conduct moderation analyses to assess variability in the links between physical punishment and child, adolescent, and adult outcomes in LMICs.

Research questions and hypotheses

RQ1: What are the main characteristics of the published research on the associations between physical punishment and child, adolescent, and adult outcomes in LMICs regarding (a) geographic distribution, (b) the different forms of physical punishment that have been studied, and (c) methodological approaches?

We hypothesize that prior research (a) has not been widespread in different LMICs, but is scarce and has concentrated in specific countries, (b) has likely examined multiple forms of physical punishment, including spanking, hitting children with objects, and pinching the child, among others, and (c) has mostly relied on linear regression models with conventional covariate adjustment.

RQ2: What are the average associations between physical punishment and a range of child, adolescent, and adult outcomes in LMICs?

We hypothesize that all forms of physical punishment will associate with detrimental individual outcomes.

RQ3. Do the associations between physical punishment and child, adolescent, and adult outcomes vary by (a) different forms of physical punishment (e.g., spanking, hitting a child with objects), (b) developmental period at time of physical punishment [0–2 years; 3–5 years; 6–10 years; +10 years], (c) whether punishment occurred in homes or in schools, (d) region (i.e., East Asia and Pacific, Europe and Central Asia, Latin America & the Caribbean, Middle East and North Africa, North America, South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa) or country income group (i.e., low-income, lower-middle income, upper-middle income), and (e) methodological approach (e.g., data structure and analytic strategy)?

We hypothesize that the association between physical punishment and individual outcomes will (a) vary according to different forms of physical punishment, (b) be stronger if physical punishment took place early in life relative to later developmental periods, (c) be similar regardless of whether punishment takes place in homes or in schools, (d) not vary across countries or regions, and (e) will be stronger in studies with weaker internal validity (e.g., cross-sectional, observational with poor covariates) relative to more internally valid studies (e.g., longitudinal, rich set of covariates, experimental, quasi-experimental) due to issues of selection bias.

Protocol registration and reporting

We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for Protocols (PRISMA-P) to develop this protocol (see Additional file 1 : Appendix 1). This systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on August 1, 2022.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Table 1 presents the inclusion criteria for studies in the review, considering the PICO framework. The systematic review and meta-analysis will assess the average association (and variation in such associations by characteristics listed above) between physical punishment at home and schools and child, adolescent, and adult outcomes in LMICs.

The review will consider studies published in peer-reviewed journals employing quantitative methods, including experimental, quasi-experimental (e.g., instrumental variables, difference-in-differences, matching), and observational approaches. Following prior meta-analyses on physical punishment and child, adolescent, and adult outcomes [ 5 ], we will exclude gray literature (e.g., dissertations, unpublished manuscripts) and qualitative, theoretical, and case studies. To be considered for inclusion, the studies should provide sufficient basic information to confidently calculate effect sizes (ES). If information to calculate ES is unavailable, we will contact the corresponding authors via email to request the information. If we do not receive a reply in 2 weeks to respond the original request, we will send a reminder and extend with another week. If we do not receive a reply, we will exclude the study.

The population will be restricted to children, adolescents, and adults living in LMICs. We will consider all countries that were categorized as LMICs in the period of the study (i.e., 2002 onwards) by the World Bank Country and Lending Groups [ 44 ].

This systematic review and meta-analysis will focus on all forms of physical punishment, following the definitions discussed above. In the review we will include studies that measure any form of physical punishment vs. no exposure to physical punishment and those that use continuous measures of physical punishment frequency or severity. Studies will be included as long as authors assert that they are measuring physical punishment. We will exclude studies that measure beliefs of or attitudes towards physical punishment rather than actual exposure to physical punishment, and studies that use only indices (e.g., Adverse Childhood Experiences - ACEs) and do not allow to measure physical punishment independently from other adversities or forms of violence.

The review will include studies that compare children exposed to physical punishment to a comparison group of children, adolescents or adults who were never exposed to physical punishment or were exposed less to less frequent or severe physical punishment.

We will follow prior meta-analyses [ 4 , 5 , 9 ] of the association between physical punishment (or spanking, specifically) and child, adolescent, and adult outcomes to focus on outcomes related to (1) externalizing behavior problems (e.g., aggression), (2) internalizing behavior problems, (3) mental health problems, (4) alcohol or substance abuse, (5) parent-child relationships, (6) cognitive development (including academic achievement), (7) social-emotional development (e.g., self-esteem and self-regulation), (8) probability of being a victim of physical abuse, and (9) support for physical punishment and other forms of violence. We may add new or collapse some of the abovementioned outcome categories after conducting the data extraction.

Search strategy

We consulted five librarians from Harvard University to identify relevant databases that might include studies from LMICs. Furthermore, we searched journals in Arabic, Chinese, Spanish, Portuguese, French, Hindi, and Swahili specialized in psychology, education, medicine, and public health in UlrichsWeb [ 45 ]. Subsequently, we identified the indexation of the journals and included additional databases as long as they had a Thesaurus (i.e., specialized subject terms) to ensure reproducibility of our searches. With such information, we decided to search the following 10 databases: (1) APA PsycInfo, (2) PubMed, (3) EMBASE, (4) ERIC, (5) Sociological Abstracts, (6) Global Health, (7) CINAHL Plus with full text, (8) Academic Search Premier, (9) Bibliography of Asian Studies, and (10) Education Source.

We will search the databases for the following keywords in English, Spanish, Portuguese, French, Arabic, and Chinese in titles and abstracts: spank*, corporal punishment*, physical punishment*, physical disciplin*, corporal disciplin*, harsh punishment*, harsh disciplin*, and smack* (see Additional file 2 : Appendix 2 for the search code). In all searches, we will use the filters for publication date (i.e., published after 2002) and type of publication (i.e., peer-reviewed journals).

In addition, we will consider all the studies that met our inclusion criteria from prior published systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the association between physical punishment and child, adolescent, and adult outcomes [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 46 , 47 ].

Screening and full text-review

We will export all prospective studies to Covidence ( www.covidence.org ) in order to ensure reproducibility of the decision process. Before title and abstract screening, we will remove all duplicates from the Covidence library. Two reviewers (JC and a trained research assistant) will independently examine all titles and abstracts following pre-established inclusion criteria. All disagreements will be resolved by consensus through discussion among the reviewers and a third reviewer (ETG) will help resolve remaining conflicts if consensus is not reached. Subsequently, JC and a trained research assistant will independently review the full text of the remaining records considering the inclusion criteria, and all disagreements will be solved following the same procedures of the title and abstract screening phase.

Data extraction

At least two reviewers will extract data for the studies meeting the inclusion criteria using a pre-piloted standardized data extraction template. We will extract qualitative data from the studies in Covidence and the statistics needed to calculate ES in an Excel spreadsheet. Among other information, we will extract data on:

Basic details about the study (e.g., authors, year of publication)

Details related to sample characteristics (e.g., country, sample size, distribution by sex, age)

Data structure (e.g., cross-sectional, longitudinal, experimental, retrospective)

Methodological approach (e.g., experimental or observational)

Covariates included in the models, if any

Measure of physical punishment (e.g., observation, parent report, child report, child report retrospective, both parent and child report)

Definition of physical punishment used in the study

Setting where physical punishment occurred (i.e., home or school)

If available, prevalence of physical punishment in the sample

Characteristics of the measure of physical punishment (e.g., frequency, severity, period in which spanking was administered [last week, ever in life, last month, last year], developmental period at time of physical punishment [0–2 years; 3–5 years; 6–10 years; +10 years])

Measure of outcome(s) (e.g., direct assessment, parent report, child report)

Definition of outcome and age at which outcome was measured

Independence of measures of physical punishment and outcome (e.g., same or different rater)

Narrative synthesis of main results and moderation (e.g., variation in the association between physical punishment and outcomes due to sex, caregiver’s education or household wealth, among other characteristics)

Statistics to calculate effect sizes (e.g., means, standard deviations) for the association between physical punishment and outcomes

Effect size calculation

At least two reviewers will extract all the available relevant ES for each study. We will include all ES that allow us to compare between (1) unadjusted and adjusted models, (2) models with different identifying assumptions, and (3) associations between physical punishment and child, adolescent, and adult outcomes in different countries. We will transform all study-level effect sizes into standardized mean different effect sizes (i.e., Cohen’s d ). For studies that report effect sizes as group comparisons (e.g., exposed to physical punishment vs. not exposed) we will use Cohen’s formula \(d=\frac{\mu_1-{\mu}_2}{\sigma }\) , where μ 1 is the mean for the group exposed to physical punishment, μ 2 the mean of the comparison group, and σ the pooled standard deviation. For studies that do not report effect sizes as group comparisons (e.g., frequency or severity of physical punishment), we will follow the procedures presented in Borenstein and colleagues [ 48 ] to convert correlations and other quantitative measures of associations to Cohen’s d effect sizes.

Data synthesis

We will begin by conducting a narrative synthesis of the findings, including (1) definitions of physical punishment used in research from LMICs, (2) geographic distribution and methodological approaches, (3) main findings, and (4) results of moderation analyses.

It is likely that many studies included in the review will include more than one effect size (e.g., multiple outcomes, unadjusted and adjusted, for two models with different identifying assumptions). The sampling errors of multiple effect sizes from a single study might be correlated due to nesting within the same study and usage of the same sample, thus violating the assumption of independence and threatening the validity of the meta-analyses [ 42 ]. One solution proposed in prior meta-analysis on physical punishment and individual outcomes was to select one effect size per sample or averaging across effect sizes [ 9 , 46 ]. Yet, such practice leads to loss of information that decreases statistical power and might obscure important variability to assess the sensitivity or robustness of the estimated effect sizes.

We will follow current best-practice recommendations [ 42 , 43 ] to dealing with multiple effect sizes and non-independence and will employ multilevel random effects models to analyze the data. Multilevel random effects models will allow us to include all relevant effect sizes and model the dependence between effects within the same sample or study [ 43 ]. We will employ random effects, rather than fixed effects models, under the assumption that differences between studies in observed effect sizes might be due to both “real” differences and measurement error (rather than exclusively measurement error) [ 48 ]. The random effects meta-analysis will allow us to estimate a mean effect size along with a 95% CI around such estimate and a measure of heterogeneity ( I 2 ) to assess the extent to which effect sizes differ between studies.

The moderation analysis will depend mostly on the final sample of studies and the extent to which the sample of studies provides enough statistical power to do such analyses. Given that there are no prior systematic reviews about physical punishment and child, adolescent, and adult outcomes in LMICs, we do not have an a priori estimate of the number of studies we will likely identify. In any case, we expect to do some subgroup analysis according to characteristics listed in the third research question listed above. We will assess risk of bias and quality of the evidence through moderation analysis in order to assess whether the links between physical punishment and individual outcomes is robust to different methodological approaches.

Dissemination plans

We will submit the findings of the review for publication to a peer-reviewed journal. We expect to disseminate findings from the review in blogs, conferences, and other outlets.

Physical punishment constitutes a violation to children’s rights [ 15 ] and a setback to global policy goals, as one indicator for the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is the proportion of children exposed to physical punishment [ 49 ]. Furthermore, extensive evidence, mostly from the USA and other HICs [ 5 , 6 ], shows consistent links between physical punishment at home and detrimental outcomes throughout the lifespan. Nonetheless, less work has been done to synthesize the evidence on the association between physical punishment at homes and schools and child, adolescent, and adult outcomes in LMICs, where more than 90% of children live [ 50 ] and physical punishment is most socially normative and prevalent [ 1 ]. In addition, there is a need for new analyses that employ state-of-the-art meta-analytic methods to strengthen the claim that physical punishment might be detrimental for individuals, assessing robustness of estimates and variation between studies and groups.

The proposed meta-analysis seeks to contribute to filling the above-mentioned gaps by focusing on studies conducted with samples from LMICs, considering physical punishment that takes place at home and schools, considering all relevant effect sizes from each study, and using novel multilevel random effects modeling. Using such information, the meta-analysis will not only estimate the average association between physical punishment and different outcomes but also assess within and between study variability in effect sizes, as well as moderation due to study, individual, and contextual characteristics.

While the meta-analysis will have several strengths, we also anticipate some limitations. First, we do not expect finding any experimental studies conducted with samples from LMICs, and we expect few studies with longitudinal or quasi-experimental designs. As such, we anticipate that most studies will be cross-sectional, observational, and employ conventional covariate adjustment. Yet, we will assess within-study variability and assess moderation due to data structure and methodological approach to assess the sensitivity of estimates. Second, we anticipate that several included studies will have measurement issues, including parent reported measures of physical punishment and measures that are limited regarding temporality (e.g., physical punishment in the past week or month). However, measurement error due to these issues might drive the estimates against our stated hypotheses (i.e., will lead to coefficient attenuation, or an underestimation of the “true” association between physical punishment and individual outcomes). Finally, given the vast underrepresentation of samples from LMICs in research about physical punishment, we anticipate some inconveniences with availability of studies/information and statistical power to conduct some moderation analyses.

To conclude, this meta-analysis will offer new evidence on the potential consequences of physical punishment in LMICs. The meta-analysis will help identify some strengths and weaknesses of existing evidence in order to inform future research on the links between physical punishment and child, adolescent, and adult outcomes. Furthermore, the new evidence will inform policies aimed at protecting children from psychosocial threats to their development, as well as practice regarding caregiving in LMICs.

Cuartas J, McCoy DC, Rey-Guerra C, Britto PR, Beatriz E, Salhi C. Early childhood exposure to non-violent discipline and physical and psychological aggression in low- and middle-income countries: national, regional, and global prevalence estimates. Child Abuse Negl. 2019;92:93–105.

Article   Google Scholar  

Gershoff ET. School corporal punishment in global perspective: prevalence, outcomes, and efforts at intervention. Psychol Health Med. 2017;22(sup1):224–39.

UNICEF. A familiar face: violence in the lives of children and adolescents. New York: UNICEF; 2017.

Google Scholar  

Gershoff ET. Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: a meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychol Bull. 2002;128(4):539–79.

Gershoff ET, Grogan-Kaylor A. Spanking and child outcomes: old controversies and new meta-analyses. J Fam Psychol. 2016;30(4):453–69.

Heilmann A, Mehay A, Watt RG, et al. Physical punishment and child outcomes: a narrative review of prospective studies. Lancet. 2021;398(10297):355–64.

Gershoff E, Sattler KMP, Holden GW. School corporal punishment and its associations with achievement and adjustment. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2019;63:1–8.

United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC). CRC General Comment No. 8 (2006): the right of the child to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment (U.N. CRC/C/GC/8). Geneva; 2007.

Larzelere RE, Gunnoe ML, Ferguson CJ. Improving causal inferences in meta-analyses of longitudinal studies: spanking as an illustration. Child Dev. 2018;89(6):2038–50.

Gershoff ET, Goodman GS, Miller-Perrin CL, Holden GW, Jackson Y, Kazdin AE. The strength of the causal evidence against physical punishment of children and its implications for parents, psychologists, and policymakers. Am Psychol. 2018;73(5):626–38.

Cuartas J. The effect of spanking on early social-emotional skills. Child Dev. 2021;93(1):180–93.

Paolucci EO, Violato C. A meta-analysis of the published research on the affective, cognitive, and behavioral effects of corporal punishment. J Psychol. 2004;138(3):197–221.

Heekes SL, Kruger CB, Lester SN, Ward CL. A systematic review of corporal punishment in schools: global prevalence and correlates. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2020;23(1):52–72.

Visser LN, van der Put CE, Assink M. The association between school corporal punishment and child developmental outcomes: a meta-analytic review. Children. 2022;9(3):383.

United Nations. Convention on the rights of the child, General Comment No. 8. Geneva: Unite Nations; 2006.

Straus MA. Beating the devil out of them: corporal punishment in American families. New York: Routledge; 1994.

Cuartas J. Corporal punishment and child development in low- and- middle-income countries: progress, challenges, and directions. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 2022.

Baumrind D, Larzelere RE, Cowan PA. Ordinary physical punishment: is it harmful? Comment on Gershoff (2002). Psychol Bull. 2002;128(4):580–9 discussion 602-11.

Larzelere RE, Gunnoe ML, Ferguson CJ, Roberts MW. The insufficiency of the evidence used to categorically oppose spanking and its implications for families and psychological science: Comment on Gershoff et al. (2018). Am Psychol. 2019;74(4):497–9.

Cuartas J. Physical punishment against the early childhood in Colombia: national and regional prevalence, sociodemographic gaps, and ten-year trends. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2018;93:428–40.

Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall; 1986.

Dodge KA. Social-cognitive mechanisms in the development of conduct disorder and depression. Ann Rev Psychol. 1993;44(1):559–84.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Bowlby J. Attachment and loss. New York: Basic Books; 1969.

Sheridan MA, McLaughlin KA. Neurobiological models of the impact of adversity on education. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2016;10:108–13.

McLaughlin KA, Sheridan MA, Lambert HK. Childhood adversity and neural development: deprivation and threat as distinct dimensions of early experience. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2014;47:578–91.

Sheridan MA, McLaughlin KA. Dimensions of early experience and neural development: deprivation and threat. Trends Cognitive Sci. 2014;18(11):580–5.

Berens AE, Nelson CA. Neurobiology of fetal and infant development: implications for infant mental health. In: Zeanah CH, editor. Handbook of Infant Mental Health. New York: Guilford Press; 2019.

Cuartas J, Weissman DG, Sheridan MA, Lengua L, McLaughlin KA. Corporal punishment and elevated neural response to threat in children. Child Dev. 2021;92(3):821–32.

Tomoda A, Suzuki H, Rabi K, Sheu Y-S, Polcari A, Teicher MH. Reduced prefrontal cortical gray matter volume in young adults exposed to harsh corporal punishment. NeuroImage. 2009;47:T66–71.

Pace GT, Lee SJ, Grogan-Kaylor A. Spanking and young children's socioemotional development in low- and middle-income countries. Child Abuse Negl. 2019;88:84–95.

Cuartas J. Corporal punishment and early childhood development in 49 low- and- middle-income countries. Child Abuse Neglect. 2021;120:105205.

Altafim ERP, Linhares MBM. Preventive intervention for strengthening effective parenting practices: a randomized controlled trial. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2019;62:160–72.

Francis T, Baker-Henningham H. Design and implementation of the irie homes toolbox: a violence prevention, early childhood, parenting program. Front Public Health. 2020;8(702):582961.

Francis T, Baker-Henningham H. The irie homes toolbox: a cluster randomized controlled trial of an early childhood parenting program to prevent violence against children in Jamaica. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2021;126:106060.

Lachman JM, Sherr LT, Cluver L, Ward CL, Hutchings J, Gardner F. Integrating evidence and context to develop a parenting program for low-income families in South Africa. J Child Fam Stud. 2016;25(7):2337–52.

Lachman JM, Cluver L, Ward CL, et al. Randomized controlled trial of a parenting program to reduce the risk of child maltreatment in South Africa. Child Abuse Neglect. 2017;72:338–51.

Ma J, Grogan-Kaylor A, Lee SJ. Associations of neighborhood disorganization and maternal spanking with children’s aggression: a fixed-effects regression analysis. Child Abuse Neglect. 2018;76:106–16.

Cuartas J, McCoy DC, Grogan-Kaylor A, Gershoff E. Physical punishment as a predictor of early cognitive development: evidence from econometric approaches. Dev Psychol. 2020;56(11):2013–26.

Gershoff ET, Sattler KMP, Ansari A. Strengthening causal estimates for links between spanking and children’s externalizing behavior problems. Psychol Sci. 2018;29(1):110–20.

Duncan GJ, Magnuson KA, Ludwig J. The endogeneity problem in developmental studies. Res Hum Dev. 2004;1(1-2):59–80.

Duncan GJ, Engel M, Claessens A, Dowsett CJ. Replication and robustness in developmental research. Dev Psychol. 2014;50(11):2417–25.

Cheung MWL. A guide to conducting a meta-analysis with non-independent effect sizes. Neuropsychol Rev. 2019;29(4):387–96.

Van den Noortgate W, López-López JA, Marín-Martínez F, Sánchez-Meca J. Three-level meta-analysis of dependent effect sizes. Behav Res Methods. 2013;45(2):576–94.

World Bank. World Bank country and lending groups. 2022. https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups .

Ulrichsweb. Ulrich’s (TM) Serials analysis system. 2021. ulrichsweb.serialssolutions.com .

Ferguson CJ. Spanking, corporal punishment and negative long-term outcomes: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Clin Psychol Rev. 2013;33(1):196–208.

Larzelere RE, Kuhn BR. Comparing child outcomes of physical punishment and alternative disciplinary tactics: a meta-analysis. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2005;8(1):1–37.

Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Introduction to meta-analysis. Somerset: Wiley; 2011.

United Nations Development Programme. Sustainable development goals: United Nations Development Programme; 2015.

United Nations. World population prospects 2017 revision. New York: United Nations; 2017.

Book   Google Scholar  

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank to the Harvard University librarians Kathleen Donovan, Carla Lillvik, Bassey Irele, Ramona Crawford, Molly McInerney, and Xiao-He Ma for their help in identifying relevant databases and developing the overall search strategy. We would also like to thank to Hirokazu Yoshikawa, Charles Nelson III, Aisha Yousafzai, James S. Kim, Juliana Sánchez, Linxi Lu, Kaitlin Paxton Ward, and Catalina Rey-Guerra for their feedback. This project was supported the National Academy of Education/Spencer Dissertation Fellowship and a fellowship from the American Psychological Foundation.

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, USA

Jorge Cuartas & Dana C. McCoy

Centro de Estudios sobre Seguridad y Drogas (CESED), Universidad de los Andes, Carrera 1 # 18A – 12, Bogotá, Colombia

Jorge Cuartas

Population Research Center, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, USA

Elizabeth T. Gershoff

School of Education, University of California, Irvine, USA

Drew Bailey

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

JC and EG conceptualized the study. JC consulted with EG, DB, and DM throughout the protocol drafting process. JC and EG defined the search strategy. JC, EG, and DB defined the analytic plan. All authors provided critical review of intellectual content and approved final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jorge Cuartas .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:, additional file 2:, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Cuartas, J., Gershoff, E.T., Bailey, D. et al. Physical punishment and child, adolescent, and adult outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev 11 , 276 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02154-5

Download citation

Received : 01 August 2022

Accepted : 05 December 2022

Published : 20 December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02154-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Violence against children
• Physical punishment
• Meta-analysis
• Systematic review
• Low- and middle-income countries

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Physical punishment and child outcomes: a narrative review of prospective studies

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 2 Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK.
• 3 Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
• 4 Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, Faculty of Paediatrics, Dublin, Ireland.
• 5 Population Research Center and Department of Human Development and Family Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
• PMID: 34197808
• PMCID: PMC8612122
• DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00582-1

Physical punishment is increasingly viewed as a form of violence that harms children. This narrative review summarises the findings of 69 prospective longitudinal studies to inform practitioners and policy makers about physical punishment's outcomes. Our review identified seven key themes. First, physical punishment consistently predicts increases in child behaviour problems over time. Second, physical punishment is not associated with positive outcomes over time. Third, physical punishment increases the risk of involvement with child protective services. Fourth, the only evidence of children eliciting physical punishment is for externalising behaviour. Fifth, physical punishment predicts worsening behaviour over time in quasi-experimental studies. Sixth, associations between physical punishment and detrimental child outcomes are robust across child and parent characteristics. Finally, there is some evidence of a dose-response relationship. The consistency of these findings indicates that physical punishment is harmful to children and that policy remedies are warranted.

Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests.

Study selection

Similar articles

• Physical punishment of children: can we continue to accept the status quo? Oates K. Oates K. J Paediatr Child Health. 2011 Aug;47(8):505-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1754.2011.02144.x. J Paediatr Child Health. 2011. PMID: 21843186
• The relationship between maternal depression, in-home violence and use of physical punishment: what is the role of child behaviour? Silverstein M, Augustyn M, Young R, Zuckerman B. Silverstein M, et al. Arch Dis Child. 2009 Feb;94(2):138-43. doi: 10.1136/adc.2007.128595. Epub 2008 Sep 11. Arch Dis Child. 2009. PMID: 18786952 Free PMC article.
• A brief intervention affects parents' attitudes toward using less physical punishment. Chavis A, Hudnut-Beumler J, Webb MW, Neely JA, Bickman L, Dietrich MS, Scholer SJ. Chavis A, et al. Child Abuse Negl. 2013 Dec;37(12):1192-201. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.06.003. Epub 2013 Jul 13. Child Abuse Negl. 2013. PMID: 23859768 Clinical Trial.
• Physical punishment, culture, and rights: current issues for professionals. Durrant JE. Durrant JE. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2008 Feb;29(1):55-66. doi: 10.1097/DBP.0b013e318135448a. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2008. PMID: 18300726 Review.
• Nonabusive physical punishment and child behavior among African-American children: a systematic review. Horn IB, Joseph JG, Cheng TL. Horn IB, et al. J Natl Med Assoc. 2004 Sep;96(9):1162-8. J Natl Med Assoc. 2004. PMID: 15481744 Free PMC article. Review.
• Examining the Moderating Role of Parental Stress in the Relationship between Parental Beliefs on Corporal Punishment and Its Utilization as a Behavior Correction Strategy among Colombian Parents. González MR, Trujillo A. González MR, et al. Children (Basel). 2024 Mar 23;11(4):384. doi: 10.3390/children11040384. Children (Basel). 2024. PMID: 38671601 Free PMC article.
• Physical punishment and effective verbal communication in children aged 9-36 months, according to sex: secondary analysis of a national survey. Illachura VC, Montesinos-Malpartida MI, Bellido-Boza L, Puyén ZM, Blitchtein-Winicki D. Illachura VC, et al. BMC Pediatr. 2024 Feb 20;24(1):134. doi: 10.1186/s12887-024-04606-4. BMC Pediatr. 2024. PMID: 38378501 Free PMC article.
• Ethnic Differences in the Effects of Five Disciplinary Techniques on Subsequent Externalizing Behavior Problems. Larzelere RE, Knowles SJ, Adkison-Johnson C, Cox RB Jr, Lin H, Mandara J. Larzelere RE, et al. Marriage Fam Rev. 2023;59(8):523-548. doi: 10.1080/01494929.2023.2199732. Epub 2023 Nov 30. Marriage Fam Rev. 2023. PMID: 38322799
• Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validity study of the "Play Nicely Program: The Healthy Discipline Handbook" for use in Brazil. Begui JR, Scholer S, Polita NB, Baggio MA, Merino MFGL, Zani AV, Pimenta RA. Begui JR, et al. Rev Bras Enferm. 2023 Dec 4;76(6):e20220281. doi: 10.1590/0034-7167-2022-0281. eCollection 2023. Rev Bras Enferm. 2023. PMID: 38055467 Free PMC article.
• Associations between 11 parental discipline behaviours and child outcomes across 60 countries. Ward KP, Grogan-Kaylor A, Ma J, Pace GT, Lee S. Ward KP, et al. BMJ Open. 2023 Oct 30;13(10):e058439. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058439. BMJ Open. 2023. PMID: 37903610 Free PMC article.
• Clark H, Coll-Seck AM, Banerjee A, et al. A future for the world’s children? A WHO–UNICEF–Lancet Commission. Lancet 2020; 395: 605–58. - PubMed
• United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. 42nd Session. General Comment No. 8. The right of the child to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment. Geneva: United Nations, 2006.
• United Nations. Transforming our world: the 2020 Agenda for Sustainable Development. UN General Assembly Official Records, 70th Session, UN Doc A/RES/70/1. 2015. https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E (accessed Nov 27, 2020).
• Durrant J, Ensom R. Physical punishment of children: lessons from 20 years of research. CMAJ 2012; 184: 1373–77. - PMC - PubMed
• Gershoff ET, Grogan-Kaylor A. Spanking and child outcomes: old controversies and new meta-analyses. J Fam Psychol 2016; 30: 453–69. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

Related information

Grants and funding.

• P2C HD042849/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Elsevier Science
• Europe PubMed Central
• PubMed Central
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Evidence Against Physically Punishing Kids Is Clear, Researchers Say

AUSTIN, Texas — A conclusive narrative review has found physical punishment of children is not effective in preventing child behavior problems or promoting positive outcomes and instead predicts increases in behavior problems and other poor outcomes over time. The study by an international group of scientists including a researcher from The University of Texas at Austin was published today in The Lancet .

Caregivers in many parts of the world use physical punishment as a response to children’s perceived misbehavior: 63% of children between the ages of 2 and 4 worldwide – approximately 250 million children – are regularly subjected to physical punishment by caregivers .

Sixty-two countries have banned the practice, which is increasingly seen as a form of violence.

The team looked at studies involving physical punishment such as spanking and excluded any behaviors that could constitute child physical abuse. The researchers found ample evidence to support a United Nations statement from the Committee on the Rights of the Child that recommended countries end the use of all types of physical punishment on children.

“There is no evidence that physical punishment is good for children,” said Elizabeth Gershoff, the Amy Johnson McLaughlin Centennial Professor in Human Development and Family Sciences at The University of Texas at Austin and senior author of the paper. “All the evidence indicates that physical punishment is harmful to children’s development and well-being.”

The review looked at 69 studies, most of which were from the United States, with eight from other countries. Scientists found that physical punishment was not associated with any positive outcomes for children and increased the risk that children would experience severe violence or neglect. The paper points out that negative outcomes associated with physical punishment, such as behavior problems, occurred no matter the child’s sex, race, or ethnicity and regardless of the overall parenting styles of the caregivers. The authors also found evidence that the magnitude of negative outcomes for children increased the more frequently physical punishment was used.

“Parents hit their children because they think doing so will improve their behavior,” Gershoff said. “Unfortunately for parents who hit, our research found clear and compelling evidence that physical punishment does not improve children’s behavior and instead makes it worse.”

In the U.S., it is legal in all 50 states for parents to use physical punishment. It is also legal in 19 states for schools to use physical punishment against children. The paper was intended as a resource for policymakers and people who work with families, such as medical and mental health providers.

Gershoff previously authored a landmark 2016 meta-analysis of dozens of studies and found that physical punishment was not associated with any positive outcomes for children and was heavily associated with a variety of negative outcomes. Gershoff’s work was cited by former Secretary of Education John B. King Jr. in a 2016 federal letter urging states to consider ending the use of physical punishment in schools. Gershoff also helped to inform policy statements from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association that use research on the harmful effects of physical punishment as a basis for recommending that caregivers no longer use it.

Heilmann, Anita Mehay, Richard G. Watt and Yvonne Kelly of University College London (U.K.); Joan E. Durrant of the University of Manitoba (Canada); and Jillian van Turnhout, former senator, Irish Parliament, also contributed to the research. The research was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the U.K. Economic and Social Research Council.

Explore Latest Articles

Jun 06, 2024

Long-Buried Castoffs Now Big-Screen Stars

May 31, 2024

Introducing a New UT Podcast: ‘AI for the Rest of Us’

May 29, 2024

UT’s Name on ‘The Drag’ Coincides with Peak Visits, SEC Celebration

Search msd.govt.nz

• What we can do for:
• Work programmes
• Child Youth and Wellbeing
• News and media
• Research and insights
• Long-term Insights Briefings
• HIYU newsletter
• Social Policy Journal
• Corporate publications
• Consultations
• Planning and Strategy
• Research archive
• Official Information Act
• Evaluation reports
• Monitoring reports
• Literature Reviews
• Working Papers
• Regulatory Impact Statements
• Funding Contracting Service Guidelines
• Information releases
• Careers at MSD

The State of Research on the Effects of Physical Punishment

On this Page:

Anne B. Smith 1 Children’s Issues Centre University of Otago Dunedin

Long considered an effective, and even necessary, means of socialising children, physical punishment has been revealed to be a predictor of a wide range of negative developmental outcomes. The extent of agreement in the research literature on this issue is unusual in the social sciences. Physical punishment is associated with increased child aggression, antisocial behaviour, lower intellectual achievement, poorer quality of parent–child relationships, mental health problems (such as depression), and diminished moral internalisation. The evidence about whether physical punishment results in short-term compliance is mixed, with some studies showing effectiveness in achieving this and others not. Short-term compliance can, however, be achieved as effectively without using physical punishment. Physical punishment has negative effects on child outcomes, especially if it is harsh, regardless of culture. When punishment use is normative in a culture, the effects are slightly less negative. Research findings support ongoing efforts to help parents use more positive methods of parenting, and the removal of a defence in law for the use of physical punishment against children.

Introduction

Research findings about the effects of physical punishment on outcomes for children provide a persuasive argument in favour of changing policies on the use of physical punishment within families. 2 A research team from the Children’s Issues Centre recently reviewed research on the guidance and discipline of children (Smith et al. 2005). This paper summarises and updates a section of that report.

The research suggests that physical punishment is both ineffective and harmful as a method of disciplining children. This paper provides both an overview and specific examples of recent research on physical punishment relating to the following topics: social, cognitive and mental health; moral internalisation and family relationship outcomes; and the interactions with culture and ethnicity. It is firstly important to get some definitions clear, because much of the debate about the effects stems from the difficulty in agreeing on definitions.

The difference between discipline and physical punishment

Physical or corporal punishment is the use of force to cause pain, but not injury, for the purpose of correction or control (Straus and Stewart 1999). Although researchers attempt to distinguish between physical punishment and abuse, this is very hard to do and there is no general agreement about the dividing line between physical punishment and physical abuse. It is not possible to define what a “safe smack” is. Abusive and non-abusive parents differ mainly in how often and how severely they physically punish their child, and whether that physical punishment is purportedly for correcting children.

Discipline is the guidance of children’s moral, emotional and physical development, enabling children to take responsibility for themselves when they are older (Holden 2002, Wissow 2002). It involves teaching children the boundaries of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, and it makes them aware of the values and actions that are acceptable in their family and society. Discipline can be positive, for example, praising the child for doing something good or for stopping doing something inappropriate; or discipline can be negative, for example, smacking a child for doing something wrong. Positive discipline normally involves helping children to understand why certain behaviour is unacceptable and other behaviour is acceptable. Negative discipline focuses on doing what you are told in order to avoid something unpleasant.

A distinction is often made between “power-assertive” and “inductive” discipline. Power-assertive disciplinary methods involve following a child’s inappropriate behaviour with a negative consequence (smacking, threats, withdrawal of privileges) without explanation or justification. Inductive methods involve setting limits, setting up logical consequences, reasoning and explanation (Holden 2002).

Methodological issues

There are methodological problems in determining the effects on children’s behaviour of physical punishment and other methods of discipline. It is not possible to assign children randomly to “punishment” and “no punishment” groups, so it is difficult to establish a causal relationship. The other problems are confounding variables (other variables that are associated with punishment and difficult to separate from it), limited outcome measures (e.g. retrospective reports by parents or children), the definition of punishment (and distinguishing it from physical abuse), and lack of generalisability because of limited sample populations (e.g. clinical samples or European-only samples).

Many studies have indicated positive relationships between corporal punishment and various measures of child behaviour, but most of these studies have been cross-sectional and correlational in design. Correlational studies simply show the relationship of two or more variables at a given point in time, and are limited in their ability to demonstrate causality. For example, if a correlation is found between physical punishment and child aggression, it may be that physical punishment leads to child aggression. However, there is an equally plausible argument that the aggressive behaviour may be the causal variable that leads to the parental punishment, i.e. noncompliant children elicit more punishment from their parents. Most researchers, however, think that there is a bi-directional effect, with both variables both causing and being the effect of the other. There are now some longitudinal studies that provide evidence for causality, which will be discussed below.

What is the Evidence?

This section summarises the evidence concerning the effects of physical discipline by referring to a major literature review published in 2002 (Gershoff 2002a) and to additional studies.

The research on the effects of corporal punishment achieves a degree of consistency that is rare in social science (Holden 2002, Straus and Stewart 1999). This research shows that there is a variety of negative long-term consequences of using physical punishment as a method of family discipline. Gershoff (2002a) carried out a meta-analysis of 92 studies on corporal punishment, which examined the effect of punishment on 11 outcome variables. Gershoff’s review specifically excluded studies that included abusive or potentially abusive techniques in their definition of corporal punishment.

Gershoff (2002a) found that corporal punishment was only associated with one desirable behaviour, and this was immediate compliance. However, the study findings were inconsistent, with two of the five studies showing that corporal punishment was associated with less compliance. The other three studies were of clinical samples of children who had been referred for problem behaviours. Hence, the generalisability of their findings is doubtful and suggests that corporal punishment may only be effective for disobedient and disruptive children. Gershoff points out that most parents are not only interested in immediate compliance, but also want ongoing compliance, and the research shows that this does not necessarily take place and that there are other unforeseen long-term consequences of corporal punishment.

Gershoff’s (2002a) review and meta-analysis of the research literature on corporal punishment provides the following summary:

Ten of the 11 meta-analyses indicate parental corporal punishment is associated with the following undesirable behaviours and experiences: decreased moral internalisation, increased child aggression, increased child delinquent and antisocial behaviour, decreased quality of relationship between parent and child, decreased child mental health, increased risk of being a victim of physical abuse, increased adult aggression, increased adult criminal and antisocial behaviour, decreased adult mental health, and increased risk of abusing own child or spouse. Corporal punishment was associated with only one desirable behaviour, namely, increased immediate compliance. (Gershoff 2002a:544)

In part because of the methodological problems with studies of corporal punishment, advocates of corporal punishment have dismissed many of these negative findings (Larzelere 2000, Larzelere and Kuhn 2005). Straus (2001), however, argues that there are now five prospective studies (where children’s behaviour is observed at different points in time) that all show the long-term negative effect of corporal punishment. In these studies, higher rates of misbehaviour occurred two and four years later for children who were spanked compared to those who experienced little or no corporal punishment.

Critics of Gershoff’s review have also said that it is not appropriate to include studies of severe corporal punishment. They argue that the negative effects of corporal punishment are only associated with harsh, punitive discipline, which is “acknowledged by all experts to be detrimental to children’s wellbeing and ethically unacceptable” (Baumrind et al. 2002:581). In response, Gershoff (2002b) has argued that, rather than being deviant, the levels of punishment included are normative.

Long-Term Effects

Social behaviour.

Corporal punishment is associated with children’s aggression and other antisocial behaviour (towards peers, siblings and adults). Corporal punishment may legitimise violence for children in interpersonal relationships because they tend to internalise the social relations they experience (Vygotsky 1978). Ironically, the behaviour that parents are most likely to intend to prevent when they physically punish children is exactly the behaviour that they are likely to be strengthening. Social learning theory (Bandura 1969) also suggests that physical punishment enables children to learn aggressive behaviour through modelling. If parents try to modify their children’s behaviour through inflicting pain, then those children are likely to do the same to others when they want to influence other people’s actions.

Gershoff’s (2002a) meta-analysis reviewed 27 studies in childhood and four in adulthood looking at the relationship between physical punishment and aggression. These studies varied in the age of the children studied (1–16 years), the type of data gathered (most, however, were parental self-report), and the experimental design (most were cross-sectional). The findings of the meta-analysis consistently showed that the parental use of physical punishment was associated with child aggressive behaviour. Gershoff’s review also includes 13 studies of delinquent and antisocial behaviour in childhood, and five studies of the same variables in adulthood. With only two exceptions, the studies showed a consistent link between the use of corporal punishment and delinquent and antisocial behaviour.

Grogan-Kaylor (2004) used data from the most recent (1998) wave of data collection of the United States National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. There were 1,811 children in the sample, and their average age was slightly over 10 years. The children were predominantly from low-income families and about half of them were of colour. The study examined the relationship between parental use of corporal punishment and children’s antisocial behaviour, using a fixed effects analysis, which provides more rigorous statistical controls than those used in previous research, controlling for both observed and unobserved covariates. Children’s antisocial behaviour was measured by the Behavior Problems Index, and parental use of physical punishment through the HOME inventory, which includes questions about spanking.

Whether or not parents had spanked their child in the past week was related to children’s antisocial behaviour two years later, regardless of the child’s prior levels of antisocial behaviour. The fixed effects model showed that there was a similar-sized negative effect for both low and high levels of corporal punishment. There were no effects of gender, ethnicity or socio-economic status on this relationship between parental punishment and children’s antisocial behaviour. The study concluded that even low and common levels of spanking were associated with increases in antisocial behaviour. Unlike studies using other statistical methods, this study suggests that the effect of punishment on behaviour is not linear, and challenges the assumption that only frequent and severe punishment is associated with harmful effects.

Cognitive Effects

A sociocultural perspective on development suggests that children’s cognitive development emerges out of social interactions. Social relationships such as early attachment to caregivers, friendships and collaborative learning between peers, and relationships between children and teachers, directly and indirectly influence children’s learning and motivation to learn. The use of verbal methods of discipline through explanation and reasoning are likely to provide the child with more cognitive stimulation than the use of corporal punishment without induction (Straus 2001). Thus, poorer cognitive outcomes may result if parents who physically punish their children make less use of inductive methods of discipline, such as explanation and reasoning – procedures that are likely to enhance cognitive growth. It may also be that children who are anxious about being physically punished are inhibited from exploring their physical and social worlds, and therefore less likely to extend their cognitive skills.

Gershoff’s (2002a) meta-analysis does not include any studies linking physical punishment to cognitive development or academic achievement, but our report (Smith 2005) located seven studies linking aspects of children’s cognitive development to family discipline (Cherian 1994, Jester et al. 1999, Shumow et al. 1998, Smith and Brooks-Gunn 1997, Solomon and Serres 1999, Straus 2001, Straus and Paschall 2003). These seven studies all show an association between harsh discipline and poorer academic achievement and/or cognitive development across a range of ages and ethnic groups. One of the seven studies (Smith and Brooks-Gunn 1997) focused on verbally punitive behaviour and the other six studies focused on physical punishment.

A longitudinal study in Wisconsin public schools by Shumow et al. (1998) examined the relationships between parental discipline, children’s academic achievement at school and teacher ratings of behavioural adjustment to schools. The study used a variety of measures including parental reports (from interviews) of child-rearing expectations and discipline at two points in time (when children were in third and fifth grade), school achievement results and teacher ratings. Reported parental harshness was associated with negative teacher reports of child adjustment at school and parental reports of behaviour problems at home. Parenting strategies were stable over two years, indicating a consistent child-rearing approach. In both the third and fifth grades, parental harshness was associated with children displaying poorer developmental outcomes (in academic achievement and adjustment to school), even after controlling for family income, race, family structure, parental education and maternal unemployment. The authors concluded that parental harshness was associated with poorer cognitive achievement (and social adjustment) in the school setting.

Quality of Parent–Child Relationships

One concern arising out of attachment theory is that the use of physical punishment can have an adverse effect on the quality of the relationships between children and their parents. Children’s secure attachment is fostered by warm, positive parent–child interactions and negatively associated with harshly punitive interactions. Attachment is known to have an important influence on a wide variety of child development outcomes and social competence (Coyl et al. 2002). Attachment security is vital for children’s sense of wellbeing and their feelings of safety within and outside the boundaries of the family, and is a vital ingredient in the development of conscience (Laible and Thomson 2000). Gershoff (2002a) reviews 13 studies linking the use of physical punishment with the quality of parent–child relationships. The studies consistently showed that physical punishment was positively associated with poorer child–parent relationships.

Coyl et al. (2002) investigated factors that affected infant attachment security, such as stressful events, maternal depression, negative parent–child interactions and corporal punishment. The study involved interviews with mothers involved in a Head Start programme when their infants were 14 months old, and used Q-sort measures of attachment and two questions about spanking from the HOME inventory. About two-thirds of the children in the sample were insecurely attached, a figure about twice as high as would be expected from the general population. The study also included a measure of negative mother–child interactions.

The majority of the mothers in the study (77%) reported no spanking in the past week, while 23% said that they had spanked the child in the past week. In the group that did spank, just under half had spanked only once in the week and about one-in-six had spanked the child at least six times in the past week. Using path analysis the authors showed that there was a direct path linking negative interactions and frequency of spanking to insecure infant attachment, but also that there was an indirect effect from maternal depression to insecure infant attachment mediated by negative interactions and frequency of spanking. Maternal depression had the strongest negative effect on attachment security, followed by negative interactions, frequency of spanking and relationship stress. The study suggests that physical punishment and negative mother–infant interactions are more likely to take place when mothers are depressed and stressed, and these negative disciplinary techniques have an adverse effect on security of infant attachment.

A qualitative study (Russell 1996) of the views of New Zealand parents and parent-educators provides a graphic example of how family discipline can affect parent–child relationships. The study quotes a mother who made a conscious decision never to smack her own children:

My parents were very strict. I assumed everyone was being brought up the same. You will do as you’re told and you won’t question. My mother would use the wooden spoon; my father was more into bare hands. There were other things: go to your room, miss out on something. If you were naughty, they almost took it as a personal affront, they just seemed so offended by it, like you were insulting them. I was basically very good and I was hit frequently. I’m sure through being smacked it made me do so silly things without thinking. It made me go out and do the same thing again, what I’d been smacked for. The message I got from them when they hit me was not “what you’re doing is bad, don’t do it again”. The message I got was “we don’t love you”. (Russell 1996:69)

Mental Health

Less visible than externalising behaviour, but equally serious, is the development of internalising problems such as depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation and other mental health concerns. Such problems are often ignored and left untreated, and can have lifelong effects, including influencing the parenting of the next generation. New Zealand ’s high levels of suicide (Action for Children and Youth Aotearoa 2003) are already a concern, so this is a particularly worrying effect of the acceptance of punishment in our culture. According to Straus (1999), mental health problems are associated with physical punishment due to their being an outcome of the suppression of childhood anger associated with being hit by adults who children depend on for love and nurturance.

Gershoff (2002a) reviewed 12 studies of physical punishment and mental health in childhood, and eight studies of physical punishment and mental health in adulthood. Again, there was complete consistency in the findings of these studies that mental health problems in childhood and adulthood were associated with the use of physical punishment.

Heaven and Goldstein (2001) surveyed 242 Anglo-Australian and Asian-Australian high school students about their parents’ disciplinary style, and their own depression and self-esteem. Depression was significantly related to perceptions of parents’ punitiveness and withdrawal of love. Among Anglo students, low self-esteem was significantly related to low levels of inductiveness and high levels of love withdrawal. Students were more depressed, regardless of ethnicity, if they had experienced punitive and unaffectionate parenting. The effect of parental discipline on depression was mediated by low self-esteem in Anglo students (but not in Asian students). Punitive discipline also had a more negative effect on internalising behaviour for girls than for boys.

Moral Internalisation

Social information processing theory (Grusec and Goodnow 1994) suggests that the major long-term goal of family discipline is to help children internalise the values and attitudes of society to guide their own behaviour. Moral regulation and internalisation include sensitivity to wrongdoing and appropriate conduct, and the ability to restrain oneself from misbehaviour and to correct damage (Kerr et al. 2004). Promoting internal control over behaviour is an important goal in family discipline, and most experts regard it as much more important than immediate compliance. Many parents want their children to internalise such values, and they do not realise that the excessive use of power-assertive discipline in the absence of induction or explanation may have the opposite effect from what they wish to achieve. That power-assertive methods are not as effective as inductive discipline in promoting moral internalisation has been shown in many studies.

Gershoff’s review supports the view that the use of physical punishment tends to lessen the chances that children will internalise parental rules and values. Reviewing 15 studies in this area showed that all but two of these studies showed an association between the use of physical punishment and lower levels of moral internalisation.

Kochanska et al. (2001) carried out a longitudinal study of the development of self-regulation in children under four years of age. Mothers of normally developing infants participated in laboratory sessions with their children at 22, 33 and 45 months. Researchers observed and assessed children’s compliance with their mothers’ requests in “Do” (sustaining boring behaviour) and “Don’t” (ceasing pleasant behaviour) contexts. Committed compliance meant eagerly embracing maternal agendas and following maternal directives in a self-directed way; situational compliance was essentially cooperative, but seemed contingent on sustained maternal control. Internalisation was also observed in “Do” and “Don’t” contexts by looking at whether children complied with requests when the mother moved to another room. Mothers’ styles of discipline were also observed.

There were several significant negative correlations between the maternal use of power and children’s committed compliance, as well as between the maternal use of power and children’s independent compliance (when alone). The authors argue that committed compliance is the first step towards internal control. It represents the conflict between children’s wish to comply and their desire to be autonomous. Power-assertive disciplinary techniques do not support moral internalisation.

Interactions with Culture and Ethnicity

There has been considerable research into the relationship between ethnicity, aspects of the parenting and disciplinary environment, and outcomes for children (Marshall 2005). Several authors suggest that the effects of harsh disciplinary strategies, in particular physical punishment, may vary across social and cultural contexts (Deater-Deckard and Dodge 1997, Horn et al. 2004, Kelley and Tseng 1992, Simons et al. 2000).

Deater-Deckard and Dodge (1997) argue that punishment has different meanings for some cultural groups, such as African-Americans, and that parent–child relationships are another important mediating factor. They contend that where physical punishment is a predominant and normative mode of discipline and where it is used in a controlled fashion in the context of a nurturing relationship, it is looked on as culturally acceptable, and as a sign of good parenting, and that therefore the effects can be positive. Indeed, there are some studies supporting this view (Horn et al. 2004). There are, however, further confounding factors associated with ethnicity such as poverty, low social status, and the risk associated with living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods.

Generally the findings are inconclusive, with some studies finding ethnic differences in the association between physical punishment and poor outcomes, and others not. Different researchers concur, however, that any moderating effects of ethnicity are only at ordinary or moderate levels of physical punishment. Extremely harsh discipline that shades into physical abuse is equally deleterious for all children, regardless of culture. The negative consequences of severe physical punishment have been replicated across cultures ( Marshall 2005).

A recent study tested the hypothesis that in cultures where physical punishment is normative, the effects of it are less negative (Lansford et al. 2005). Cultural normativeness refers to the extent to which family members within a culture perceive physical punishment as normal for their culture, and the extent to which families actually use it in that culture. The normativeness of physical punishment varied across six countries in the study, from the lowest in Thailand, through China, the Philippines, Italy to the highest in Kenya (Lansford et al. 2005), with varying collectivist and religious affiliations among those countries. Altogether, 336 mother–child dyads, mainly middle-class, were interviewed to assess the relevance of physical punishment in each culture, and to determine the perceptions (of mothers and children) of the use of physical punishment in their families and in other families in their cultural group. Children’s internalised and externalised behaviour problems were measured using the Achenbach Checklist.

The results showed that countries differed in the reported use and normativeness of physical punishment, and how it was related to children’s adjustment. Perceived normativeness moderated the association between punishment and child aggression and anxiety. That is, in cultural groups such as Kenya ’s, where physical punishment was more frequently used, adjustment problems were less severe. To put it another way, in countries where physical punishment was less common, children experienced more harmful effects from physical punishment. Nevertheless, children who had experienced physical punishment, regardless of whether it was perceived as normative, were more aggressive and anxious. The authors concluded:

Even if a practice is sanctioned by a cultural group, it does not mean that the practice is necessarily acceptable. Regardless of where they live, children have rights and parents have responsibilities towards children ... There are times where it may be necessary to apply a global standard to protect children from serious long-term harm. Thus, it is important not to take an extreme position on cultural relativism. (Lansford et al. 2005)

Summary and Conclusions

Our review of research has established that there is little evidence to recommend retaining physical punishment in the parental repertoire of discipline. Only one desirable outcome for child behaviour has been associated with physical punishment – in some, but not all, studies – and this outcome is immediate compliance. Even those who argue in favour of the use of physical punishment as a backup to other disciplinary strategies, such as reasoning and time out, suggest that it is only effective under severely limited conditions (as to age of child, severity, timing and context among other things). When compliance is just as easily (and effectively) achieved with alternative inductive and positive methods of child rearing and milder forms of punishment, it is unnecessary, risky and unethical to use physical punishment.

Research on the long-term effects of physical punishment are consistent, and overwhelmingly negative over a wide variety of child development outcomes. The use of physical punishment has been associated with many negative social outcomes, including aggression, disruptive behaviour in school, lack of acceptance by peers, crime and delinquency. Children’s cognitive and intellectual development are also adversely affected by parental use of physical punishment. Physical punishment is linked to insecure attachment and poorer relationships between children and parents, and to a variety of mental health problems, such as anxiety, depression and suicidal ideation. The overall goals of family discipline for most families are for children to internalise the values and attitudes that will lead to appropriate behaviour, rather than relying on external monitoring and control. Research suggests that the use of physical punishment does the reverse, and inhibits the development of moral internalisation. While the effects of physical punishment may be a little less severe when it is normative in a culture, the effects are still negative. In societies like Aotearoa New Zealand , where it is increasingly being accepted that physical punishment is not desirable, it is likely that the ongoing outcomes will be negative.

The use of physical punishment is deeply embedded in our culture and history, but it is a clear and preventable health risk for children. One very frequently used everyday argument in favour of corporal punishment is from people who say “I was spanked and I am okay”. Straus (1999) points out that people who say this may be among the lucky ones who were not adversely affected by corporal punishment. Corporal punishment does not guarantee a harmful effect, but the more that children experience corporal punishment and the more frequent and severe it is, the more they are at risk for problems like aggression and depression, regardless of their cultural background. The use of corporal punishment as a method of family discipline is a health risk for children – a risk to which parents might not expose their children if they understood the probability of harmful consequences.

There is no universal recipe for effective discipline, and while research findings may seem clear, their application to real life is a different matter. Many parents, however, want to avoid the health risks inherent in punitive approaches towards their children, and feel increasingly uncomfortable with the use of physical punishment. Parents can and do change their ideas about discipline, with or without external support. Ongoing efforts to encourage and help parents to use positive disciplinary approaches, such as the Ministry of Social Development SKIP programmes (Strategies with Kids – Information for Parents), 3 are therefore to be supported. These efforts, in my view, need to be supported by a change in the law so that parents cannot use as a defence that they were using reasonable discipline when they have assaulted children.

Action for Children and Youth Aotearoa (2003) Children and Youth in Aotearoa 2003 : The Second Non-Governmental Organisations’ Report from Aotearoa New Zealand to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child , Action for Children and Youth Aotearoa, Wellington.

Bandura, A. (1969) Principles of Behaviour Modification, Holt, Reinhart & Winston , New York .

Baumrind, D., R.E. Larzelere and P.A. Cowan (2002) “Ordinary physical punishment: Is it harmful? Comment on Gershoff (2002)” Psychological Bulletin, 128(4):580–589.

Cherian, V.I. (1994) “Self-reports of corporal punishment by Xhosa children from broken and intact families and their academic achievement” Psychological Reports, 74(3):867–874.

Coyl, D.D., L.A. Roggman and L.A. Newland (2002) “Stress, maternal depression, and negative mother–infant interactions in relation to infant attachment” Infant Mental Health Journal, 23(1–2):145–163.

Deater-Deckard, K. and K.A. Dodge (1997) “Externalising behavior problems and discipline revisited: Nonlinear effects and variation by culture, context and gender” Psychological Inquiry, 8(3):161–175.

Gershoff, E.T. (2002a) “Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review” Psychological Bulletin, 128(4):539–579.

Gershoff, E.T. (2002b) “Corporal punishment, physical abuse, and the burden of proof: Reply to Baumrind, Larzelere, and Cowan (2002), Holden (2002), and Parke (2002)” Psychological Bulletin, 128(4):602–611.

Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2004) “The effect of corporal punishment on antisocial behavior in children” Social Work Research, 28(3):153–164.

Grusec, J.E. and J.J. Goodnow (1994) “Impact of parental discipline methods on the child’s internalization of values: A reconceptualization of current points of view” Developmental Psychology, 30(1):4–19.

Heaven, P.C.L. and M. Goldstein (2001) “Parental influences and mental health among some Australian youth: Crosscultural analysis” Australian Journal of Psychology, 53(3):170–175.

Holden, G.W. (2002) “Perspectives on the effects of corporal punishment: Comment on Gershoff (2002)” Psychological Bulletin, 128(4):590–595.

Horn, I.B., J.G. Joseph and T.L. Cheng (2004) “Nonabusive physical punishment and child behaviour among African-American Children” Journal of the National Medical Association, 96 (9):1162–1168.

Jester, J.M., M. Muzik, R. Berube, S. Narnag, B. Tuttle and J. Jacobson (1999) “ How do maternal reasoning and physical punishment contribute to development of verbal competence and behavior problems?” presented at the Society for Research in Child Development Biennial meeting, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Kelley, M.L. and H.M. Tseng (1992) “Cultural differences in child rearing: A comparison of immigrant Chinese and Caucasian American mothers” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23(4):444–455.

Kerr , D.C. , N.L. Lopez, S.L. Olson and A.J. Sameroff (2004) “Parental discipline and externalizing behavior problems in early childhood: The roles of moral regulation and child gender” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32(4):369–383.

Kochanska, G., K.C. Coy and K.T. Murray (2001) “The development of self-regulation in the first four years of life” Child Development, 72(4):1091–1111.

Laible, D.J. and R.A. Thompson (2000) “Mother–child discourse, attachment security, shared positive” Child Development, 71(5):1424–1440.

Lansford, J.E., K.A. Dodge, P.S. Malone, D. Bacchini, A. Zelli, N. Chaudhary, B. Manke, L. Change, P. Oburu, K. Palmerus, C. Pastorelli, A. Bombi, S. Tapanya, K. Deater-Deckard and N. Quinn (2005) “Physical discipline and children’s adjustment: Cultural normativeness as a moderator” Child Development, 76(6):1234–1246.

Larzelere, R.E. (2000) “Child outcomes of nonabusive and customary physical punishment by parents: An updated literature review” Clinical Child & Family Psychology Review, 3(4):199–221.

Larzelere, R.E. and B.R. Kuhn (2005) “Comparing child outcomes of physical punishment and alternative disciplinary tactics: A meta-analysis” Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 8(1):135–148.

Marshall, K. (2005) “Chapter 4: Cultural issues” in A.B. Smith (in press) Effective Discipline and Supporting Change, and in A.B. Smith, M. Gollop, N. Taylor and K. Marshall (eds.) The Discipline and Guidance of Children: Messages from Research: A Review of Research Literature for the Office of the Children’s Commissioner by the Children’s Issues Centre, Children’s Issues Centre and Office of the Children’s Commissioner, Dunedin and Wellington (pp.53–78).

Russell, M. (1996) The Discipline of Children: Alternatives to Smacking, Master’s Thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington.

Schaffer, H.R. (1992) “Joint involvement episodes as context for development” in H. McGurk (ed.) Childhood Social Development: Contemporary Perspectives, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hove (pp.99–129).

Shumow, L., D.L. Vandell and J.K. Posner (1998) “Harsh, firm, and permissive parenting in low-income families: Relations to children’s academic achievement and behavioral adjustment” Journal of Family Issues, 19(5):483–507.

Simons, R.L., C.I. Wu, K.H. Lin, L. Gordon and R.D. Conger (2000) “A cross-cultural examination of the link between corporal punishment and adolescent antisocial behavior” Criminology, 38(1):47–79.

Smith, A.B., M. Gollop, N.J. Taylor and K. Marshall (2004) The Discipline and Guidance of Children: A Summary of Research, Children’s Issues Centre and Office of the Children’s Commissioner, Dunedin and Wellington.

Smith, A.B. (2005) “The effects of physical punishment” in A.B. Smith (in press) Effective Discipline and Supporting Change, and in A.B. Smith, M. Gollop, N. Taylor and K. Marshall (eds.) The Discipline and Guidance of Children: Messages from Research: A Review of Research Literature for the Office of the Children’s Commissioner by the Children’s Issues Centre, Children’s Issues Centre and Office of the Children’s Commissioner, Dunedin and Wellington (pp.7–16).

Smith, A.B., M. Gollop, N.J. Taylor and K. Marshall (2005) The Discipline and Guidance of Children: Messages from Research , Children’s Issues Centre and Office of the Children’s Commissioner, Dunedin and Wellington.

Smith, J.R., and J. Brooks-Gunn (1997) “Correlates and consequences of harsh discipline for young children” Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 151(8):777–786.

Solomon, C.R. and F. Serres (1999) “Effects of parental verbal aggression on children’s self-esteem and school marks” Child Abuse & Neglect , 23(4):339–351.

Straus, M.A. (1999) “Is it time to ban corporal punishment of children?” Canadian Medical Association Journal, 161(7):821–822.

Straus, M.A. (2001) “New evidence for the benefits of never smacking” Society, 83(6):52–60.

Straus, M. and M.J. Paschall (2003) Corporal Punishment by Mothers and Child’s Cognitive Development: A Longitudinal Study. [accessed 4/9/2003 ]

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

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge , Massachusetts.

Wissow, L.S. (2002) “Child discipline in the first three years of life” in N. Halfon, K.T. McLearn and M.A. Schuster (eds.) Child Rearing in America: Challenges Facing Parents with Young Children, Cambridge University Press, New York (pp.146–177).

1 Acknowledgements This paper is based on a keynote address delivered to the 10th Australasian Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect (ACCAN), Blossoming Our Children, Wellington, 14–16 February, 2006.

2 Research findings are in my view only one argument for change. Moral and ethical arguments are equally important.

3 SKIP involves work with community groups to provide resources and training for parents and caregivers of children up to five years old.

Social Policy Journal of New Zealand: Issue 27

What we can do for

• Individuals
• Young adults
• Disabled people

About us and our work

• Publications and resources
• Other MSD websites
• Privacy, copyright and disclaimer
• Accessibility
• About this site

Physical discipline is harmful and ineffective

A new APA resolution cites evidence that physical punishment can cause lasting harm for children

By Eve Glicksman

May 2019, Vol 50, No. 5

Print version: page 22

• Physical Abuse and Violence

APA adopted a new policy about the ineffectiveness and dangers of physical discipline against children to raise awareness among parents, caregivers and mental health professionals.

The Resolution on Physical Discipline of Children By Parents , adopted by APA’s Council of Representatives in February, relies on strong and sophisticated longitudinal research that finds physical discipline does not improve behavior and can lead to emotional, behavioral and academic problems over time, even after race, gender and family socioeconomic status have been statistically controlled.

To start, the research finds that hitting children does not teach them about responsibility, conscience development and self-control. "Hitting children does not teach them right from wrong," says Elizabeth Gershoff, PhD, an expert on the effects of corporal punishment on children who provided research for the resolution. "Spanking gets their attention, but they have not internalized why they should do the right thing in the future. They may behave when the adult is there but do whatever they want at other times."

In addition, children learn from watching their parents. Parents who use physical discipline may be teaching their child to resolve conflicts with physical aggression. Researchers found that spanking can elevate a child’s aggression levels as well as diminish the quality of the parent-child relationship. Other studies have documented that physical discipline can escalate into abuse.

The purpose of this resolution is to promote effective forms of discipline for parents that don’t contribute to antisocial behaviors, aggression and trust issues. "Children do not need pain to learn," says Gershoff, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin, "We don’t allow aggression among adults. It’s a sad double standard that we don’t give children the same protection against violence."

Better discipline models

Upward of 80 percent of mothers spank their children between kindergarten and third grade, according to a large study conducted by Gershoff ( Child Development , May/June 2012).

Most parents raise children the way they were raised and have not been exposed to other models of discipline, says APA President Rosie Phillips Davis, PhD. "I don’t think most people know how to discipline without spanking. We don’t teach people to do it differently; alternatives seem time-consuming," she says.

The APA resolution presents effective alternatives that draw broadly on respectful communication, collaborative conflict resolution and parental modeling. Specifically, these approaches could include conveying anxiety about a dangerous action, taking away privileges or using praise to shape behavior.

Sometimes, simply ignoring the behavior and not engaging in a fight is the best tactic, says Christina Rodriguez, PhD, an associate professor at The University of Alabama at Birmingham and chair of the APA Committee on Children, Youth and Families, who led the resolution effort. "Parents need to learn what they should or shouldn’t respond to."

Parents of 3- to 5- year-olds are the most likely to spank. So, what about a preschooler who can’t be reasoned with? Rodriguez advises parents to think strategically and plan ahead. If your child is prone to act out while you get groceries, bring snacks and toys to redirect the child or choose a time to shop when the child isn’t sleepy, she suggests.

Calling a time-out for certain behaviors can be effective but it is often misused as a stand-alone strategy, Gershoff observes. "Looking at a wall for five minutes won’t teach a child how to behave."

Rather, parents need to give children guidance about what to do differently, what is known as "time out from positive reinforcement (TOPR)." This technique makes time-out an opportunity to regroup and think about how to do better next time.

A new study in American Psychologist offers guidelines in using TOPR to maximize the development of the child’s self-regulation skills while avoiding any weakening of the parent-child attachment bond from the time out ( American Psychologist , Feb. 25, 2019).

Give parents the facts

The APA resolution is clear that any perceived short-term benefits from physical discipline do not outweigh the potential detriments. By adopting the resolution, APA joins a number of professional and public health organizations in recommending that parents reject all physical discipline. The resolution also directs APA to support funding for research in the United States and other countries related to why parents turn to physical discipline.

Davis wants to see more training programs on parental discipline for psychologists. Currently, more than 75 APA members are collaborating to create a toolkit to facilitate conversations in the community about disciplining children. Multiple modules are being developed for parents, colleges, civic organizations and places of worship that will include frequently asked questions. APA also offers the ACT Raising Safe Kids Program to teach positive parenting skills.

Rodriguez hopes the resolution will prompt psychologists to guide parents toward healthier discipline practices than were used in the past. Now that we know the risks of not wearing seatbelts, most parents make sure children buckle up, she comments. "Why is it not the same for rejecting physical discipline when the risks are known?"

Some psychologists feel that it’s not their place to tell parents how to discipline their children, Rodriguez says. "But it is long past opinion that physical discipline makes things worse," she says. "It is incumbent on psychologists to take the opportunity to discuss the facts and share what we know. If mental health professionals don’t take this on, then who?"

To read the full APA resolution on child punishment, go to www.apa.org/about/policy/physical-discipline.pdf .

Recommended Reading

Letters to the Editor

• Send us a letter

Psychology: Research and Review

• Open access
• Published: 03 July 2018

Physical punishment of children by US parents: moving beyond debate to promote children’s health and well-being

• Cindy Miller-Perrin 1 &
• Robin Perrin 1  

Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica volume  31 , Article number:  16 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

42k Accesses

11 Citations

14 Altmetric

Metrics details

Physical punishment remains a common practice in the USA despite significant empirical evidence of its potential harm and ineffectiveness, arguments that its use violates children’s human rights, and professional recommendations against its use. The purpose of the current paper is to offer explanations as to why, in the face of a worldwide movement to protect children from violence, the USA continues to support physical punishment of children. The paper also summarizes the various debates engaged in by experts that stem from these explanations for physical punishment and argue that the time has come to move beyond these debates and eliminate the physical punishment of children. We offer suggestions for changing attitudes and practices related to physical punishment of children in order to promote their health and well-being. We conclude by suggesting that the burden of proof in debates about physical punishment, which has typically fallen upon those who argue children should never be physically punished, should shift to those who continue to promote its use despite evidence of its harm and ineffectiveness.

Introduction

The physical punishment of children, defined as “any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort” (United Nations, Committee on the Rights of the Child [UNCRC], 2007 , p. 4) is a worldwide issue that has attracted considerable attention in recent years. Attitudes and practices regarding physical punishment and its most common form, spanking with an open hand, have dramatically changed around the world. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, which was adopted in 1989, states in Article 19 that member nations should “take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence.” The Committee stressed that all physical punishment of children, including that in homes, should be eliminated through “legislative, administrative, social and educational measures” (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2006 , para. 18). Currently, 196 countries are party to the treaty, including every member of the United Nations except the USA. Parental use of physical punishment has also been banned in more than 50 countries to date (Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, 2017 ). These trends suggest a decrease in attitudes and practices supportive of physical punishment of children and are no doubt due to a number of factors, including empirical research questioning its use, as well as international legislation suggesting that physical punishment violates the human rights of children (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016 ; UNCRC, 2007 ).

This worldwide movement to end the physical punishment of children should not lead us to conclude, however, that the problem is solved. In many of the 196 nations who are party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, physical punishment of children remains common (Lansford et al., 2017 ). For example, in South Korea, which ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991, physical punishment of children remains common. A national study on the prevalence rate of violence toward children led the researchers to conclude, “Korean society needs to lower significantly its tolerance level for all forms of violence,” and to “raise awareness regarding the ineffectiveness and damaging effects of corporal punishment” (Ahn et al., 2017 ). In the USA, physical punishment, while declining (see Straus, Douglas, & Medeiros, 2014 ), also continues to be viewed largely positively and is commonly practiced.

The purpose of the current paper is to offer explanations as to why, in the face of worldwide movement to protect children from violence, physical punishment against children remains normative in much of the world. We focus on the USA because the use of physical punishment by parents is very common in the USA, but many of the issues we highlight are relevant to other countries. We also summarize the various debates about physical punishment and argue that the time has come to move beyond these debates to eliminate the physical punishment of children. We offer suggestions for changing attitudes and practices related to physical punishment of children in order to promote their health and well-being. Finally, we conclude by suggesting that the burden of proof in debates about physical punishment, which has typically fallen upon those who argue children should never be physically punished, should shift to those who continue to promote its use despite evidence of its harm and ineffectiveness.

Support for physical punishment in the USA

Although US federal law does not provide a definition of physical punishment, its legality is typically stated in the form of a provision that gives parents immunity from prosecution for child physical abuse if the actions are deemed to represent “reasonable force” when used for the purposes of correction and control (Straus, 2010 ). Unreasonable force, or child physical abuse, is defined by actions that result in “serious physical or emotional harm” (Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Reauthorization Act, 2010 ). In all 50 states, physical punishment by parents—that is, acts that may cause physical pain but that do not cause harm or injury—is legal.

Attitudinal and behavioral surveys of the US population generally support the legal status of physical punishment. Three fourths of adults agree or strongly agree with the statement, “It is sometimes necessary to discipline a child with a good, hard spanking” (Smith, Hout, Marsden, & Kim, 2015 ), and behavior surveys estimate that 80% of parents have spanked their child at some point during childrearing (Gershoff, Lansford, Sexton, Davis-Kean, & Sameroff, 2012 ).

Explaining support for physical punishment in the USA

Some argue that the fundamental parental right to control the upbringing of their own child is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment (Pagliocca, Melton, Lyons Jr, & Weisz, 2002 ). While this interpretation is a subject of considerable legal debate (Shulman, 2014 ), the fact remains that the dual concepts of “parental freedom” and “parental rights” are strongly embedded in the US culture (Lane, 1998 ). Parental rights and freedoms, furthermore, continue to be upheld by US courts and judges, even under conditions involving harsh physical punishment (Moya-Smith, 2013 ; Schworm, 2015 ). For example, in a 2013 California case, in which a mother who hit her daughter five or six times with a wooden spoon, resulting in bruises, the judge on the case concluded that the local department of social services violated the mother’s right to impose reasonable discipline upon her child (Moya-Smith, 2013 ).

The high rate of adherence to Christianity in the USA, especially compared to Europe, also contributes to high rates of support for corporal punishment. Conservative Protestants, in particular, are likely to believe that parents have a right and a responsibility to impose physical discipline. Several Old Testament passages, primarily from the book of Proverbs, have often been interpreted by Conservative Christians to mean that a parent who spares the rod, spoils the child (Ellison & Sherkat, 1993 ; Perrin, Miller-Perrin, & Song, 2017 ).

The view that physical punishment is harmless is also reflected, to some degree, in the attitudes of professionals. In a survey of medical center staff conducted by Gershoff et al. ( 2016 ), less than half of medical center staff agreed that spanking is harmful to children. In a recent survey of psychologists, approximately one-third were either unsure or disagreed that spanking is harmful to children (Miller-Perrin C. & Rush, R: Attitudes, knowledge, practices, and ethical beliefs of psychologists related to spanking: A survey of American Psychological Association division members, submitted).

A final reason that cultural beliefs persist is reflected in parental attitudes and behaviors toward child discipline. Most people are spanked in the USA, and parents tend to parent the way they were parented (Graziano & Namaste, 1990 ). In addition, some believe that because they were spanked and “turned out ok,” physical discipline is effective and harmless (Kish & Newcombe, 2015 ). Others believe that children who are spanked are disciplined and respect authority, while those who are not are uncontrolled and disrespectful (Benjet & Kazdin, 2003 ). Finally, many US adults equate discipline with physical punishment, as if spanking were the only way to discipline a child (Knox, 2010 ).

Hitting is rarely viewed as a violent act

Some object to the term “hitting,” when describing the physical punishment of children arguing that it is biased, or too harsh, or has an overly negative connotation. However, as Straus ( 2010 ) notes, the word “hit” is no more inherently biased or harsh than any other label that might be used to describe “spanking” (e.g., “swat,” “paddle,” “whack,” “beat,” “whip”). Most US child advocates, as well as those in other countries, actually expand the term “hitting” one step further, arguing that hitting is a form of violent behavior. Violence is “an act carried out with the intention of, or an act perceived as having the intention of, physically hurting another person” (Steinmetz, 1987 ). Physical punishment, including spanking, is, by definition, a violent act. It is intended to hurt—cause pain—to a child. Physical punishment of children may be “subabusive violence” (Graziano & Namaste, 1990 ), it may be “acceptable violence,” but it is still a form of violence, no matter what we call it.

In the USA, it is not socially acceptable for a husband to hit his wife, or for a wife to hit her husband. Children on a playground are not allowed to hit. Even dogs, many would argue, should never be hit. Children, however, are the only members in US society for whom hitting is deemed acceptable. One reason why hitting children might be deemed permissible could be the reluctance of adults to view physical punishment as a form of violence. As Bussmann and colleagues have noted, “parents are not aware of the contradiction between their attitude toward nonviolent childrearing and their own use of corporal punishment, simply because they do not define what they do as violence” (Bussmann, Erthal, & Schroth, 2011 ).

Moving beyond debates about physical punishment of children

Debates about parental use of physical punishment have been ongoing in the USA for decades. Calls to “move beyond” the research, or to “end the debate,” have become commonplace (e.g., Durrant & Ensom, 2017 ; MacMillan & Mikton, 2017 ). Three questions, it seems, sit at the center of these debates. Is physical punishment of children a Human Rights Issue? Is physical punishment effective? Is physical punishment harmful?

Physical punishment is a human rights issue

A growing number of international bodies have declared that physical punishment is a violation of a child’s human rights, including six multilateral human rights documents and treaties (Bitensky, 2006 ; Gershoff & Bitensky, 2007 ). Most significantly, as discussed above, the United Nations, as articulated in its Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 ), states that physical punishment is a form of “legalized violence against children” (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2006 , para. 18) that is prohibited by Article 19 of the CRC’s prohibition on “all forms of physical or mental violence” (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 , Article 19, para. 1).

The USA signed the treaty in 1995 but has never ratified it. This means, essentially, that the USA has endorsed the general principles outlined in the treaty but is unwilling to be legally bound by the treaty’s mandates. This unwillingness to ratify illustrates the continuing tensions between those who affirm and promote “children’s rights” and those who affirm and promote “parental rights.” Criticism of the treaty has come, in large part, from the political and religious right, which has expressed concerns that the treaty would infringe on the rights of parents (Ruck, Keating, Saewyc, Earls, & Ben-Arieh, 2016 ).

It is important to note, however, that physical punishment of children is not permitted in most US settings outside the home. It is typically not permitted in child care settings, schools, residential treatment facilities, or juvenile detention facilities (Bitensky, 2006 ). While much has been made of the fact that physical punishment is allowed in schools in some states, it is important to note that it is illegal in 31 states (Gershoff & Font, 2016 ). As a society, we appear uneasy about the value of physical punishment of children by individuals who do not hold the role of parent, yet we defer to the parent’s “right” to use physical discipline in the home. The United Nations Secretary General’s Study on Violence Against Children has called for explicit prohibition of physical punishment and other forms of “cruel or degrading punishment” in all settings, including the home (United Nations, 2006 ). Furthermore, the study report stated that “No violence against children is justifiable; all violence against children is preventable. The study marks the end of adults’ justification of violence against children, whether accepted as tradition or disguised as discipline” (United Nations, 2006 , p. 17).

If, in the USA, we hope to end the debate on whether physical punishment of children is a human rights violation, the continuing ambiguity with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child must be reconciled. Because ratification of a treaty in the USA requires a two-thirds majority in Congress, it is difficult to imagine ratification any time soon. However, we can still reconcile our continuing ambiguity by acknowledging a fundamental truth: there is no such thing as a “parental right.” Humans—which includes both parents and children—have rights. And all human beings, including children, have a right not to be hit.

Physical punishment is ineffective and harmful

Decades of research has yielded more than 500 studies examining the impact of physical punishment on children (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016 ). Within the past 15 years, several meta-analyses have attempted to synthesize this body of research. In a highly publicized meta-analysis, Gershoff ( 2002 ) concluded that physical punishment is not only ineffective, but also harmful. Larzelere and Kuhn then conducted a meta-analysis in 2005 and concluded that physical punishment may be effective if used conditionally, such as an open-handed swat on the buttocks with 2- to 6-year-olds when other forms of discipline have been unsuccessful (Larzelere & Kuhn, 2005 ). Ferguson ( 2013 ), who also conducted a meta-analysis on the long-term impact of physical punishment, concluded that the negative effects, while statistically significant, are “trivial to small.” Researchers, he argues, “should take greater care not to exaggerate the magnitude and conclusiveness of the negative consequences.” Exaggerations “might easily backfire, decreasing the credibility of scholarly statements on parenting research overall” (Ferguson, 2013 , p. 204).In a definitive meta-analysis examining 50 years of research on outcomes associated with spanking, Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor ( 2016 ) attempted to address two issues about the quality and interpretation of the spanking research, in particular. The first issue has to do with the potential confound between potentially abusive physical punishment and spanking. The second issue has to do with the assertion that physical punishment, including spanking, has only been linked to harmful outcomes in methodologically weak studies. Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor analyzed 75 studies in the context of these two questions and found no evidence that nonabusive spanking is more effective than other disciplinary techniques at securing children’s immediate or long-term compliance. Indeed, they found that spanking was associated with increased risk of 13 harmful outcomes. Spanking and hitting children was a risk factor for adverse effects on such important outcomes as children’s aggressive behavior, mental health, and relationships with parents. Of all of the outcomes studied, physical abuse victimization was linked most strongly with spanking. Additionally, these researchers found no evidence that spanking is only associated with harmful outcomes in methodologically weak studies. Although not every incidence of spanking results in negative outcomes, the preponderance of evidence clearly suggests that it is ineffective and a risk factor for negative developmental outcomes.

Critics of this research argue, not unreasonably, that almost all of the research on harm and ineffectiveness is non-experimental, making causal connections difficult to establish. This research, they argue, cannot prove a causal link between spanking and harm. However, as defenders of the research remind us, much of the correlational evidence comes from studies that are statistically rigorous and use multi-variate models that attempt to control for extraneous variables. These studies have consistently documented that physical punishment increases the risk that children will experience harm or develop behavior problems, suggesting a causal pathway from parental physical punishment to negative developmental outcomes (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016 ; Gershoff, Sattler, & Ansari, 2017 ). Plus, defenders of the research argue it is neither feasible nor ethical, to randomly assign parents and children into experimental and control groups. As a result, pure experimental evidence on this issue will never be available. It is important to note that any number of public health and safety policy issues rest not on experimental but rather correlational evidence (e.g., see American Psychological Association, 2018 ).

Professional best practice standards suggest no physical punishment of children

In large part, the underlying cultural support for spanking and debates over the empirical evidence have undermined advocacy efforts to end physical punishment of children. As a result, advocacy and policy organizations have sometimes been reluctant to condemn, or even recommend against, spanking. For example, despite the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Code of Ethics, which obligates psychologists to “do no harm,” to safeguard vulnerable populations, and to protect individuals’ human rights (American Psychological Association, 2010 ), the organization has resisted the approval of a resolution opposing the use of physical punishment of children by parents. This is true despite the fact that the APA passed a resolution in 1975 opposing physical punishment in schools and other institutions based on far less empirical evidence than is currently available.

Of course, given the overwhelming cultural acceptance of physical punishment in the USA, such resistance on the part of professional organizations is in many ways predictable. As Straus ( 2010 ) notes, it took several years of bitter debate before the American Academy of Pediatrics was able to adopt a policy advising parents not to use physical punishment. According to Straus, the publication of this document required a compromise in wording to exclude hitting a child with an open hand, and the document carefully avoids suggesting that parents should never spank (American Academy of Pediatrics, 1998 ).

Professional attitudes, however, are changing rapidly. A survey of psychologists conducted 40 years ago found that the majority (51%) of those who worked with parents recommended spanking as a discipline technique (Anderson & Anderson, 1976 ). In contrast, 65% of a sample of APA members in 1990 reported that they had never recommended that parents spank their children (Rae & Worchel, 1991 ). By 2000, 70% of a sample of psychologists stated that they would never recommend that a parent spank a child (Schenck, Lyman, & Bodin, 2000 ). In a survey published in 2016, 86% of practicing psychologists indicated that they “never” advise a parent to spank a child with a hand (Miller-Perrin C. & Rush, R: Attitudes, knowledge, practices, and ethical beliefs of psychologists related to spanking: A survey of American Psychological Association division members, submitted).

Other recent surveys suggest that the majority of mental health professionals, as well as other professionals such as physicians and child welfare personnel, do not support the use of physical punishment. In one study, three-fourths of professionals believed that spanking is a “bad disciplinary technique” (Taylor, Fleckman, & Lee, 2017 ). In Gershoff et al.’s ( 2016 ) study of medical center staff, only about 15% agreed that “sometimes the only way to get a child to behave is with a spank.” Similarly, Miller-Perrin and Rush (Miller-Perrin C. & Rush, R: Attitudes, knowledge, practices, and ethical beliefs of psychologists related to spanking: A survey of American Psychological Association division members, submitted) found that only 15% of psychologists agreed that “sometimes the only way to get a child to behave is with a spank.” Furthermore, when this group of psychologists was asked whether spanking is a more appropriate part of parenting for some groups than others, such as some ethnic and religious groups, only 32% and 26%, respectively, agreed or strongly agreed. Many professionals are also changing their views about whether spanking represents an important ethical issue. In a survey of psychologists conducted in 2000, just one third of psychologists believed it was unethical to recommend that a parent use spanking. By 2016, that number had risen to 76% (Miller-Perrin C. & Rush, R: Attitudes, knowledge, practices, and ethical beliefs of psychologists related to spanking: A survey of American Psychological Association division members, submitted). According to these studies, a majority of professionals who work with children believe that spanking should be avoided.

The tide of professional opinion has clearly shifted. Many US professional organizations dedicated to the welfare of children and families have issued statements in recent years recommending that parents refrain from using physical punishment with their children. These organizations include the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry ( 2012 ), the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners ( 2011 ), and the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children ( 2016 ), among others. The American Psychological Association may be next. Approximately 60% of APA division members believe that the APA should adopt both a policy opposing any use of spanking or physical punishment by parents/caregivers and a policy stating that its member should never recommend spanking or physical punishment (Miller-Perrin C. & Rush, R: Attitudes, knowledge, practices, and ethical beliefs of psychologists related to spanking: A survey of American Psychological Association division members, submitted). This represents a significant shift in opinion from 2000 when approximately one-third of psychologists thought that APA should adopt such policies.

Over the last 50 years, the physical punishment of children has attracted considerable empirical attention from social scientists. This research suggests, overwhelmingly, that spanking does more harm than good (see Ferguson, 2013 ; Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016 ; Gershoff, Sattler, & Ansari, 2017 ; Gromoske & Maguire-Jack, 2012 ). Physical punishment has also been acknowledged internationally as a violation of human rights (United Nations, 2015 ). In addition, many professional health organizations have called on parents to abandon physical punishment as a child disciplinary practice (e.g., American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 2012 ; American Academy of Pediatrics, 1998 ). Professional experts who work with children and families also overwhelmingly believe that spanking is a bad disciplinary technique, is harmful to children, is unethical to recommend to a parent, and would never advise parents to spank their child (Miller-Perrin C. & Rush, R: Attitudes, knowledge, practices, and ethical beliefs of psychologists related to spanking: A survey of American Psychological Association division members, submitted).

The time has come to move beyond contentious debates. The verdict is in: physical punishment does more harm than good and parents and professionals should act according to that which promotes children’s rights to health and well-being. The way forward will necessarily involve a number of approaches.

First, US culture can no longer hide behind euphemisms for violence. Physical punishment is hitting children and a form of violence against them.

Second, parents should be educated about the empirical research on hitting children and the merits and techniques of non-violent parenting. Several promising intervention strategies to reduce parents’ use of physical punishment have been evaluated and shown to be effective (Gershoff, Lee, & Durrant, 2017 ). One such program is ACT, created by the American Psychological Association ( www.apa.org/act/ ). The ACT program, which teaches parents and caregivers positive and non-violent parenting, has met with considerable success with research indicating that parents who participate in such programs report using physical punishment significantly less often (e.g., spanking and hitting with an object) and increasing their use of positive parenting practices (e.g., nurturing behavior) compared to parents in control groups (Knox, Burkhart, & Cromly, 2013 ; Knox, Burkhart, & Howe, 2011 ; Portwood, Lambert, Abrams, & Nelson, 2011 ).

Third, professionals need to be educated about the physical punishment research on outcomes and how to talk with parents about never using physical punishment. Professionals that should be targeted include all those who work with children and families such as health care providers, psychologists, child welfare professionals, teachers, child care providers, and religious leaders. Educating professionals on the physical punishment research has been shown to reduce positive attitudes toward it (Hornor et al., 2015 ) and increase the likelihood that medical staff would intervene if they observed physical punishment (Gershoff & Font, 2016 ).

Fourth, public health campaigns could be helpful in educating the general public about physical punishment, including media campaigns similar to those used to help prevent child abuse (public service announcements, billboard campaigns, etc.). Evidence suggests that such media campaigns can be effective at increasing awareness about the harm associated with physical punishment (Bussmann et al., 2011 ).

Fifth, increased advocacy for laws against spanking is needed. Research in countries like Sweden, which in 1979 criminalized spanking, suggests that criminalization led to large reductions in the use of physical punishment, especially severe physical punishment (Durrant, 2000 ; Durrant, Rose-Krasnor, & Broberg, 2003 ). Zolotor and Puzia ( 2010 ) studied 24 countries that have passed legislative bans and likewise concluded that both general support of physical punishment and actual use of physical punishment declined following the enactment of the ban. Such bans are effective in and of themselves in decreasing physical punishment but may be enhanced by campaigns to promote their awareness and to educate parents about alternative forms of discipline (Lansford et al., 2017 ).

Sixth, we must acknowledge the important role of unique cultural beliefs—such as religious beliefs—that create and maintain positive attitudes toward physical punishment of children. Interventions that are sensitive and respectful toward parents’ cultural views and values while attempting to change attitudes can be effective (Miller-Perrin & Perrin, 2017 ; Perrin et al., 2017 ).

Finally, researchers should continue to design studies that make causal assertions more reasonable (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016 ; MacMillan & Mikton, 2017 ). In addition, although the burden of proof in debates about physical punishment has typically fallen upon those who argue children should never be physically punished, perhaps it is time for a shift in perspective. Advocates opposed to physical punishment of children have been asked, essentially, to provide empirical evidence that spanking does more harm than good. Perhaps, it is time to place the burden of proof on the defenders of physical punishment and ask the defenders of physical punishment to provide empirical support that spanking does more good than harm.

Ahn, J., Lee, B. J., Kahng, S. K., Kim, H. L., Hwang, O. K., Lee, E. J., … Yoo, Y. S. (2017). Estimating the prevalence rate of child physical and psychological maltreatment in South Korea. Child Indicators Research , 10 (1), 187–203.

Article   Google Scholar  

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. (2012). Policy statement on corporal punishment. Retrieved from: https://www.aacap.org/aacap/policy_statements/2012/Policy_Statement_on_Corporal_Punishment.aspx

American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health (1998). Guidance for effective discipline. Pediatrics , 101 (2, Pt. 1), 723–728.

American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children. (2016). APSAC Position Statement on Corporal Punishment of Children. Retrieved from: https://www.apsac.org/

American Psychological Association (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Author. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/principles.pdf .

Google Scholar  

American Psychological Association. (2018). Resolution on Male Violence Against Women. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/about/policy/male-violence.aspx

Anderson, K. A., & Anderson, D. E. (1976). Psychologists and spanking. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology , 70 , 46–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374417609532712 .

Benjet, C., & Kazdin, A. E. (2003). Spanking children: The controversies, findings, and new directions. Clinical Psychology Review , 23 (2), 197–224.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bitensky, S. H. (2006). Corporal punishment of children: A human rights violation . Ardsley: Transnational Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9781571053657.i-398 .

Book   Google Scholar  

Bussmann, K. D., Erthal, C., & Schroth, A. (2011. Effects of banning corporal punishment in Europe—a five-nation comparison. JE Durrant, Smith, Anne (Hg.): Global Pathways to Abolishing Physical Punishment, 299–322.

Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Reauthorization Act. (2010). Public Law 111–320, 42 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 5116 et seq.

Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2006). General Comment No. 8 (2006): The right of the child to protection from corporal punishment and or cruel or degrading forms of punishment (articles 1, 28(2), and 37, inter alia) (CRC/C/GC/8). Geneva: United Nations.

Durrant, J. E. (2000). Trends in youth crime and well-being since the abolition of corporal punishment in Sweden. Youth Society , 31 (4), 437–455.

Durrant, J. E., & Ensom, R. (2017). Twenty-five years of physical punishment research: what have we learned? Journal of the Korean Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry , 28 (1), 20–24.

Durrant, J. E., Rose-Krasnor, L., & Broberg, A. G. (2003). Physical punishment and maternal beliefs in Sweden and Canada. Journal of Comparative Family Studies , 34 , 585–604.

Ellison, C. G., & Sherkat, D. E. (1993). Conservative Protestantism and support for corporal punishment. American Sociological Review , 58 (1), 131–144.

Ferguson, C. J. (2013). Spanking, corporal punishment and negative long-term outcomes: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Clinical Psychology Review , 33 , 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.11.002 .

Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin , 128 , 539–579. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.539 .

Gershoff, E. T., & Bitensky, S. H. (2007). The case against corporal punishment of children: Converging evidence from social science research and international human rights law and implications for U.S. public policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law , 13 , 231–272. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.13.4.231 .

Gershoff, E. T., & Font, S. A. (2016). Corporal punishment in U.S. public schools: Prevalence, disparities in use, and status in state and federal policy. SRCD Social Policy Report , 30 (1), 1–25.

Gershoff, E. T., Font, S. A., Taylor, C. A., Foster, R. H., Garza, A. B., Olson-Dorff, D., … Spector, L. (2016). Medical center staff attitudes about spanking. Child Abuse & Neglect , 61 , 55–62.

Gershoff, E. T., & Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2016). Corporal punishment by parents and its consequences for children: Old controversies and new meta-analyses. Journal of Family Psychology , 30 , 453–469. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000191 .

Gershoff, E. T., Lansford, J. E., Sexton, H. R., Davis-Kean, P., & Sameroff, A. J. (2012). Longitudinal links between spanking and children’s externalizing behaviors in a national sample of White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian American families. Child Development , 83 (3), 838–843.

Gershoff, E. T., Lee, S. J., & Durrant, J. E. (2017). Promising intervention strategies to reduce parents’ use of physical punishment. Child Abuse & Neglect , 71 , 9–23.

Gershoff, E. T., Sattler, K. M., & Ansari, A. (2017). Strengthening causal estimates for links between spanking and children’s externalizing behavior problems. Psychological Science . https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617729816 .

Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children. (2017). States which have prohibited all corporal punishment. Retrieved from https://endcorporalpunishment.org/

Graziano, A. M., & Namaste, K. A. (1990). Parental use of physical force in child discipline: A survey of 679 college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 5 (4), 449–463.

Gromoske, A. N., & Maguire-Jack, K. (2012). Transactional and cascading relations between early spanking and children’s social-emotional development. Journal of Marriage and Family , 74 (5), 1054–1068.

Hornor, G., Bretl, D., Chapman, E., Chiocca, E., Donnell, C., Doughty, K., … Quinones, S. G. (2015). Corporal punishment: Evaluation of an intervention by PNPs. Journal of Pediatric Health Care , 29 , 526–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedhc.2015.04.016 .

Kish, A. M., & Newcombe, P. A. (2015). “Smacking never hurt me!”: Identifying myths surrounding the use of corporal punishment. Personality and Individual Differences , 87 , 121–129.

Knox, M. (2010). On hitting children: A review of corporal punishment in the United States. Journal of Pediatric Health Care , 24 (2), 103–107.

Knox, M., Burkhart, K., & Cromly, A. (2013). Supporting positive parenting in community health centers: The ACT Raising Safe Kids Program. Journal of Community Psychology , 41 , 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21543 .

Knox, M., Burkhart, K., & Howe, T. (2011). Effects of the ACT Raising Safe Kids parenting program on children’s externalizing problems. Family Relations , 60 , 491–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00662.x .

Lane, L. L. (1998). The parental rights movement. University of Colorado Law Review , 69 , 825–849.

Lansford, J. E., Cappa, C., Putnick, D. L., Bornstein, M. H., Deater-Deckard, K., & Bradley, R. H. (2017). Change over time in parents’ beliefs about and reported use of corporal punishment in eight countries with and without legal bans. Child Abuse & Neglect , 71 , 44–55.

Larzelere, R. E., & Kuhn, B. R. (2005). Comparing child outcomes of physical punishment and alternative disciplinary tactics: A meta-analysis. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review , 8 , 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-005-2340-z .

MacMillan, H. L., & Mikton, C. R. (2017). Moving research beyond the spanking debate. Child Abuse & Neglect , 71 , 5–8.

Miller-Perrin, C., & Perrin, R. (2017). Changing attitudes about spanking among conservative Christians using interventions that focus on empirical research evidence and alternative biblical interpretations. Child Abuse & Neglect , 71 , 69–79.

Moya-Smith, S. (2013). Court: mom who spanked daughter with wooden spoon should not have been labeled child abuser. Retrieved from: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/court-mom-who-spanked-daughter-wooden-spoon-should-not-have-flna8C11367179

National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners (2011). NAPNAP position statement on corporal punishment. Journal of Pediatric Health Care , 25 , e31–e32 Retrieved from: https://www.jpedhc.org/article/S0891-5245(06)00410-X/fulltext?code=ymph-site .

Pagliocca, P. M., Melton, G. B., Lyons Jr, P. M., & Weisz, V. (2002). Parenting and the law. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting volume 5 (pp. 463–485). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Perrin, R., Miller-Perrin, C., & Song, J. (2017). Changing attitudes about spanking using alternative biblical interpretations. International Journal of Behavioral Development , 41 (4), 1–9.

Portwood, S. G., Lambert, R. G., Abrams, L. P., & Nelson, E. B. (2011). An evaluation of the adults and children together (ACT) against violence parents raising safe kids program. Journal of Primary Prevention , 32 , 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-011-0249-5 .

Rae, W. A., & Worchel, F. F. (1991). Ethical beliefs and behaviors of pediatric psychologists: A survey. Journal of Pediatric Psychology , 16 , 727–745.

Ruck, M. D., Keating, D. P., Saewyc, E. M., Earls, F., & Ben-Arieh, A. (2016). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Its relevance for adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence , 26 (1), 16–29.

Schenck, E. R., Lyman, R. D., & Bodin, S. D. (2000). Ethical beliefs, attitudes, and professional practices of psychologists regarding parental use of corporal punishment: A survey. Children’s Services Social Policy Research and Practice , 3 , 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326918CS0301_2 .

Schworm, P. (2015). SJC affirms parental right to discipline their children. Retrieved from: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/06/25/mass-high-court-outlines-legal-rules-spanking/AA75Y9oVRkEBGWIXCoY2fO/story.html

Shulman, J. (2014). Does the Constitution protect a fundamental right to parent? Constitution Daily. Retrieved from: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/does-the-constitution-protect-a-fundamental-right-to-parent .

Smith, T. W., Hout, M., Marsden, P. V., & Kim, J. (2015). General Social Survey, 1972-2014. Storrs, CT: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut/Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributors]. https://www.gss.norc.org/ .

Steinmetz, S. K. (1987). Family violence: Past, present, and future. In M. B. Sussman, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family , (pp. 725–765). New York: Plenum Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Straus, M. A. (2010). Prevalence, societal causes, and trends in corporal punishment by parents in world perspective. Law and Contemporary Problems , 73 (2), 1–30.

Straus, M. A., Douglas, E. M., & Medeiros, R. A. (2014). The primordial violence: Spanking children, psychological development, violence, and crime . New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Taylor, C. A., Fleckman, J. M., & Lee, S. J. (2017). Attitudes, beliefs, and perceived norms about corporal punishment and related training needs among members of the “American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children”. Child Abuse & Neglect , 71 , 56–68.

United Nations (2006). World report on violence against children . Geneva: United Nations Publishing Services.

United Nations. (2015). UN lauds Somalia as country ratifies landmark children’s rights treaty. Retrieved from: https://news.un.org/en/story/2015/01/488692-un-lauds-somalia-country-ratifies-landmark-childrens-rights-treaty .

United Nations, Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC). (2007). CRC General Comment No. 8 (2006): The Right of the Child to Protection from Corporal Punishment and Other Cruel or Degrading forms of Punishment (U.N. CRC/C/GC/8). Retrieved from: https://www.refworld.org/docid/460bc7772.html

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. (1989). G. A. Res. 44/25, U. N. GAOR, 44th Sess., at 3, U. N. Doc. A/RES/44/25. Retrieved from: https://www.unicef.org/crc/

Zolotor, A. J., & Puzia, M. E. (2010). Bans against corporal punishment: A systematic review of the laws, changes in attitudes and behaviours. Child Abuse Review , 19 (4), 229–247.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Social Science Division, Pepperdine University, 24255 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA, 90263, USA

Cindy Miller-Perrin & Robin Perrin

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors are equally responsible for the content of this manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cindy Miller-Perrin .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Miller-Perrin, C., Perrin, R. Physical punishment of children by US parents: moving beyond debate to promote children’s health and well-being. Psicol. Refl. Crít. 31 , 16 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-018-0096-x

Download citation

Received : 09 January 2018

Accepted : 14 June 2018

Published : 03 July 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-018-0096-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Physical punishment
• Cultural norms
• Human rights

• Corpus ID: 149928103

The State of Research on the Effects of Physical Punishment

• Anne B. Smith
• Published 1 March 2006
• Social Policy Journal of New Zealand

33 Citations

Mediating role of coping and stress responses in relation to corporal punishment and peer aggression, understanding physical punishment as a method of disciplining children in libya : the perspectives of parents, children and professionals.

• Highly Influenced

The Social and Economic Impact of Corporal Punishment in South African Schools

"smacking never hurt me" identifying myths surrounding the use of corporal punishment, a place where it is not okay to hit children: the role of professionals, undesirable consequences of practicing corporal punishment to discipline misbehaving students in schools, family discipline incidents: an analysis of parental diaries, child domestic work, violence, and health outcomes: a rapid systematic review, pain with punishment and the negotiation of childhood: an ethnographic analysis of children's rights processes in maasailand, attachment theory: in search of a relationship between attachment security and preschool children's level of empathy, 34 references, a cross‐cultural examination of the link between corporal punishment and adolescent antisocial behavior*, nonabusive physical punishment and child behavior among african-american children: a systematic review., child outcomes of nonabusive and customary physical punishment by parents: an updated literature review, corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: a meta-analytic and theoretical review..

• Highly Influential

Ordinary physical punishment: is it harmful? Comment on Gershoff (2002).

The effect of corporal punishment on antisocial behavior in children, comparing child outcomes of physical punishment and alternative disciplinary tactics: a meta-analysis, effects of parental verbal aggression on children's self-esteem and school marks., parental discipline and externalizing behavior problems in early childhood: the roles of moral regulation and child gender, correlates and consequences of harsh discipline for young children., related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers