a favor da punição moderada

8/13/2019 a favor da punio moderada

1/23

Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, Vol. 3, No. 4, 2000

Child Outcomes of Nonabusive and Customary PhysicalPunishment by Parents: An Updated Literature Review

Robert E. Larzelere1

This article updates the only previous systematic literature review of child outcomes ofnonabusive and customary physical punishment by parents. The outcomes differ by methodo-logic, child, and subcultural factors as well as by how the physical punishment was used. Allsix studies that used clinical samples (including four randomized clinical studies) and allthree sequential-analysis studies found beneficial outcomes, such as reduced noncomplianceand fighting, primarily when nonabusive spanking was used to back up milder disciplinarytactics in 2- to 6-year olds. Five of eight longitudinal studies that controlled for initialchild misbehavior found predominantly detrimental outcomes of spanking. However, thosedetrimental outcomes were primarily due to overly frequent use of physical punishment.Furthermore, apparently detrimental outcomes have been found for every alternative disci-plinary tactic when investigated with similar analyses. Such detrimental associations of fre-quent use of any disciplinary tactic may be due to residual confounding from initial childmisbehavior. Specific findings suggest discriminations between effective and counterproduc-tive physical punishment with young children. More research is needed to clarify the roleof spanking and alternative disciplinary tactics in control system aspects of parental discipline.

KEY WORDS:physical punishment; parental discipline.

Few social scientific topics involve such sharpcontradictions as does parental spanking. Considerthe following examples:

About 94% of American 3- and 4-year olds havebeen spanked by a parent at least once duringthe past year (Straus & Stewart, 1999). Yet mostclinical child psychologists would never suggestparental spanking, and one-third consider sucha suggestion always unethical (Hyman, 1997;Schenck, Lyman, & Bodin, 2000).

Several countries have banned all parentalspanking, and others are considering such a ban.Yet if spanking were being evaluated as a psy-chological intervention, it would qualify as

1Psychology Department, MunroeMeyer Institute, University ofNebraska Medical Center, and Girls and Boys Town. Corre-

spondence concerning this article should be sent to Robert E.Larzelere, Psychology Department, MunroeMeyer Institute,685450 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE 68198-5450. Email:[email protected].

199

1096-4037/00/1200-0199$18.00/0 2000 Plenum Publishing Corporation

probably efficacious (Lonigan, Elbert, &Johnson, 1998).

Social scientists generally make sensitivity tocultural differences a top priority. Yet African-American families are often denigrated forspanking, even though most relevant researchfinds that moderate spanking has benign or

beneficial outcomes in African Americans(Deater-Deckard & Dodge, 1997, and 11 com-mentaries; Gunnoe & Mariner, 1997;Whaley, 2000).

A large number of social scientists consider themildest spanking to be more harmful than alter-native disciplinary tactics. Yet the only system-atic review of nonabusive physical punishmentfound little evidence of differential harmfulnessin direct comparisons with alternative disciplin-ary tactics (Larzelere, 1996).

Never before have social scientists advocated atotal ban on a practice this widespread. Does the


2/23

200 Larzelere

available scientific evidence support a total ban onparental spanking, or does the evidence suggest anappropriate but limited role for nonabusive spankingin parental discipline? These are major questions un-derlying this review of the relevant scientific liter-ature.

It is widely known that several methodologicproblems are pervasive in much research on parentalspanking. First, most research is cross-sectional andcorrelational, which cannot establish causation. Sec-ond, much research emphasizes overly severe formsof physical punishment. The controversy is aboutnonabusive physical punishment, not overly severeforms of physical punishment. Third, many studiesincorporate spanking as one item in a broader mea-sure of punitiveness. Such studies cannot determinethe unique effects of spanking. Thus these three kinds

of studies were excluded from this literature review.It would have been ideal to focus exclusively on

studies of explicitly nonabusive spanking. Becausesuch studies are so few, this review also considersstudies of customary spanking. These are studies thatmeasure physical punishment without emphasizingthe severity of its use.

This review updates the only previous systematicreview of child outcomes of nonabusive or customaryphysical punishment by parents (Larzelere, 1996) andits unpublished predecessor (Lyons, Anderson, &Larson, 1993). It uses a qualitative box-score re-view for two reasons. First, a qualitative review clari-fies whether outcomes vary by the causal conclusive-ness of the designs, which is essential for conclusionsabout the causaleffect of physical punishment. Asnoted by Miller and Pollock (1994), meta-analysesof causally inconclusive studies yield causally incon-clusive summaries. Second, a qualitative review pro-vides more details about the qualifying studies so thatothers can more easily critique the conclusions of

this review. This is particularly important, given thecontroversial nature of the topic.

METHOD

Several strategies were used to locate articlesfor this review. Articles from 1995 to February 2000that addressed corporal punishment were identifiedusingPsychLit,Medline, and references in those arti-cles. In addition, all sources in two reviews of physical

punishments outcomes were considered as potentialreferences (Gershoff, 1999; Larzelere, 1996). Finally,21 leading research investigators were asked for re-

cent studies.2 These procedures yielded 269 poten-tial studies.

The selection criteria for relevant articles wereas follows: First, a study had to be published in apeer-reviewed professional journal in the Englishlanguage. Exceptions to this criterion were made for

sources in the Gershoff (1999) review and for recentunpublished studies that otherwise qualified. Forty-one (41) of the 269 potential studies were ruled outbecause they included no original data on parentalphysical punishment. Second, studies had to have achild outcome variable for which beneficial versusdetrimental outcomes were reasonably unambigu-ous. This eliminated 40 additional studies. This crite-rion excluded studies in which the only child outcomeconcerned the likelihood of using nonabusive physi-cal punishment as a parent. Studies in which child

outcomes concerned the childs subsequent use ofoverly severe or frequent physical punishment wereincluded, however.

Third, a study had to include at least one mea-sure of nonabusive or customary physical punishmentby parents. This excluded measures dominated byseverity or abusiveness (eliminating 37 more studies)and measures dominated by nonspanking tactics(e.g., washing a childs mouth out with soap, yelling,restraint, nonphysical punishment, which eliminated39 additional studies). Fourth, the referent period forparental physical punishment had to precede the timeperiod for the child outcome measure (eliminating32 cross-sectional studies). Finally, the average ageof the child when spanked had to be younger than13 years (eliminating 42 otherwise eligible studies).This criterion also excluded retrospective studies un-less their survey specified a referent age for spankingthat averaged younger than 13 years.3 Table I summa-rizes the 38 studies that met all five criteria.

Because two reviews of physical punishment

came to rather different conclusions (Gershoff, 1999;Larzelere, 1996), it might be helpful to clarify whichstudies from Gershoffs (1999) review met the criteria

2Diana Baumrind, Kirby Deater-Deckard, Joan Durrant, ChrisEllison, Leonard Eron, James Garbarino, Elizabeth ThompsonGershoff,Anthony Graziano, George Holden, Irwin Hyman, JohnKnutson, Joan McCord, V onnie McLoyd, Jerry Patterson, KathyRitchie, Mark Roberts, Rebecca Socolar, John Steley, MurrayStraus, Claudio Violato, Gail Wallerstein.

3A prospective study that asked similar questions retrospectively

at age 25 found that the retrospective data correlated moststrongly with earlier maternal reports of physical punishment atages 12 to 14 (Stattin, Janson, Klackenberg-Larsson, & Magnus-son, 1995).


3/23

Outcomes of Physical Punishment 201

for this review and which criteria were not met byother studies in that review. Although the Gershoff(1999) review is still being revised for publication, ithas been cited as in press for at least 2 years (e.g.,Straus & Mouradian, 1998, citing an earlier versionas Thompson, in press).

Only 16 of the 92 studies in Gershoff (1999) metthe criteria for this review. Gershoffs (1999) otherstudies were excluded because of (i) the severity ofthe measure of physical punishment (17 studies), (ii)an overly broad measure of punishment (17 studies),(iii) a cross-sectional design (22 studies), (iv) a focuson physical punishment of teenagers (19 studies), or(v) no unambiguous child outcome variable (1 study).Thus, the present review focuses more specifically oncausally relevant studies of nonabusive or customaryphysical punishment of young children than does the

Gershoff (1999) review.For the purposes of summarizing the data, a

finding was counted as a beneficial outcome if physi-cal punishment predicted a desirable outcome in thechild (e.g., improved compliance) at the 0.05 signifi-cance level. A finding was counted as a detrimentaloutcome if physical punishment significantly pre-dicted an undesirable outcome in the child (e.g.,lower self-esteem, more delinquency). A study wassummarized as finding predominantly beneficial orpredominantly detrimental outcomes if (i) its onlyrelevant significant outcome was in the specified di-rection, (ii) one of its two or three relevant analyseswas significant and in the specified direction, or (iii)at least two of its relevant analyses were significantand in the specified direction. Otherwise, a study wassummarized as showing a neutral outcome.

RESULTS

Overall, the 38 qualifying studies (Table I) di-vided almost equally into predominantly beneficialchild outcomes (32%), predominantly detrimentaloutcomes (34%), and neutral or mixed outcomes(34%). The following sections consider how variousstudy characteristics discriminate beneficial out-comes from detrimental outcomes. Relevant studycharacteristics include methodologic characteristics,type of outcome, child characteristics, how the physi-cal punishment was used, and the cultural context.Because different characteristics are often con-

founded with each other, a subsequent sectionhighlights the 11 studies that are most relevant foruntangling common confounds among these charac-

teristics. The final part of the Results section thencompares the outcomes of physical punishment withthose of alternative disciplinary techniques in these38 studies.

Research Design: Causal Conclusiveness

The child outcomes of physical punishment var-ied dramatically by the type of research design (seeTable I). All 6 clinical studies (including 4 random-ized clinical trials) found predominantly beneficialchild outcomes, as did the 3 studies using sequentialanalyses. The beneficial outcomes included reducednoncompliance and fighting and, in one study, en-hanced parental affection. However, 5 of the 8 con-trolled longitudinal studies found a broader range of

predominantly detrimental child outcomes of physi-cal punishment, and the remaining 3 studies foundneutral outcomes or a mixture of both beneficial anddetrimental outcomes. Almost half (47%) of the 15uncontrolled longitudinal studies found predomi-nantly detrimental child outcomes, and the rest (53%)found neutral outcomes. Two (2) of the 6 retrospec-tive studies found beneficial outcomes, 1 found detri-mental outcomes, and the remaining 3 found neu-tral outcomes.

Of the 12 retrospective studies in Larzeleres(1996) earlier review that did not qualify for thisupdated review, two-thirds found predominantly det-rimental outcomes, and the other one-third foundneutral outcomes. Thus detrimental outcomes havepreviously been most common in retrospective stud-ies, especially when the referent child age is eitherunspecified or averaged 13 years old or more.

In general, the stronger the causal conclusive-ness of the design, the more likely a study was tofind beneficial child outcomes. There were, however,

important exceptions to that overall tendency. Con-trolled longitudinal studies were the most causallyconclusive studies that found mostly detrimental out-comes. Those studies differed from the randomizedclinical trials on many other dimensions. The clinicalstudies tended to focus on using a 2-swat spank toenforce short-term compliance with time out in clini-cally referred 2- to 6-year olds. The controlled longi-tudinal studies were based on maternal reports ofspanking frequency in older, nonclinical samples, us-ing the following long-term outcomes: antisocial be-

havior, fighting, hostility, emotional problems, com-petence, and self-esteem. (A later section returns tothese studies to begin untangling these confounds.)


4/23


5/23


6/23


7/23


8/23


9/23


Uncontrolled longitudinal studies and retrospec-tive studies found detrimental outcomes more oftenthan beneficial outcomes. However, neither of thosedesigns can rule out the possibility that higher levelsof child misbehavior caused both the increased physi-cal punishment and the subsequent detrimental child

outcomes (Straus, Sugarman, & Giles-Sims, 1997).Because a primary purpose of this review is to clarifythe causal effects of physical punishment, the remain-der of the results section generally considers only the17 studies that are most causally relevant. Thus thefollowing sections exclude uncontrolled longitudinaland retrospective studies except for supplementaryinformation.

The remaining sections sometimes include morethan 17 findings. Studies contribute more than onefinding when their results differ by the dimension

summarized or when they have both beneficial anddetrimental outcomes. For example, a study that in-vestigated three types of child outcomes (i.e., behav-ior problems, mental health, and competence) wouldbe counted three times when considering how theresults vary by the type of outcome.

Methodologic Issues

This section summarizes how the results of these17 causally relevant studies varied by two methodo-logic variables: the type of data and whether theoutcome was short or long term.

Beneficial child outcomes were most likely whenthe outcome measure was observational (6 of 6 stud-ies) or a specific daily maternal report (3 of 3 studies).Detrimental child outcomes were most likely whenall the measures in a study were based on the samepersons global reports (5 of 7 results) or on differentpersons global reports (3 of 4 results). Gunnoe and

Mariner (1997) found mixed beneficial and detrimen-tal outcomes when different sources were used forthe spanking and outcome variable, but a uniformlydetrimental outcome when basing all measures onmaternal reports. Overall, beneficial outcomes weremore likely for more objective, specific outcome mea-sures.

On the second methodologic issue, beneficialchild outcomes were more likely for outcomes mea-sured less than 6 months after the use of physicalpunishment (9 of 10 findings). Detrimental outcomes

were more likely for outcomes that were 6 months ormore after the physical punishment (7 of 10 findings).The short- vs. long-term status of the outcomes was

confounded with several other dimensions, addressedin a later section.

Substantive Issues

The findings in the studies in Table I varied byseveral substantive characteristics as well as by meth-odologic dimensions. These included the type of out-come, the age and clinical status of the child, howthe physical punishment was used, and the largercultural context.

Type of Child Outcome

The apparent effects of physical punishment

were generally beneficial in reducing noncomplianceand fighting and in enhancing parental warmth andmilder disciplinary tactics. However, the apparenteffects of physical punishment were generally detri-mental in increasing externalizing behavior problemsand mental health problems, and in reducing compe-tencies.

All the studies that investigated noncompliancefound that physical punishment reduced it. This in-cluded all 6 clinical studies, all 3 sequential studies,and the sequential analysis part of 1 controlled longi-tudinal study (Larzelere, Sather, Schneider, Lar-son, & Pike, 1998b).

Four of five findings on fighting indicated thatit was reduced by previous physical punishment. Thisincluded the single-case clinical study (Bernal, Du-ryee, Pruett, & Burns, 1968), two sequential-analysisstudies (Larzelere & Merenda, 1994; Larzelere,Schneider, Larson, & Pike, 1996), and four of sevensignificant findings in a controlled longitudinal study(Gunnoe & Mariner, 1997). Only Gunnoe and Mari-

ner (1997) found that physical punishment increasedsubsequent fighting, and then only in three of sevensignificant findings (e.g., for 8- to 11-year olds andEuropean-Americans as a subgroup).

A few findings suggest that physical punishmentcan enhance parental nurturance and the effective-ness of milder disciplinary tactics. The single-casestudy in Table I (Bernal et al., 1968) found that spank-ing enhanced the mothers liking for her clinicallydisruptive 8-year-old son. All 6 clinical studies andLarzelereet al. (1998b) found that spanking was ef-

fective in enhancing the subsequent effectiveness ofmilder disciplinary tactics, such as time out or reason-ing. This enhanced effectiveness of milder disciplin-


10/23

208 Larzelere

ary tactics should in turn prevent disciplinary prob-lems from eroding parental nurturance toward thechild. Further research is needed, however, to clarifythat speculation.

In contrast to these generally beneficial out-comes, physical punishment tended to predict higher

rates of externalizing problems, mental health prob-lems, and lower competencies in the 17 causally rele-vant studies in Table I. Five (5) of 10 findings indi-cated that physical punishment significantly increasedsubsequent externalizing problems (Ellison, Mu-sick, & Holden, 1998; Gunnoe & Mariner, 1997; Lar-zelere & Smith, 2000; McLeod, Kruttschnitt, & Dorn-feld, 1994; Straus et al., 1997). These detrimentaloutcomes were neutralized or reversed in AfricanAmericans (Gunnoe & Mariner, 1997; McLeodet al.,1994; but see also Strauset al., 1997) and conservative

Protestants (Ellisonet al., 1998), two subcultures thatview spanking more normatively.

The most consistent causally relevant evidenceof detrimental outcomes of physical punishment hasbeen a subsequent increase in a 6-item antisocial mea-sure from controlled longitudinal studies of the Na-tional Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY: Larzel-ere & Smith, 2000; McLeod et al., 1994; Straus et al.,1997). It is therefore important to note that (i) similarincreases in antisocial behavior were associated witheach of four other disciplinary tactics included in theNLSY survey (Larzelere & Smith, 2000) and that (ii)all of these apparently detrimental outcomes becamenonsignificant when the measure of initial child exter-nalizing problems was expanded to a 16-item mea-sure (Larzelere & Smith, 2000). The other four disci-plinary tactics in the NLSY survey were removingprivileges, removing allowance, sending to room, andgrounding (Larzelere & Smith, 2000).

Two of four findings indicated that physical pun-ishment predicted increased mental health problems.

This included lower self-esteem (Adams, 1995) andincreased hostility and emotional problems in partof the sample in Ellison et al. (1998). Both detrimentalfindings involved high spanking frequencies; twice aweek for Adams 6- to 12-year olds or weekly spank-ing at ages 9 to 11 in Ellisonet al.(1998). For conser-vative Protestants, however, children who werespanked at ages 2 to 4 but not at ages 9 to 11 hadlower hostility and emotional problems than childrennot spanked at either age (Ellisonet al., 1998). Baum-rind and Owens (2000) found neutral outcomes on

internalizing problems.Finally, one of two studies found that physical

punishment predicted lower subsequent compe-

tences. Baumrind and Owens (2000) found thatspanking frequency at ages 3 to 5 predicted lowersubsequent competencies in cognitive, communal,and general areas. All but one of these effects becamenonsignificant after those who used spanking mostfrequently and severely were dropped from the anal-

yses (57% of the sample).4

Adams (1995) found noeffect on academic achievement.

Child Characteristics

The outcomes of physical punishment also var-ied by the childs age and whether the child wasclinically disruptive. Studies of children averaging 6or younger in Table I generally found beneficial out-comes, whereas studies of older children generally

found detrimental outcomes. In children with meanages under 6, 11 of 12 studies (92%) found predomi-nantly beneficial outcomes of physical punishment,whereas the remaining study (8%) found predomi-nantly detrimental outcomes. In children averagingfrom 7.5 to 10 years old, 6 studies (86%) found pre-dominantly detrimental outcomes and only 1 study(14%) found beneficial outcomes. In the previousreview, all 4 studies of the physical punishment ofteenagers found detrimental outcomes (Larzelere,1996). Since that review, the first controlled longitudi-nal study of spanking of teenagers found increasedrates of dating-partner abuse associated with suchspanking, p 0.06 with complete statistical controlfor initial delinquency (Simons, Lin, & Gordon, 1998;R. Simons, personal communication, 1999).

The results also varied by whether the child hadclinical levels of disruptive behavior. All 6 clinicalstudies found beneficial outcomes of spanking,whereas the other 13 findings were evenly split be-tween predominantly detrimental outcomes (54%)

and predominantly beneficial outcomes (46%). Theeffect of spanking frequency in Straus et al. (1997)depended on initial level of antisocial behavior in 3of the 5 cohorts (Straus, personal communication,1996). In those 3 cohorts, spanking decreased subse-quent antisocial behavior in the initially most antiso-cial group, but it increased antisocial behavior in theleast antisocial group.

4In their publication, Baumrind and Owens (2000) are planningto control for some parenting characteristics before controlling

for initial externalizing/cooperative behavior. The summ ary hereapplies to their data when controlling only for initial externalizing/cooperative behavior with and without the most frequent andsevere users of physical punishment.


11/23


How Physical Punishment Was Used

The outcomes of physical punishment in the 17strongest studies in Table I also varied by how physi-cal punishment was used. Child outcomes tended tobe beneficial when physical punishment was used

nonabusively, not too frequently, primarily as a back-up to milder disciplinary tactics, and flexibly.Not one of the 17 causally relevant studies found

predominantly detrimental outcomes if they did any-thing to rule out parents who used physical punish-ment too severely. To be included in this review, thestudies could not emphasize severity in their measureof physical punishment, but only 2 of the controlledlongitudinal studies made any attempt to rule outabusive physical punishment. The 6 clinical studiesand 2 of the 3 sequential analysis studies made some

attempt to exclude overly severe physical punish-ment. Nine (9) of the 10 findings that ruled out abusewere predominantly beneficial, and the remainingstudy had generally neutral findings after droppingthe 5% to 7% of their sample that used physical pun-ishment most frequently and severely (Baumrind &Owens, 2000). Of the studies that did not rule outabuse, most findings (7 of 11) indicated detrimentaloutcomes, 2 indicated beneficial outcomes, and 2showed neutral outcomes.

Studies that emphasized the severity of physicalpunishment found detrimental outcomes, but theyhave been excluded from this review (e.g., Weiss,Dodge, & Bates, 1992). Straus and Mouradian (1998)addressed this issue in an important cross-sectionalstudy. Mothers were asked, When you had to spankor hit [your child], how often did you spank becauseyou were so angry that you lost it? (p. 357). Moth-ers who reported losing it half of the time or moreshowed a much stronger association between fre-quency of spanking and the childs antisocial and

impulsive behavior than those never losing it. Formothers who never lost control due to anger, theirfrequency of spanking was correlated about zero withthe childs antisocial and impulsive behavior.

Other studies have investigated the effects ofmild or moderate physical punishment and the effectsof severe physical punishment in the same study. Thetypes of severe physical punishment with detrimentaloutcomes included (i) whipping, punching, kicking,or beating up (Bryan & Freed, 1982); (ii) beatings(Holmes & Robins, 1988); (iii) yelling, throwing

things, or attempting to injure someone when frus-trated or annoyed (McCord, 1988); and (iv) hittingor beating up a child (Strassberg, Dodge, Pettit, &

Bates, 1994). None of these studies found detrimentaloutcomes for nonabusive or customary physical pun-ishment, except for Strassberg et al. (1994). In thatstudy, the 11 children (4%) who were not spankedduring the year preceding kindergarten were less ag-gressive during kindergarten than the 96% who had

been spanked. All other studies in Table I that ex-cluded abusive parents found beneficial or neutraloutcomes of nonabusive physical punishment.

Detrimental outcomes were associated withoverly frequent physical punishment as well as overlysevere physical punishment. The 8 controlled longitu-dinal studies all investigated spanking frequency oran approximation of it. Linear associations betweenspanking frequency and subsequent outcomes maybe significant due solely to the most frequent spank-ers. Most (5 of 8) of the controlled longitudinal stud-

ies found detrimental child outcomes, but they alltested linear associations of spanking frequency.Three (3) of the controlled longitudinal studies pro-vided information on various spanking frequencies.They indicated that the detrimental outcomes ofphysical punishment did not become significantly dif-ferent from those not spanked until the spankingfrequency reached one to three times a week (6- to12-year olds: Adams, 1995; 3- to 5-year olds: Baum-rind & Owens, 2000; 6- to 9-year olds: Straus et al.,1997).

In contrast, spanking had predominantly bene-ficial outcomes when it was used conditionally, pri-marily to back up milder disciplinary tactics. All 9studies that emphasized spanking as a back-up for amilder tactic found beneficial child outcomes. First,the series of clinical studies by Roberts and col-leagues specified only one use for spanking: a back-up for noncompliance with the time-out procedure.The beneficial outcomes from the Larzelere series ofstudies occurred primarily when spanking was used

in combination with reasoning, usually with thespanking coming after the reasoning. Both sets ofstudies found that the milder disciplinary tactic be-came more effective by itself after being backed upby spanking. A conditional spanking back-up wasalso used by Bernalet al.(1968) that led to improvedcompliance and parental affection and reducedfighting.

The conditional use of spanking after other tac-tics have failed is also consistent with how motherschange their tactics during extended disciplinary inci-

dents with 3-year olds (Ritchie, 1999). Mothers weremore likely to use verbal commands and reasoningand offer alternatives early in an extended disciplin-


12/23

210 Larzelere

ary incident. The longer an extended disciplinary inci-dent lasted, however, the more likely mothers wereto impose negative consequences such as physicalpower assertion, time out, a spank, or privilege re-moval. Other tactics, such as threatening, consenting,and ignoring, became more frequent during the mid-

dle of an extended incident, but then decreased sub-sequently. Putting those patterns together, motherstend to use mild verbal tactics at first. Then theydecide whether to consent, ignore, or continue toinsist on child cooperation. Finally, they implementnegative consequences or other power assertion asa last resort in an extended incident. Resorting tospanking too quickly might lead to its overly frequentuse and detrimental outcomes. In contrast, skilleduse of spanking as an occasional back-up for milderdisciplinary tactics with 2- to 6-year olds is more ef-

fective.Finally, flexible use of nonabusive spanking and

alternatives is associated with better child outcomesthan primary or exclusive use of physical punishment.Flexible use is best illustrated in the study of clinicallynoncompliant 2- to 6-year olds by Roberts and Pow-ers (1990). They investigated four alternative ap-proaches to enforcing compliance with time-out: a 2-swat spank, a 1-minute room isolation, a physicalhold, and a child-determined release from time out.The first two back-ups for time out were equallyeffective overall, and more effective than the lasttwo procedures. Some clinically defiant preschoolerswould persist in their noncompliance to time-outeven after repeated uses of the assigned back-up pro-cedure. Roberts and Powers (1990) dealt with thisby switching to an alternative back-up procedure ifthe initial back-up was repeated 6 times for the sametime-out. The spank back-up was changed to a briefroom isolation, whereas the brief room isolation andthe physical hold were changed to the spank back-

up. Switching to an alternative back-up tactic wassufficient to gain compliance with time-out in allcases. This suggests that parents should switch disci-plinary tactics when the first one is not working,rather than increasing the intensity of the first tactic.It also implies that parents need more disciplinaryoptions, not fewer ones, to maximize their flexibleuse of nonabusive alternatives.

Cultural Context

Finally, the child outcomes of physical punish-ment differed by the cultural context. Three of the

controlled longitudinal studies investigated the ef-fects of physical punishment with ethnic minorities,usually African Americans. All three studies foundsignificantly differential effects of spanking by eth-nicity. Physical punishment never predicted predomi-nantly detrimental outcomes in ethnic minorities, ex-

cept for ethnically diverse 6- to 9-year olds spankedthree times a week or more (Straus et al., 1997). Incontrast, lower spanking frequency predicted signifi-cantly lower rates of fighting 5 years later in African-American children in one study (Gunnoe & Mariner,1997). The other study found neutral outcomes ofspanking frequency in African-American childrenbut detrimental outcomes in European-Americanchildren (McLeod et al., 1994).

Two uncontrolled longitudinal studies alsofound significantly distinct outcomes of spanking for

European Americans and for African Americans(Deater-Deckard & Dodge, 1997; Deater-Deckard,Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1996). The outcomes werepredominantly detrimental for European Americansbut neutral for African Americans. The strongestevidence of ethnic differences seems to occur in pre-dicting school aggression (see also Polaha, 1998).

One study found differences in outcomes ofspanking by religious groups (Ellison et al., 1998).The results varied by whether spanking persistedfrom about age 3 to about age 10 and by whetherthe family was conservative Protestant. Beneficialoutcomes occurred for early, discontinued spankingrelative to those not spanked at either age, but onlyfor conservative Protestants. Detrimental outcomesoccurred for persistent spankers, but only for the partof the sample that was not conservative Protestants.

These ethnic and religious subcultural differ-ences in the outcomes of spanking probably dependon how spanking is used and its normative acceptancein those subcultures. For example, spanking is more

likely to be perceived as evidence of parental concernin African-American families, whereas it is morelikely to be seen as an indication of parental rejectionin European-American families (Deater-Deckard etal., 1996). The tradition within the African-Americansubculture views spanking as a means of establishingappropriate disciplinary control to prevent parentsfrom the need to yell at their children (Mosby, Rawls,Meehan, Mays, & Pettinari, 1999). Understandingthese ethnic differences in the outcomes of spankinghas been the subject of numerous recent articles

(Deater-Deckard & Dodge, 1997, and 11 commentar-ies; Baumrind, 1996; Mosby et al., 1999; Whaley,2000).


13/23


Confounding Factors

To this point, this review examines the resultsof the 17 causally relevant studies of physical punish-ment one dimension at a time. However, those di-mensions were often confounded with each other. In

the previous review (Larzelere, 1996), beneficial childoutcomes were found consistently in the causally rele-vant studies (i.e., four randomized clinical studies),whereas detrimental child outcomes were more likelyin causally ambiguous studies, such as uncontrolledlongitudinal and retrospective studies. However, sev-eral dimensions were confounded with causal conclu-siveness as potential explanations for discriminatingbeneficial from detrimental child outcomes of physi-cal punishment. Studies showing beneficial child out-comes of physical punishment were also more likely

to (i) focus on short-term outcomes (e.g., during thenext discipline incident or the next week), (ii) empha-size compliance as the child outcome, (iii) study chil-dren from the ages of 2 to 6, (iv) investigate the useof spanking to back up milder disciplinary tactics,and (v) make some attempt to rule out abusive useof physical punishment. In contrast, detrimental childoutcomes were most likely in studies that were oppo-site on each of those dimensions as well as beingcausally ambiguous. The controlled longitudinalstudies are directly relevant to untangling some ofthese confounds. Table II lists them and three othercausally relevant studies that varied the characteris-tics that have been confounded with the causal con-clusiveness of the studies.

Predominantly detrimental long-term outcomesnever occurred in the causally relevant studies inTable II under the following conditions: if overlysevere users of physical punishment were removedfrom the analyses, if spanking was measured as aconditional back up rather than as a frequency mea-

sure, or if the sample of children was initially highon externalizing problems. Only one study found det-rimental outcomes for children under the mean ageof 6 (Baumrind & Owens, 2000), and it no longerhad predominantly detrimental outcomes after thoseparents who overused physical punishment were re-moved from the analyses. In contrast, 6 of 9 findingsfor children over the mean age of 6 indicated predom-inantly detrimental outcomes, and only the single-case study found beneficial outcomes for children inthis age range (Bernal et al., 1968).

Almost all the outcomes in Table II were neutralor beneficial for subcultural groups that are morelikely to endorse the use of spanking (3 beneficial

findings, 1 detrimental finding in Straus et al., 1997).The outcomes in this review did not appear to beaffected by positive parenting characteristics, al-though this warrants further investigation.

Detrimental outcomes were more likely whenoutcomes occurred 6 months or more after the physi-

cal punishment (8 detrimental vs. 3 beneficial find-ings). Beneficial outcomes occurred more often whenoutcomes occurred less than 6 months later (e.g.,during the next discipline incident or the next day;all three findings were beneficial). Thus detrimentaloutcomes were more likely for long-term outcomesthan for short-term outcomes, but this time dimen-sion was often confounded with the other dimensionsin Table II.

The outcomes of physical punishment varied lit-tle by type of outcome in Table II. Beneficial and

detrimental outcomes were equally likely for the cat-egory of subsequent behavior problems. There wasonly one more detrimental outcome than beneficialoutcomes for mental health or competence outcomes.

Comparisons with Alternative Disciplinary Tactics

A comparison of the outcomes of physical pun-ishment with outcomes of alternative disciplinary tac-tics is important for sorting out the causality issues.If the apparently detrimental outcomes of nonseverephysical punishment are artifacts actually caused bythe initial levels of child misbehavior, then the appar-ent outcomes of alternative disciplinary tactics shouldbe similar to those of spanking when analyzed in thesame way. However, if the detrimental outcomes areunique to physical punishment, this would strengthenthe case for uniquely detrimental effects of physicalpunishment. Twenty (20) studies in Table I investi-gated alternative disciplinary responses as well as

physical punishment. They included all 6 clinical stud-ies, all 3 sequential-analysis studies, 3 of the 8 con-trolled longitudinal studies, 6 of the 15 uncontrolledlongitudinal studies, and 2 of the 6 retrospectivestudies.

Only three alternative disciplinary tactics everhad more beneficial outcomes than did physical pun-ishment, and each of those tactics compared unfavor-ably with physical punishment elsewhere. When usedas a back-up with 2- and 3-year olds, nonphysicalpunishment enhanced the subsequent effectiveness

of disciplinary reasoning by itself in 9 of 10 analyses,whereas physical punishment enhanced reasoningseffectiveness in only 4 of 10 analyses (Larzelere et


14/23

Table

II.CausallyRelevantStudiesofPhysicalPunishmentPertinenttoMajorConfoundingVariables

Severe

Back-up

Associationbyoutcometype

useof

usevs.

Clinically

Childs

Behavior

Mental

punishment

frequency

Positive

disruptive

age

Authors

problemsa

healtha

Competencea

Long-term?

removed

ofspanking

parenting

sample

(years)

Contro

lle

dlong

itu

dina

lstu

dies

Adams(

1995)

0

0

Yes

No

Frequency

Controlled

No

612

Baumrin

d&

0

0

Yes

Then0

Frequency

0effectwhen

No

45

Owens

effectsf

controlled

(2000)

Ellisonetal.

(ConsProsb)

(ConsProsb)

Yes

No

Frequency

Notcontrolled

No

24and

(1998)

(Othersb)

(Othersb)

911

Gunnoe

&

(Younger,

Yes

No

Frequency

Controlledfor

No

47and

Mariner

Blacks,girls)

praise

811

(1997)

(Older,Whites)

Larzelereetal.

0

Yes

Yes

Back-up

Controlled

No

23

(1998)

Larzelere&

d

Yes

No

Frequency

Controlled

No

69

Smith

(2000)

McLeod

etal.

(Whites)

Yes

No

Frequency

Notcontrolled

No

6or

(1994)

0(Blacks)

older

Strauset

al.

Yes

No

Frequency

Controlled

Noc

69

(1997)

Othe

rcausa

llyre

levantstu

dies

Bernaletal.

No

Yes

Back-up

Enhancedby

Yes

8

(1968)

spank

Larzelere&

No

Yes

Back-up

Partially

No

23

Meren

da

controllede

(1994)

Larzelereetal.

No

Yes

Back-up

Partially

No

23

(1996)

controllede

Note:Th

emostcausallyconclusivestudies(R

obertsfourrandomizedclinicaltria

ls)arenotincludedbecausethepur

poseofthistableistoevaluateconfoundsthatdifferentiatethose

studies(withuniformlybeneficialoutcomes)

fromuncontrolledlongitudinalandretrospectivestudies(withpredomin

antlydetrimentaloutcomes).

a

predominantlybeneficialeffectofphys

icalpunishment;

predominantlydetrimentaleffectofphysicalpunishment;0

neutraleffectofphysicalpunishment.

bConsPr

os

ConservativeProtestants.Bene

ficialeffectsonlyforConservativeP

rotestantsspankedonlyatages24.Detrimentaleffectsonlyforothers

spankedbothatages24and

at911.

cInitialantisocialbehaviorinteractedwithspankinginthreeoffivecohortssucht

hatspankingdecreasedsubsequentantisocialinthemostantisocialchild

ren,butincreasedsubsequent

antisocialintheleastantisocialchildren(Straus,personalcommunication,1996).

dTheapp

arenteffectofspankingdisappeared

withanimprovedstatisticalcontrolforinitialexternalizingproblembe

havior.

ePartlyw

ithin-subjectanalyses.

fOnly1o

f21associationsweresignificantlyd

etrimental.


15/23


al., 1998b). However, a retrospective study found thatspanking predicted a lower likelihood of using threeillegal drugs, whereas noncontact punishment pre-dicted a greater likelihood of using one illegal drug(Tennant, Detels, & Clark, 1975). Ignoring and physi-cal power assertion both elicited a significantly in-

creased probability of immediate compliance in Rit-chie (1999) that was not achieved by spanking orany other disciplinary tactic in that study. However,ignoring was ineffective before spanking was triedwith an 8-year olds clinically defiant referral (Bernalet al., 1968), and physical restraint was a significantlyless effect back-up for time-out than was a spankback-up (Roberts & Powers, 1990). In addition tothese three tactics, grounding had more beneficialoutcomes with teenagers than did physical punish-ment (Caesar, 1988; Joubert, 1992; Larzelere, 1996).

Six additional disciplinary responses were foundto have less beneficial outcomes than did physicalpunishment in at least one study: a child-determinedrelease from time-out with 2- to 6-year olds (Bean &Roberts, 1981; Roberts & Powers, 1990); reasoningwithout punishment, punishment without reasoning,and disciplinary responses other than punishment orreasoning with 2- and 3-year olds (Larzelere et al.,1996, 1998b); love withdrawal with 5-year olds(Crowne, Conn, Marlowe, & Edwards, 1969); andverbal punishment with 3- to 5-year olds (Baum-rind & Owens, 2000).

Focusing only on the 8 controlled longitudinalstudies, detrimental outcomes of spanking werefound as strongly for both undesirable alternatives(e.g., verbal punishment: Baumrind & Owens, 2000)and recommended alternatives (e.g., privilege re-moval, grounding, allowance removal, sending toroom: Larzelere & Smith, 2000; reasoning: Larzelereet al., 1998b).

In sum, the relative child outcomes in direct com-

parisons of spanking and alternatives varied by age.Nonabusive spanking compared favorably with sixalternatives in 2- to 6-year olds. Four recommendedalternatives show outcomes equivalent to spankingduring the ages 6 to 9. Grounding has been replicatedas a more effective disciplinary alternative thanspanking with teenagers (Larzelere, 1996).

DISCUSSION

There are two major current perspectives on pa-rental use of nonabusive physical punishment: an un-conditional antispanking perspective (Straus et al.,

1997) and an evidence-based perspective that at-tempts to differentiate between effective vs. counter-productive spanking (Larzelere, Baumrind, & Polite,1998a). The unconditional antispanking viewpointholds that spanking invariably has detrimental childeffects regardless of how it is used, the age of the

child, the disciplinary situation, the parentchild con-text, or the cultural context. The evidence-based per-spective holds that there may be some parentalspanking that would enhance child outcomes, or atleast not detract from them. The evidence-based per-spective also questions whether the current scientificevidence is adequate for imposing an antispankingvalue on all parents. What are the implications ofthis review for these contrasting perspectives? Thenext section first considers evidence for the uncondi-tional antispanking perspective.

Is Spanking Invariably Detrimental?

The view that detrimental child outcomes invari-ably follow from nonabusive spanking is contradictedby several patterns in these results. First, the strongerthe causal conclusiveness of the studies, the morelikely they are to detect beneficial outcomes of spank-ing, not detrimental outcomes. Second, causally rele-vant studies (e.g., controlled longitudinal studies orbetter) have never found detrimental child outcomesunder any one of the following conditions: if abusiveparents were removed from the spanking group, ifspanking was measured as a back-up for milder disci-plinary tactics, or if the sample were clinically defiantchildren. Most causally relevant studies of childrenaveraging less than 6 years old have found beneficialchild outcomes of spanking. The only exceptionchanged to neutral outcomes after removing the 5%to 7% most frequent/severe spankers and controlling

for positive parenting (Baumrind & Owens, 2000).The strongest evidence of invariably detrimentalchild outcomes came from controlled longitudinalstudies of the effect of spanking 6- to 9-year olds ontheir antisocial behavior 2 to 5 years later (Gunnoe &Mariner, 1997; Larzelere & Smith, 2000; McLeod etal., 1994; Straus et al., 1997). Together, these studiesfound that the detrimental effect did not generalizeconsistently to African-American families or to child-reported fighting at school. Only Straus et al.(1997)found consistently detrimental outcomes of spanking

frequency at ages 6 to 9, predicting increased subse-quent antisocial behavior according to maternal re-ports. The significance of their effect seems to be


16/23

214 Larzelere

solely due to those spanked at the rate of three timesor more a week. Overall, the unique effect of spank-ing accounted for only 1.3% of the variance in subse-quent antisocial behavior in their study (Larzelereetal., 1998a).

Larzelere and Smith (2000) replicated and ex-

tended the Straus et al.(1997) study, using the samedataset. They showed that four recommended alter-native disciplinary tactics predicted the same smallincrease in antisocial behavior 2 years later, whenanalyzed in the same way as spanking. Such effectsfor spanking and all four alternatives became nonsig-nificant when initial child misbehavior was controlledfor more adequately, with a 16-item measure of exter-nalizing problems rather than a trichotomous mea-sure of antisocial behavior. Thus, the most consistentevidence of detrimental outcomes of spanking on

subsequent antisocial behavior (Straus et al., 1997)seems to be due to residual confounding, which oc-curs when an inadequate measure of the confoundingvariable is used as a covariate (Rothman, 1986).

The equivalence of child outcomes for spankingand alternatives is sometimes used as an argumentthat spanking can be banned because equally effec-tive alternatives are available (Graziano, Hamblen, &Plante, 1996). By itself, this type of argument wouldbe considered insufficient for banning nonparentalinterventions. For example, the equivalent effective-ness of a new drug (e.g., Tylenol) would not be suffi-cient grounds for banning a traditional drug (aspirin).Rather, two drugs whose effectiveness is equivalenton the average would each be preferable in particularcases. Second, each would provide an alternativewhen the other proved ineffective in a particular case.Third, some applications (e.g., treating high fevers)would involve the combined use of both drugs. Theapplication of all three principles to spanking andalternatives are illustrated in Roberts and Powers

(1990). As a backup for time-out, spanking and abrief room isolation proved equally effective on theaverage. Each one worked with some children betterthan the alternative. Each alternative (spanking or abrief room isolation) was effective when the otheralternative was slow in accomplishing the goal ofcompliance with the time-out procedure. This sug-gests that parents can be more effective with multipleoptions in disciplinary tactics, just as they can bemore effective with multiple drugs for treating fevers.

Another concern is that negative side effects are

more likely for spanking than for alternative disci-plinary tactics. Unintended side effects are not a spe-cial focus of this review, but conclusive evidence of

unavoidable negative side effects is difficult to find.Reviews of side effects of punishment in general havefound such effects to be limited and readily avoided(Newsom, Favell, & Rincover, 1983; Walters & Gru-sec, 1977). For example, Newsom et al. (1983) con-cluded

Punishment procedures are avoided and underuti-lized more often from uninformed fears of hypotheti-cal, all-powerful negative side effects than fromknowledgeable appraisals of their generally limitedand manageable negative side effects. The result isoften the continuation of serious behavior problemsfor months and years when they might be eliminated,to the clients immense long-term benefit, in a matterof days or weeks. (pp. 285286)

Walters and Grusec (1977) came to a similaroverall conclusion, but noted that increased aggres-

sion was a likely side effect of physical punishment.This review found mixed evidence on that point.Three causally relevant studies (Bernal et al., 1968;Gunnoe & Mariner, 1997; Larzelere et al., 1996)found that physical punishment reduced subsequentfighting in some circumstances, whereas one of thosestudies (Gunnoe & Mariner, 1997) found that it alsoincreased subsequent fighting in other circumstances.Walters and Grusec (1977) did not have access tocausally relevant studies on spanking and aggression.

The strongest evidence for a negative side effectof physical punishment occurred for the broader out-come of antisocial behavior, which was consideredpreviously (Ellison et al., 1998; Gunnoe & Mariner,1997; McLeod et al., 1994; Straus et al., 1997). Thedetrimental effect on antisocial behavior tended tobe small, was contradicted in two subcultural groups,and was replicated by every alternative disciplinarytactic investigated to date (Larzelere & Smith, 2000).This particular side effect (increased antisocial be-havior) seems to be contradicted by the replicated

effectiveness of behavioral parent training for treat-ing conduct disorder (Brestan & Eyberg, 1998; Kaz-din, 1995). Its effectiveness has been documentedwith either the spank back-up or an alternative back-up for time-out. So the empirical evidence for nega-tive side effects of nonabusive spanking is sparseand inconsistent.

Of course, the unconditional antispanking per-spective sometimes considers empirical evidence ir-relevant due to the ethical value of protecting chil-dren from all hitting. This is certainly commendable,

but it is not applied absolutely in other areas. Thereis no widespread advocacy against piercing a childsskin for medical shots or surgery. So the value of


17/23


minimizing bodily pain to children is a relative valuethat gets balanced with the presumed value of suchpractices. Thus evidence for the effectiveness ofspanking is relevant to an appropriate balance ofantipain values with competing values.

Moreover, some ethnic and religious groups

have explicit values supporting spanking. There hasbeen little careful scholarship on the justification forimposing one set of values on groups with differingvalues, given various levels of empirical scientific jus-tification. Instead, the discussions about spanking areoften based on a superficial understanding of theempirical data or on a simplistic absolute stanceagainst any pain, which is applied inconsistently toother issues.

When 94% of parents use physical punishmentat least occasionally with 3- and 4-year olds (Straus &

Stewart, 1999), social scientists must clarify thesekinds of issues carefully. The inadequacy of the socialscientific evidence suggests the possibility that uncon-ditional antispanking advocates are inadvertently im-posing one set of values on a very complex issue.Reasoning and nonphysical disciplinary tactics maywork better for highly verbal parents in the wealthysuburbs than for many less-advantaged parents. Wemust be sensitive to cultural, religious, and socioeco-nomic distinctions before imposing our values onother parents on this important issue.

In sum, Diana Baumrinds (1996) assessmentstill seems applicable: A blanket injunction againstdisciplinary spanking by parents is not scientificallysupportable (p. 828). That is not equivalent, ofcourse, to endorsing or even tolerating all forms ofcustomary physical punishment (Bauman & Fried-man, 1998).

Effective vs. Counterproductive Physical

Punishment

This review clarifies one form of effective spank-ing and one indication of generally counterproductiveuse of physical punishment. Additional research isneeded to clarify the appropriate boundaries be-tween these two extremes of customary physical pun-ishment. A few empirically based hints about thismiddle gray area are summarized from this reviewand related studies.

First, spanking has consistently beneficial out-

comes when it is nonabusive (e.g., two swats to thebuttocks with an open hand) and used primarily toback up milder disciplinary tactics with 2- to 6-year

olds by loving parents. This is consistent with theconditions under which mothers are most likely touse spanking; that is, after milder disciplinary tacticshave failed (Goodenough, 1931; Mosby et al., 1999;Ritchie, 1999). The series of studies by Roberts andcolleagues show that the spank back-up is one of the

two most effective tactics for backing up time-out inclinically defiant children in this age range. The seriesof studies by Larzelere and colleagues (1998b)showed a similar effect in enforcing disciplinary rea-soning among nonclinical 2- and 3-year olds. A bene-fit of using spanking as a back-up is that the milderdisciplinary tactic becomes more effective by itself,thus rendering spanking less necessary subsequently.

At the other extreme, most detrimental out-comes in causally relevant studies are due to overlyfrequent use of physical punishment. This suggests

that overly frequent spanking or its correlates areindicative of counterproductive ways of using spank-ing. Because the same apparently detrimental effectsoccur for overly frequent use of four recommendedalternative discipline tactics, the dysfunctionality as-sociated with overly frequent punishments general-izes across disciplinary responses rather than beingunique to spanking. Further research is needed todetermine the nature of this dysfunctionality. An ini-tial study suggested that these apparently detrimentaleffects are methodologic artifacts (e.g., residual con-

founding when the initial level of child misbehavior isimperfectly controlled for: Larzelere & Smith, 2000).

Between these two extremes, the research evi-dence leaves a gray area with a few empirical clues.The clues suggest that the following guidelines aremore characteristic of effective spanking than ofcounterproductive physical punishment:

1. Not overly severe.2. Under control, not in danger of losing it

from anger (Straus & Mouradian, 1998).

3. During ages 2 to 6, not during the teenageyears (Gunnoe & Mariner, 1997; Simons etal., 1998). Although conclusive evidence isscarce, spanking should be phased out as soonas possible between the ages of 7 and 12.

4. Used with reasoning (Larzelere et al., 1996),preferably eliciting an intermediate ratherthan a high level of child distress (Larzelere &Merenda, 1994).

5. Used privately (Holmes & Robins, 1988).6. Motivated by concern for the child, not by

parent-oriented concerns (e.g., from frustra-tion, to show who is boss: Larzelere, Klein,Schumm, & Alibrando, 1989).


18/23

216 Larzelere

7. Used after a single warning, generalizing fromRoberts (1982). Roberts showed that a singlewarning before time-out reduced the neces-sary time outs by 74% without sacrificing anyeffectiveness of the behavioral parenttraining.

8. Used flexibly. If spanking does not work, par-ents should try other approaches and othertactics rather than increasing the intensity ofthe spanking (Roberts & Powers, 1990).

The first four points are based on multiple stud-ies, whereas the last four points are based primarilyon one study each. Thus more and better research isneeded, which is the topic of the next section.

Research on Physical Punishment

A major implication of this review is that betterresearch is needed on physical punishment and onparental discipline in general. Others have notedmajor gaps in the empirical evidence for currentlyaccepted views of optimal parental discipline (e.g.,Grusec & Goodnow, 1994; Yarrow, Campbell, &Burton, 1968).

The following problems seem pervasive in re-search on physical punishment: (i) failure to take adevelopment perspective; (ii) failure to discriminatebetween nonabusive vs. overly severe physical pun-ishment; (iii) failure to control adequately for theinitial level of child misbehavior; (iv) failure to com-pare spanking directly with the alternatives that par-ents could use for similar incidents; (v) failure todistinguish between disciplinary tactics at the initial,middle, and later stages of extended disciplinary inci-dents; (vi) failure to consider whether the effects ofspanking depend on a positive parenting context,

such as reasoning or nurturance; and (vii) failure toappreciate subcultural differences in the outcomesand risks of physical punishment.

Along with correcting those problems, two otherresearch issues seem particularly pressing. The firstis to understand escalation processes within disciplin-ary incidents and the role of physical punishment inthem, when used in different ways. Most cases ofphysical abuse occur during discipline incidents (Ka-dushin & Martin, 1981), but there is little solid evi-dence about what increases or decreases the risk of

escalation toward abuse.Banning all physical punishment seems to be a

plausible means to reduce child abuse, just as the

Prohibition Amendment seemed a plausible way toreduce alcohol abuse (see also Baumrind, 1983).However, the Roberts series of studies and the Lar-zelere series of studies have shown that firmer tacticsare sometimes necessary to enhance the subsequenteffectiveness of milder disciplinary tactics. The in-

creased effectiveness of milder disciplinary tacticsshould then reduce the risk of escalation during sub-sequent discipline incidents. This suggests the possi-bility that howspanking is used is the critical factorin whether it increases the risk of escalation towardabuse. Of course, how other tactics are used withindisciplinary incidents would also affect changes inthe risk of escalation (see Snyder, Edwards, McGraw,Kilgore, & Holton, 1994). Baumrind (1973) notedthat it was permissive parents who admitted moreoften to explosive attacks of rage in which they

inflicted more pain or injury upon the child than theyhad intended. . . . Permissive parents apparently be-came violent because they felt that they could neithercontrol the childs behavior nor tolerate its effectupon themselves (p. 35).

The second pressing issue is the need for a rigor-ous evaluation of legislation banning parental spank-ing. To my knowledge, there has been very littleempirical evaluation of the first spanking ban in Swe-den (Larzelere & Johnson, 1999) and no evaluationof such bans in other countries. One of the statedpurposes of a major survey on corporal punishmentin Sweden was to see whether the spanking ban hadeven decreased the prevalence of corporal punish-ment 15 years after the ban (Statistics Sweden, 1996).That survey found that more than 30% of childrenraised after the spanking ban had experienced corpo-ral punishment from their parents. Furthermore, thispercentage had dropped very little compared to thegeneration before the spanking ban (e.g., 32% byfathers, compared to 34% in the next oldest genera-

tion). Most of the decrease in physical punishmentin Sweden occurred before the spanking ban, notafter it. The biggest changes after the spanking banwas a small decrease in support for mild spanking,whereas the most problematic types of spanking (e.g.,spanking of teenagers) had not decreased at all.

It is possible that the prohibition of all spankingeliminates a type of mild spanking that prevents fur-ther escalation within discipline incidents. Milder dis-ciplinary tactics do not get backed up as effectivelyand thus are less likely to be used. Palmerus and Scarr

(1995) compared American and Swedish parents onthe disciplinary tactics they used. As expected, Swed-ish parents used less corporal punishment, but they


19/23


also used less reasoning and fewer behavior modifi-cation tactics, more yelling, and more restraining.5

These kinds of changes in the entire disciplinary sys-tem might partially account for the 489% increasefrom 1981 to 1994 in Swedish criminal rates of physi-cal child abuse of children under 7 (Wittrock, 1992,

1995). Many other factors could also have accountedfor those increases. The main point is that we needrigorous, unbiased evaluations of such spanking bans,especially given the lack of scientific support for theunconditional antispanking perspective.

Research on Parental Discipline in General

In addition to better research on spanking, weneed better research on parental discipline in general.

To understand the role of physical punishment orany disciplinary tactic, we must understand it in thecontext of parental discipline as a whole.

Much research on physical punishment as wellas other disciplinary tactics views a given tactic asinvariably effective or invariably counterproductive.There may be more potential in identifying more vs.less effective ways to use each disciplinary tactic.The effect of any tactic may depend on the overalldisciplinary style and the parentchild, family, andcultural contexts.

A major article by Grusec and Goodnow (1994)had implications that overlap with this review, eventhough it emphasized the opposite end of the contin-uum of traditional disciplinary tactics. Grusec andGoodnow concluded that the greater effectiveness ofdisciplinary reasoning than various forms of powerassertion was supported inconsistently in the empiri-cal literature. Empirical support for the relative effec-tiveness of reasoning came primarily from sampleswith low rates of disruptive behavior problems (e.g.,

girls in middle-class families). In contrast, reasoningoften did not look relatively more effective thanpower-assertive methods in samples with high ratesof disruptive behavior problems (e.g., families withlower socioeconomic status; children with difficulttemperaments).

This review focuses on disciplinary spanking, atthe opposite end of the continuum of traditional disci-plinary tactics. Similar to Grusec and Goodnows

5Palmerus (personal communication, April 2000) thinks that the

yelling and restraining done by Swedish parents was less aversivethan that done by American parents. However, she has not dividedher variables into milder and more aversive categories to testthis impression.

(1994) conclusions about reasoning, it finds the em-pirical support for commonly held conclusions aboutnonabusive spanking to be surprisingly weak. An im-plication shared with Grusec and Goodnow is thatwe must move beyond inconsistently supported over-generalizations to conceptualize and investigate disci-

plinary responses more innovatively.One possibility is a conditional sequence modelof optimal disciplinary responses (Larzelere, inpress). This model says that parents should beginwith the mildest disciplinary tactic that they thinkwill be effective in producing appropriate coopera-tion from a child (e.g., reasoning). If the disciplinaryissue is important and neither an appropriate cooper-ation or negotiation occurs, then the parent shouldback up the gentle disciplinary tactic (e.g., reasoning)with a nonphysical punishment (e.g., time-out). Only

if the child fails to comply with the nonphysical pun-ishment should the parent resort to nonabusivespanking (e.g., two open-handed swats to the but-tocks). Each back-up step should be preceded by asingle warning (Roberts, 1982). If something like thisconditional sequence is used at ages 2 to 6, then theparent should gradually phase out the ultimate back-up tactic (spanking) and then the intermediate back-up tactic (nonphysical punishment). In this way, gen-tle disciplinary tactics such as reasoning will be usedfor most disciplinary incidents and they will be effec-tive in keeping the child within acceptable behav-ioral limits.

This conditional sequence model is consistentwith several developmental perspectives whose im-plications for integrating gentle and firmer disciplin-ary tactics have not been fully exploited (Baumrind,1973; Bell & Harper, 1977; Hoffman, 1977; Patterson,1982; Valsiner, 1987). In general, these develop-mental mini-theories recognize that disciplinary re-sponses act as part of a control system process, some-

what similar to a thermostat-controlled heatingsystem. Traditional methods of statistical analysesare ill suited for investigating such control systemprocesses, whether cross-sectionally or longitudi-nally. To illustrate, the average morning temperaturein my home during the past year was 61F whenthe furnace was running and 67F when it was notrunning. This cross-sectional analysis suggests super-ficially that running the furnace causes my house tobe colder. I could design a longitudinal version ofthis study to prove that running the furnace is either

positively or negatively correlated with subsequenthouse temperatures, depending on the time betweendata collection points (6 or 12 months). This illus-


20/23

218 Larzelere

trates that our traditional analytic methods can easilycome to incorrect conclusions about control systemprocesses, depending on how we incorporate the ini-tial presenting problem into the analyses and whetherour analyses fit the actual time lag of the causal mech-anisms.

Parents use disciplinary tactics as part of a con-trol system process. Their disciplinary responses varydepending on their assessment of such things as theimportance of the disciplinary issue, whether thechild has been cooperating recently, the appropriate-ness of the childs negotiation attempts, and thechilds defiance. Accordingly, Ritchie (1999) showedthat maternal tactics differ in the beginning, middle,and end of an extended disciplinary incident.

The control system perspective has many re-search implications. More information is needed

about optimal ways for parents to maintain childrensbehavior in the appropriate range, ways to preventchildren from testing the limits, ways to make gentlerdisciplinary tactics effective when the limits aretested, and so on. Especially for children with moredifficult temperaments or disruptive behavior prob-lems, parents must back up those gentle disciplinarytactics with power-assertive tactics occasionally, es-pecially during the ages from 2 to 6.

The most consistent finding of beneficial childoutcomes of nonabusive spanking is consistent withsuch a control system process. Spanking was effectivein reducing subsequent noncompliance and fightingin 2- to 6-year olds when it was used primarily toback up milder disciplinary tactics such as reasoningor time-out. Roberts and Powers (1990) showed that,on the average, a brief room isolation was equallyeffective as spanking as a back-up of last resort.

The control system perspective also has impor-tant implications for last-resort disciplinary tactics.At some point, eliminating all forceful backup tactics

renders the entire disciplinary control system ineffec-tive. This seems to be illustrated by mothers whoused reasoning frequently with 2- and 3-year oldswithout ever backing the reasoning up with negativeconsequences (Larzelere et al., 1998b). Their chil-drens disruptive behavior increased the most duringthe next 20 months. Such a failure of last-resort back-ups could easily lead to the development of natter-ing, which Patterson (1982) identified as a typicalparenting pattern in families of antisocial boys.Nat-teringis defined as nagging or scolding irritably with

no intention of following through (Patterson, 1982,p. 112 ; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992, p. 66).

A control system perspective also implies that

more forceful tactics should not be overused as initialor primary disciplinary responses. This is consistentwith the fact that overly frequent physical punish-ment has the most consistent evidence of detrimentalcausal effects on childrens behavior.

An optimal disciplinary control system fits an

authoritative parenting style, which combines paren-tal nurturance and give-and-take communicationwith firm control when necessary. There are a rangeof appropriate ways to combine parental nurturance,communication, and control with approximately sim-ilar outcomes for the child (Baumrind, 1991). It isthe extreme parenting styles that yield detrimentalchild outcomes, whether the extreme is permissiveor authoritarian. Similarly, there are many ways forparents to implement a reasonably effective disciplin-ary control system within a loving parentchild rela-

tionship. The extremes are most likely to be counter-productive. One extreme would be never or rarelyusing firm tactics to set effective limits. The otherextreme would be rarely using milder disciplinarytactics as a preferred disciplinary response beforeresorting to harsher disciplinary tactics.

A control system process illustrates only onepossible innovative way to investigate optimal disci-plinary responses. It seems to be counterproductiveand simplistic to continue viewing some disciplinarytactics as invariably good and others as invariablybad, as long as those tactics are nonabusive. Anotherinnovative approach would consider how disciplinaryresponse tactics influence the parentchild relation-ship quality and how that quality in turn influencesthe effects of disciplinary tactics (Kuczynski & Lollis,in press). The main point is that parental disciplineresearch needs to break out of some boxes, bothmethodologically and conceptually.

In conclusion, this review indicates that we havea lot to learn about the complexities of appropriate

parental discipline. Research on spanking does notsupport an unconditional antispanking position atthis time. It is more difficult to establish conclusiveboundaries between effective and counterproductivephysical punishment. Spanking as a back-up formilder disciplinary tactics in 2- to 6-year olds seemsto produce beneficial child outcomes, at least in re-ducing noncompliance and fighting. Overly frequentspanking predicts a wider range of detrimental out-comes, but to a degree matched by overly frequentuse of every alternative disciplinary tactic investi-

gated to date. Future research must distinguish be-tween effective vs. counterproductive physical pun-ishment. It must also distinguish between effective


21/23


22/23

220 Larzelere

responses. In J. C. Westman (Ed.), Parenthood in America.Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Larzelere,R. E.,Baumrind, D., & Polite,K. (1998a). Two emergingperspectives of parental spanking from two 1996 conferences.Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine,152, 303305.

Larzelere, R. E., & Johnson, B. (1999). Evaluation of the effectsof Swedens spanking ban on physical child abuse rates: Aliterature review. Psychological Reports, 85,381392.

Larzelere, R. E., Klein, M., Schumm, W. R., & Alibrando, S.A., Jr. (1989). Relations of spanking and other parentingcharacteristics to self-esteem and perceived fairness of paren-tal discipline. Psychological Reports, 64, 11401142.

Larzelere, R. E., & Merenda, J. A. (1994). The effectiveness ofparental discipline for toddler misbehavior at different levelsof child distress. Family Relations, 43,480488.

Larzelere, R. E., Sather, P. R., Schneider, W. N., Larson, D. B., &Pike, P. L. (1998b). Punishment enhances reasonings effec-tiveness as a disciplinary response to toddlers. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 60,388403.

Larzelere, R. E., Schneider, W. N., Larson, D. B., & Pike, P. L.(1996). The effects of discipline responses in delaying toddlermisbehavior recurrences.Child & Family Behavior Therapy,

18,3557.Larzelere, R. E., & Smith, G. L. (2000, August). Controlled longitu-dinal effects of five disciplinary tactics on antisocial behavior.Paper presented at the annual convention of the AmericanPsychological Association, Washington, DC.

Lonigan, C. J., Elbert, J. C., & Johnson, S. B. (1998). Empiricallysupported psychosocial interventions for children: An over-view. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27,138145.

Lyons, J. S., Anderson, R. L., & Larson, D. B. (1993). The useand effects of physical punishment in the home : A systematicreview. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Acad-emy of Pediatrics, Washington, DC.

MacIntyre, D. I., & Cantrell, P. J. (1995). Punishment history andadult attitudes towards violence and aggression in men and

women. Social Behav

iour and Personality, 23,2328.McClelland, D. C., & Pilon, D. A. (1983). Sources of adult motivesin patterns of parent behavior in early childhood. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 44,564574.

McCord, J. (1988). Parental aggressiveness and physical punish-ment in long term perspective. In G. H otaling, D. Finkelhor,J. Kilpatrick, & M. Straus (Eds.),Family abuse and its conse-quences.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

McCord, J., & Ensminger, M. E. (1997). Multiple risks and comor-bidity in an African-American population. Criminal Behav-iour and Mental Health, 7,339352.

McLeod, J. D., Kruttschnitt, C., & Dornfeld, M. (1994). Doesparenting explain the effects of structural conditions on chil-drens antisocial behavior? A comparison of blacks and

whites. Social Forces, 73,575604.Michels, S., Pianta, R., & Reeve, R. (1993). Parent self-reports ofdiscipline practices and child acting-out behaviors in kinder-garten. Early Education and Development, 4,139144.

Miller, N., & Pollock, V. E. (1994). Meta-analytic synthesis fortheory development. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.),The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 457484). New York:Russell Sage Foundation.

Mosby, L., Rawls, A. W., Meehan, A. J., Mays, E., & Pettinari,C. J. (1999). Troubles in interracial talk about discipline: Anexamination of African American child rearing narratives.Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 30,489521.

Newsom, C., Favell, J. E., & Rincover, A. (1983). Side effects ofpunishment. In S. Axelrod & J. Apsche (Eds.),The effects of

punishment on human behavior (pp. 285316). New York:Academic Press.Palmerus, K., & Scarr, S. (1995). How parents discipline young

children. Cultural comparisons and individual differences.Pa-

per presented at the conference of the Society for Researchon Child Development, Indianapolis, IN.

Paschall, M. J., & Straus, M. A. (1998). Corporal punishment bymothers and childs cognitive development:A second longitudi-nal study.Unpublished abstract.

Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Eugene, OR:Castalia Press.

Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial

boys.Eugene, OR: Castalia.Polaha, J. A. (1998). The relationship between physical disciplineand child behavior problems: A study of group differences.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, Au-burn, AL.

Rhue, J. W., & Lynn, S. J. (1987). Fantasy proneness: Develop-mental antecedents. Journal of Personality, 55,121137.

Ritchie, K. L. (1999). Maternal behaviors and cognitions duringdiscipline episodes: A comparison of power bouts and singleacts of noncompliance. Developmental Psychology, 35,580589.

Roberts, M. W. (1982). The effects of warned versus unwarnedtime-out procedures on child noncompliance.Child & FamilyBehavior Therapy, 4,3753.

Roberts, M. W. (1988). Enforcing chair timeouts with room ti-meouts. Behavioral Modification, 12,353370.Roberts, M. W., & Powers, S. W. (1990). Adjusting chair timeout

enforcement procedures for oppositional children. BehaviorTherapy, 21,257271.

Rothman, K. S. (1986).Modern epidemiology.Boston, MA: Little,Brown and Co.

Schenck, E. R., Lyman, R. D., & Bodin, S. D. (2000). Ethicalbeliefs, attitudes, and professional practices of psychologistsregarding parental use of corporal punishment: A survey.Childrens Services: Social Policy, Research, and Practice,3(1), 2338.

Sears, R. R . (1961). Relation of early socialization experiences toaggression in middle childhood. Journal of Abnormal and

Social Psychology, 63,466492.Sears, R. R. (1970). Relation of early socialization experiencesto self-concepts and gender role in middle childhood. ChildDevelopment, 41,267289.

Simons, R. L., Lin, K.-H., & Gordon, L. C. (1998). Socializationin the family of origin and male dating violence: A prospectivestudy.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60,467478.

Smith, J. R., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1997). Correlates and conse-quences of harsh discipline for young children. Archives ofPediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 151,777786.

Snyder, J., Edwards, P., McGraw, K., Kilgore, K., & Holton, A.(1994). Escalation and reinforcement in motherchild conflict:Social processes associated with the development of physicalaggression. Development and Psychopathology, 6,305321.

Statistics Sweden. (1996). Spanking and other forms of physicalpunishment (Demography, the Family, and Children1996:1.2). Stockholm: Statistics Sweden.

Stattin, H., Janson, H., Klackenberg-Larsson, I., & Magnusson,D. (1995). Corporal punishment in everyday life: An intergen-erational perspective. In J. McCord (Ed.), Coercion and pun-ishment in long-term perspectives(pp. 315347). Cambridge,England: Cambridge University Press.

Strassberg, Z., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. W., & Bates, J. E. (1994).Spanking in the home and childrens subsequent aggressiontoward kindergarten peers. Development and Psychopathol-ogy, 6,445461.

Straus, M. A., & Mouradian, V. E. (1998). Impulsive corporalpunishment by mothers and antisocial behavior and impul-

siveness of children. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 16,353374.Straus, M. A., & Paschall, M. J. (1998, August 1). Corporal punish-

ment by mothers and childs cognitive development:A longitu-


23/23


dinal study. Paper presented at the 14th World Congress ofSociology, Montreal, Canada.

Straus, M. A., & Stewart, J. H. (1999). Corporal punishment byAmerican parents: National data on prevalence, chronicity,severity, and duration, in relation to child and family charac-teristics. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review,2(2), 5570.

Straus, M. A., Sugarman, D. B., & Giles-Sims, J. (1997). Spanking

by parents and subsequent antisocial behavior of children.Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 151, 761767.

Tennant, F. S., Jr., Detels, R., & Clark, V. (1975). Some childhoodantecedents of drug and alcohol abuse. American Journal ofEpidemiology, 102,377385.

Valsiner, J. (1987). Culture and the development of childrens ac-tions: A culturalhistorical theory of developmental psychol-ogy.New York: Wiley.

Walters, G. C., & Grusec, J. E. (1977). Punishment.San Francisco:W. H. Freeman.

Weiss, B., Dodge, K. A., & Bates, J. E. (1992). Some consequencesof early harsh discipline: Child aggression and a maladaptivesocial information processing style. Child Development, 63,13211335.

Whaley, A. L. (2000). Sociocultural differences in the develop-mental consequences of the use of physical discipline duringchildhood for African Americans.Cultural Diversity and Eth-nic Minority Psychology, 6(1), 512.

Wittrock, U. (1992). Barnmisshandel i kriminalstatistiken, 19811991 [Violent crimes against children in criminal statistics,19811991]. KR Info, 1992: 7.

Wittrock, U. (1995). Barnmisshandel, 19841994 [Violent crimesagainst children, 1984 1994].KR Info, 1995: 5.

Yarrow, M. R., Campbell, J. D., & Burton, R. V. (1968). Childrearing:An inquiry into research and methods.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

a favor da punição moderada

Documents

Transcript of a favor da punição moderada