Social Science and Public Policy
NEW EVIDENCE FOR
THE BENEFITS OF
NEVER SPANKING
Murray A. Straus
a revolution has o c c u r r e d in the last
ur years in the state of scientific knowledge
about the long-term effects of corporal punish-
ment. This article summarizes the results of that
r e s e a r c h and explains w h y the n e w r e s e a r c h
shows, more clearly than ever before, the benefits
of avoiding corporal punishment.
Somewhat ironically, at the same time as these
n e w studies were a p p e a r i n g , v o i c e s arose in state
legislatures, the mass media, and in social science
journals to defend corporal punishment. Conse-
quently, a s e c o n d p u r p o s e is to put these recent
defenses of corporal p u n i s h m e n t in perspective.
This is followed by a section explaining a para-
dox c o n c e r n i n g trends in corporal punishment.
Public belief in the necessity of corporal punish-
ment and the percentage of parents w h o hit teen-
agers is about half of what it was only 30 years
ago. Despite these dramatic changes, 94 p e r c e n t
of parents of toddlers in a recent national survey
r e p o r t e d spanking, w h i c h is about the same as it
was in 1975 (Straus and Stewart, 1999).
The article concludes with an estimate of the
benefits to children, to parents, and to society as
a w h o l e that could o c c u r if corporal p u n i s h m e n t
were to cease.
Defenders of corporal p u n i s h m e n t say or im-
ply that no-corporal p u n i s h m e n t is the same as
no-discipline or"permissiveness." Consequently,
before discussing the n e w research, it is impor-
tant to e m p h a s i z e that n o - c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t
d o e s n o t m e a n no-discipline. Writers and orga-
n i z a t i o n s l e a d i n g the m o v e m e n t a w a y f r o m
c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t believe that rules and disci-
pline are necessary, but that they will be more
52 SOCIETY 9 SEPTEMBER/ OCTOBER 2001
effective w i t h o u t c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t . T h e i r
goal is to i n f o r m p a r e n t s a b o u t t h e s e m o r e ef-
fective d i s c i p l i n a r y strategies, as e x e m p l i f i e d
in the very name of one such o r g a n i z a t i o n - - t h e
Center For Effective Discipline (see their web site:
http.'//www.stophitting.com; see also the web site
of Positive Parenting p r o g r a m bttp://
parenting, umn. edu).
Previous Research o n Corporal P u n i s h m e n t
In order to grasp the i m p o r t a n c e of the n e w
research, the limitations of the previous 45 years
of research need to be understood. These 45 years
saw the publication of more than 80 studies link-
ing corporal p u n i s h m e n t to child behavior prob-
lems such as physical violence. A meta-analysis
of these studies by Gershoff (in press) found that
almost all s h o w e d that the more corporal punish-
ment a child had experienced, the w o r s e the be-
havior of the child. Gershoff's review reveals a
consistency of findings that is rare in social sci-
e n c e research. T h o m p s o n c o n c l u d e d that "Al-
t h o u g h ... c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t d o e s s e c u r e
children's immediate compliance,it also increases
the likelihood of eleven [types of] negative out-
comes [such as increased physical aggression by the
child and depression later in life]. Moreover, even
studies c o n d u c t e d by defenders of corporal pun-
ishment s h o w that, even w h e n the criterion is im-
mediate compliance, non-corporal disciplinc strat-
egies work just as well as corporal punishment.
The studies in my b o o k Beating the Devil Out
of Them are examples of the type of negative out-
c o m e reviewed by Thompson. For example, the
m o r e c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t e x p e r i e n c e d , the
g r e a t e r the p r o b a b i l i t y of hitting a wife or hus-
b a n d later in life. A n o t h e r study of k i n d e r g a r t e n
c h i l d r e n used data on c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t ob-
t a i n e d by i n t e r v i e w s w i t h the m o t h e r s of the chil-
dren. Six m o n t h s later the children w e r e o b s e r v e d
in school. I n s t a n c e s of p h y s i c a l aggression w e r e
tallied for each child. The c h i l d r e n of m o t h e r s
who used corporal punishment attacked other
c h i l d r e n t w i c e as o f t e n as the c h i l d r e n w h o s e
m o t h e r s did not. The c h i l d r e n of m o t h e r s w h o
w e n t b e y o n d o r d i n a r y c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t had
four times the rate of a t t a c k i n g o t h e r c h i l d r e n .
This illustrates a n o t h e r p r i n c i p l e : that the psycho-
logically harmful effects of c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t
are p a r a l l e l to t h e h a r m f u l e f f e c t s of p h y s i c a l
abuse, e x c e p t that the m a g n i t u d e of the effect is
less.
D e s p i t e the unusually high c o n s t a n c y in the
f i n d i n g s of r e s e a r c h on c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t ,
t h e r e is a s e r i o u s p r o b l e m with all the p r e v i o u s
r e s e a r c h , t h e s e studies do not i n d i c a t e w h i c h is
cause and w h i c h is effect. That is, t h e y do not
take into a c c o u n t the fact that a g g r e s s i o n and
o t h e r b e h a v i o r p r o b l e m s of the child lead p a r e n t s
to spank. Consequently, a l t h o u g h t h e r e is clear
e v i d e n c e that the m o r e c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t , the
g r e a t e r the p r o b a b i l i t y of hitting a s p o u s e later in
life, that finding c o u l d simply i n d i c a t e that the
p a r e n t s w e r e r e s p o n d i n g to a high level of aggres-
sion by the child at Time 1. For e x a m p l e , t h e y
might have s p a n k e d b e c a u s e the child r e p e a t e d l y
g r a b b e d toys from or hit a b r o t h e r or sister. Since
a g g r e s s i o n is a relatively stable trait, it is not sur-
prising that the most aggressive c h i l d r e n at Time
1 are still the most aggressive at Time 2 and are
n o w hitting their wives or husbands. To deal with
that p r o b l e m , the r e s e a r c h n e e d s to take into ac-
c o u n t the child's a g g r e s s i o n or o t h e r antisocial
b e h a v i o r at Time 1 (the time of the spanking).
Studies using that design can e x a m i n e w h e t h e r ,
in the m o n t h s or years following, the b e h a v i o r of
c h i l d r e n w h o w e r e s p a n k e d i m p r o v e s (as most
p e o p l e in the USA think will be the case) or gets
w o r s e . T h e r e are finally n e w studies that use this
d e s i g n and p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n on long t e r m
c h a n g e in the child's behavior.
Five New Landmark Studies
In the t h r e e - y e a r p e r i o d 1997-1999 five stud-
ies b e c a m e available that can be c o n s i d e r e d "land-
mark" studies b e c a u s e t h e y o v e r c a m e this serious
d e f e c t in 45 years of p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h on the
long-term effects of c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t . All five
NEW EVIDENCE FOR THE BENEFITS OF NEVER SPANKING
of the n e w studies t o o k into a c c o u n t the child's
behavior atTime 1, and all five were based on large
and nationally representative samples of A m e r i c a n
children. None of t h e m d e p e n d e d on adults re-
calling w h a t h a p p e n e d w h e n t h e y w e r e children.
Study 1: Corporal Punishment and Subsequent
Antisocial Behavior
This r e s e a r c h s t u d i e d o v e r 3,000 c h i l d r e n in
tile National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (Straus,
et al., 1997). T h e c h i l d r e n w e r e in t h r e e age
groups: 3-5,6-9,and 10-14. The m o t h e r s of all three
g r o u p s of c h i l d r e n w e r e i n t e r v i e w e d at the start
of the study in 1988, and t h e n again in 1990 and
1992. The findings w e r e v e r y similar for all t h r e e
age g r o u p s and for c h a n g e after two years and
four years. To avoid e x c e s s detail only the results
for the 6-9 year old c h i l d r e n and for the c h a n g e in
antisocial b e h a v i o r t w o years after the first inter-
v i e w will be d e s c r i b e d here.
Measure of corporal punishment. To m e a s u r e
corporal punishment, the mothers were told
"Sometimes kids mind p r e t t y well and s o m e t i m e s
t h e y don't," and asked "About h o w many times, if
any, have you had to spank y o u r child in the past
week?"
Measure of Antisocial Behavior. To m e a s u r e
Antisocial Behavior the mothers were asked
w h e t h e r , in the past t h r e e m o n t h s , the child fre-
q u e n t l y "cheats or tells lies," "bullies or is c r u e l /
m e a n to o t h e r s , " " d o e s not feel sorry after misbe-
having,""breaks things deliberately,""is d i s o b e d i -
e n t at school," "has t r o u b l e g e t t i n g along w i t h
teachers." This was u s e d to c r e a t e a m e a s u r e of
the n u m b e r of a n t i s o c i a l b e h a v i o r s f r e q u e n t l y
e n g a g e d in by the child.
Other Variables. We also t o o k into a c c o u n t
several o t h e r variables that c o u l d affect antiso-
cial b e h a v i o r by the child. These i n c l u d e the sex
of child, c o g n i t i v e s t i m u l a t i o n p r o v i d e d by the
p a r e n t s , e m o t i o n a l s u p p o r t by the mother, e t h n i c
g r o u p of the mother, and s o c i o e c o n o m i c status
of the family.
Findings. The m o r e c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t used
d u r i n g the first year of thc study, the g r e a t e r the
t e n d e n c y f o r A n t i s o c i a l Behavior to increase sub-
sequent to the corporal p u n i s h m e n t . It also shows
that this effect a p p l i e d to b o t h Euro A m e r i c a n
c h i l d r e n and c h i l d r e n of o t h e r e t h n i c groups. Of
course, o t h e r things also i n f l u e n c e Antisocial Be-
havior. For e x a m p l e , girls have l o w e r rates of An-
tisocial Behavior than boys, and c h i l d r e n w h o s e
m o t h e r s are w a r m and s u p p o r t i v e are less likely
55
to behave in antisocial ways. M t h o u g h these other
variables do lessen the effect of corporal punish-
ment, w e found that the t e n d e n c y for corporal
p u n i s h m e n t to make things worse over the long
run applies regardless of race, s o c i o e c o n o m i c sta-
tus, gender of the child, and regardless of the ex-
tent to w h i c h the m o t h e r p r o v i d e s c o g n i t i v e
stimulation and emotional support.
Study 2: A Second Study of Corporal Punishment
and Antisocial Behavior
Sample and Measures. G u n n o e and Mariner
(1997) analyzed data from a n o t h e r large and rep-
resentative sample of American c h i l d r e n - - t h e Na-
tional Survey of Families and Households. They
studied 1,112 children in two age groups: 4-7 and
8-11. In half of the cases the m o t h e r was inter-
viewed and in the o t h e r half the father provided
the information. The parents were first inter-
v i e w e d in 1987-88, and t h e n five years later.
G u n n o e and Mariner's measure of corporal pun-
ishment was the same as in the Straus et al. study
just d e s c r i b e d ; that is, h o w o f t e n the p a r e n t
spanked in the previous week.
G u n n o e and Mariner examined the effect of
corporal punishment on two aspects of the child's
behavior: fighting at school and antisocial behav-
ior. Their Antisocial Behavior measure was also
the same as in the Straus et al. study.
Findings on Fighting. G u n n o e and Mariner
found that the more corporal punishment in 1987-
88, the greater the a m o u n t of fighting at school
five years later. This is consistent with the t h e o r y
that in the long r u n c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t is
counter-productive. However, for toddlers and for
African-American children, they found the oppo-
site, i.e. that corporal p u n i s h m e n t is associated
with less fighting 5 years later. G u n n o e and Mari-
ner suggest that this occurs because y o u n g e r chil-
dren andAfrican-American children tend to regard
corporal p u n i s h m e n t as a legitimate parental be-
havior rather than as an aggressive act. However,
corporal punishment by parents of young children
and byAfrican-American parents is so nearly uni-
versal (for example, 94 p e r c e n t of parents of tod-
dlers) that it suggests an alternative explanation:
that no-corporal punishment means no-discipline.
If that is the case, it is no w o n d e r that children
w h o s e parents exercise no-discipline are less well
behaved. Corporal p u n i s h m e n t may not be g o o d
for children, but failure to properly supervise and
control is even worse.
Findings on Antisocial Behavior. The findings
54 SOCIETY 9 SEPTEMBER/ OCTOBER 2001
on the relation of corporal p u n i s h m e n t toAntiso-
cial Behavior s h o w that the more corporal pun-
ishment e x p e r i e n c e d by the children in Year 1,
the higher the level of Antisocial Behavior five
years later. Moreover, they found that the harm-
ful effect of corporal p u n i s h m e n t applies to all
the categories of children they s t u d i e d - - t h a t is,
to children in each age group, to all races, and to
both boys and girls. Thus, both of these major
long-term prospective studies resulted in evidence
that, although corporal p u n i s h m e n t may w o r k in
the short run, in the long run it tends to boomer-
ang and make things worse.
An important sidelight of the Gunnoe and Mari-
ner study is that it illustrates the way inconve-
nient findings can be ignored to give a desired
"spin." The findings section includes one brief
sentence acknowledging that their study "repli-
cates the Straus et al. findings." This crucial find-
ing is never again mentioned. The extensive dis-
cussion and conclusion sections omit mentioning
the results showing that corporal p u n i s h m e n t at
Time 1 was associated with more antisocial be-
havior subsequently for children of all ages and
all ethnic groups. Marjorie G u n n o e told me that
she is o p p o s e d to spanking and has never spanked
her o w n children. So the spin she put on the find-
ings is not a reflection of personal values or be-
havior. Perhaps it reflects teaching at a college
affiliated with a c h u r c h w h i c h teaches that God
expects parents to spank.
Study 3: Corporal Punishment and Child-to-Parent
Violence
Timothy Brezina (1999) analyzed data on a na-
tionally representative sample of 1,519 adolescent
boys w h o participated in the Youth in Transition
study. This is a three-wave panel study that was
b e g u n in 1966. Although the data refer to a pre-
vious generation of high school students, there is
no reason to think that the relationship b e t w e e n
corporal p u n i s h m e n t and children hitting parents
is different n o w that it was then, e x c e p t that the
rate may have decreased because fewer parents
n o w slap teen-agers.
Measure of Corporal Punishment. Corporal
p u n i s h m e n t was measured by asking the boys
"How often do your parents actually slap you?"
The response categories ranged from 1 (never)
to 5 (always). Twenty eight p e r c e n t of the boys
r e p o r t e d being slapped by their parents during
the year of the first wave of the study w h e n their
average age was 15, and 19 p e r c e n t w e r e s l a p p e d
d u r i n g t h e w a v e 2 year (a year and half later).
Measure of Child Aggression. The boys w e r e
asked similar q u e s t i o n s a b o u t h o w often t h e y hit
t h e i r father and t h e i r mother. Eleven p e r c e n t re-
p o r t e d hitting a p a r e n t the first year, and 7 per-
c e n t r e p o r t e d hitting a p a r e n t at Time 2 of the
study.
Findings. Brezina found that c o r p o r a l punish-
m e n t a t T i m c 1 was a s s o c i a t e d with an increased
p r o b a b i l i t y of a child assaulting the p a r e n t a year
and a half later. Thus, while it is true that c o r p o -
ral p u n i s h m e n t t e a c h e s the child a lesson, it is
c e r t a i n l y n o t the l e s s o n i n t e n d e d by the parents.
As w i t h the o t h e r four studies, the data analy-
sis t o o k into a c c o u n t s o m e of the many o t h e r fac-
tors that affect the p r o b a b i l i t y of c h i l d - t o - p a r e n t
v i o l e n c e . T h e s e i n c l u d e t h e s o c i o e c o n o m i c sta-
tus a n d r a c e of t h e family, t h e age of t h e par-
ents, the child's a t t a c h m e n t to the p a r e n t , c h i l d ' s
a t t i t u d e t o w a r d aggression, and child's physical
size.
Study 4: Corporal Punishment and Dating
Violence
Simons, Lin, a n d G o r d o n ( 1 9 9 8 ) t e s t e d t h e
t h e o r y that c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t by the p a r e n t s
i n c r e a s e s the p r o b a b i l i t y of later hitting a part-
n e r in a dating relationship. They studied 113 boys
in a rural area of the state of Iowa, b e g i n n i n g w h e n
t h e y w e r e in the 7th grade or a b o u t age 13.
Measure of Corporal Punishment. The moth-
ers and the fathers of these b o y s w e r e asked h o w
often t h e y s p a n k e d or s l a p p e d the child w h e n he
did s o m e t h i n g w r o n g , and h o w often t h e y used a
belt or p a d d l e for c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t . These
q u e s t i o n s w e r e r e p e a t e d in waves 2 and 3 of this
5-year study. The s c o r e s for the m o t h e r and the
father for each of the t h r e e years w e r e c o m b i n e d
to c r e a t e an o v e r a l l m e a s u r e of c o r p o r a l pun-
i s h m e n t . More t h a n h a l f of t h e b o y s e x p e r i -
e n c e d c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t d u r i n g t h o s e years.
Consequently, the findings about corporal pun-
i s h m e n t a p p l y to the majority of boys in that
c o m m u n i t y , n o t just to the c h i l d r e n of a small
g r o u p of v i o l e n t parents.
Measure of Dating Violence. The i n f o r m a t i o n
on dating v i o l e n c e c a m e from the boys, so it is
n o t i n f l u e n c e d by w h e t h e r the p a r e n t s v i e w e d
t h e b o y as a g g r e s s i v e . T h e b o y s w e r e a s k e d
w h e t h e r , in the last y e a r , " W h e n you had a dis-
a g r e e m e n t w i t h your girlfriend, h o w often did you
hit, push, shove her?"
NEW EVIDENCE FOR THE BENEFITS (.)F NEVER SPANKING
Measure of Delinquency at Time 1. As ex-
p l a i n e d earlier, it is critical to take into a c c o u n t
the m i s b e h a v i o r that leads p a r e n t s to use c o r p o -
ral p u n i s h m e n t . In this study, that was d o n e by
asking the b o y s at Time 1 h o w often t h e y had
e n g a g e d in each of 24 d e l i n q u e n t acts such as
s k i p p i n g school, stealing, and physically attack-
ing s o m e o n e w i t h a w e a p o n ; and also h o w often
they had used drugs and alcohol.
Parental involvement and support. Finally the
study also t o o k into a c c o u n t the e x t e n t to w h i c h
the p a r e n t s s h o w e d w a r m t h and affection, w e r e
c o n s i s t e n t in t h e i r discipline, m o n i t o r e d and su-
p e r v i s e d the child, and e x p l a i n e d rules and ex-
p e c t a t i o n s . In a d d i t i o n , it also c o n t r o l l e d for wit-
nessing p a r e n t a l v i o l e n c e .
Findings. Simons and his colleagues fotmd that
the m o r e c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t e x p e r i e n c e d by
these boys, the g r e a t e r the p r o b a b i l i t y of t h e i r
physically assaulting a girlfriend. Moreover, like
the o t h e r p r o s p e c t i v e studies, the analysis t o o k
into a c c o u n t the m i s b e h a v i o r that led p a r e n t s to
use c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t , and also the quality of
p a r e n t i n g This means that the relation of c o r p o -
ral p u n i s h m e n t to v i o l e n c e against a girlfriend is
very unlikely to be due to p o o r p a r e n t i n g . Rather,
it is a n o t h e r study s h o w i n g that the long r u n ef-
fect of c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t is to e n g e n d e r m o r e
r a t h e r than less misbehavior. In short, s p a n k i n g
boomerangs.
Study 5: Corporal Punishment and Child's
Cognitive Development
T h e last of t h e s e five s t u d i e s ( S t r a u s a n d
Paschall, 1999) was p r o m p t e d by studies show-
ing that talking to c h i l d r e n ( i n c l u d i n g p r e - s p e e c h
infants) is a s s o c i a t e d w i t h an increase in neural
c o n n e c t i o n s in the brain anti in c o g n i t i v e p e r f o r -
m a n c e . T h o s e f i n d i n g s led us to t h e o r i z e t h a t
if p a r e n t s aw)id c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t , t h e y are
m n r e l i k e l y to e n g a g e in v e r b a l m e t h o d s of be-
h a v i o r c o n t r o l s u c h as e x p l a i n i n g to t h e child,
and that the i n c r e a s e d verbal i n t e r a c t i o n with the
child will in turn e n h a n c e the c h i l d ' s c o g n i t i v e
ability.
This t h e o r y w a s t e s t e d on 806 c h i l d r e n of
m o t h e r s in the N a t i o n a l L o n g i t u d i n a l Study of
Youth w h o w e r e age 2 to 4 in the first year of our
analysis, and the tests w e r e r e p e a t e d for an addi-
tional 7{)4 c h i l d r e n w h o w e r e age 5 to 9 in the
first year. C o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t was m e a s u r e d by
w h e t h e r the m o t h e r was o b s e r v e d h i t t i n g the
child d u r i n g the i n t e r v i e w and by a q u e s t i o n on
55
f r e q u e n c y of spanking in the past week. A corpo-
ral p u n i s h m e n t scale was created by adding the
n u m b e r o f times the p a r e n t s p a n k e d in t w o
sample weeks. Cognitive ability was measured in
Year 1 and two years later by tests appropriate
for the age of the child at the time of testing such
as the Peabody Picture VocabularyTest.
The study took into a c c o u n t the m o t h e r ' s age
and education, w h e t h e r the father was present in
the household, n u m b e r of children in the family,
m o t h e r ' s supportiveness and cognitive stimula-
tion, ethnic group, and the child's age, gender, and
child's birth weight.
The less corporal p u n i s h m e n t parents use on
toddlers, the greater the probability that the child
will have an above average cognitive growth. The
greater benefit of avoiding corporal p u n i s h m e n t
for the y o u n g e r children is consistent with the
research showing the most rapid g r o w t h of neu-
ral c o n n e c t i o n s in the brain at early ages. It is
also consistent with the theory that what the child
learns as an infant and toddler is crucial because
it provides the necessary basis for s u b s e q u e n t
cognitive d e v e l o p m e n t . The greater adverse ef-
fect on cognitive d e v e l o p m e n t for toddlers has
an extremely important practical implication be-
cause the defenders of corporal p u n i s h m e n t have
n o w retreated to limiting their advocacy to tod-
dlers. Their r e c o m m e n d a t i o n is not based on
empirical evidence. The evidence from this study
suggests that, at least in so far as cognitive devel-
o p m e n t is c o n c e r n e d , supporters of corporal pun-
ishment have unwittingly advised parents to use
corporal punishment at the ages w h e n it will have
the most adverse effect.
The Message Of The Five Studies:"Don't Spank"
Each of the five studies I briefly summarized is
far from perfect. They can be picked apart one
by one, as can just about every epidemiological
study. This is what the t o b a c c o industry did for
many years. The Surgeon General's c o m m i t t e e on
smoking did the opposite. Their review of the
research acknowledged the limitations of the stud-
ies w h e n taken one-by-one. But they c o n c l u d e d
that despite the defects of the individual studies,
the cumulative evidence indicated that smoking
does cause lung c a n c e r and other diseases, and
they called for an end to smoking. With respect
to spanking, I believe that the cumulative weight
of the evidence, and especially the five prospec-
tive studies provides sufficient evidence for a new
Surgeon General's warning. A start in that direc-
56 SOCIETY 9 SEPTEMBER/ OCTOBER 2001
tion was made by the American Academy of Pedi-
atrics, w h i c h in 1998 published "Guidelines for
Effective Discipline" (Pediatrics I 01:723-728) that
advises parents to avoid spanking.
Is There a Backlash?
It is ironic that during the same period as the
new and more definitive research was appearing,
there were hostile or ridiculing articles in news-
papers and magazines on the idea of never spank-
ing a child. In 1999,Arizona and Arkansas passed
laws to remind parents and teachers that they
have the right to use corporal p u n i s h m e n t and to
urge them to do so. There has also been a con-
tentious debate in scientific journals on the ap-
propriateness of corporal punishment. These de-
v e l o p m e n t s made some advocates for children
c o n c e r n e d that there is a backlash against the idea
of no-spanking. However, there are several rea-
sons for doubting the existence of a backlash in
the sense of a reversal in the trend of decreasing
public s u p p o r t for corporal punishment, or in the
sense of non-spanking parents reverting to using
corporal punishment.
One reason for d o u b t i n g the existence of a
backlash is that, each year, a larger and larger pro-
p o r t i o n of the American p o p u l a t i o n o p p o s e s cor-
poral p u n i s h m e n t . In 1968, w h i c h was only a
g e n e r a t i o n ago, almost e v e r y o n e (94 p e r c e n t )
believed that corporal p u n i s h m e n t is sometimes
necessary. But in the last 30 years public s u p p o r t
for corporal p u n i s h m e n t has been decreasing. By
1999, almost half of US adults rejected the idea
that spanking is necessary.
The Advocates Are Long-Time Supporters
In 1968, those w h o favored corporal punish-
ment did not need to speak out to defend their
view because, as just indicated, almost everyone
believed it was necessary. The dramatic decrease
in s u p p o r t for corporal p u n i s h m e n t means that
long time adw)cates of corporal p u n i s h m e n t n o w
have reason to be worried, and they are speaking
out. Consequently, their recent publications do
not indicate a backlash in the sense of a change
from being o p p o s e d to corporal p u n i s h m e n t to
favoring it. I suggest that it is more like dying
gasps of s u p p o r t for an ancient mode of bringing
up children that is heading towards extinction.
The efforts of those w h o favor corporal pun-
ishment have also been spurred on by tim increase
in crime in many countries. The rise in y o u t h
crime in the United States, although recently re-
versed, is a very d i s t u r b i n g trend, and it has
p r o m p t e d a search for causes and corrective steps.
It should be no surprise that p e o p l e w h o have
always believed in the use of corporal punishment
believe that a return to their favored mode of
bringing up children will help cure the crime
problem. They argue that children need "disci-
pline," w h i c h is correct. However, they equate
discipline with corporal p u n i s h m e n t , w h i c h is not
correct. No-corporal p u n i s h m e n t does not mean
no-discipline. Delinquency prevention does re-
quire, a m o n g o t h e r things, discipline in the sense
of clear rules and standards for behavior and pa-
rental supervision and monitoring and enforce-
ment. To the extent that part of the explanation
for crime, especially crime by youth, is the lack
of discipline, the appropriate step is not a return
to corporal p u n i s h m e n t but parental standards,
monitoring, and enforcement by non-violent meth-
ods. In fact, as the studies reviewed here indi-
cate, if discipline takes the form of more corporal
p u n i s h m e n t , the p r o b l e m will be e x a c e r b a t e d
because, while corporal p u n i s h m e n t does work
with some children, more typically it b o o m e r a n g s
and increases the level of juvenile delinquency
and other behavior problems.
The criticism in scientific journals of research
on corporal p u n i s h m e n t is also not a backlash. It
has to be viewed in the light of the n o r m s of sci-
ence. A standard aspect of science is to examine
research critically, to raise questions, and to sug-
gest alternative interpretations of findings. This
results in a s o m e w h a t paradoxical tendency 6)r
criticism to increase as the amount of research goes
up. There has recently been an increase in research
showing long-term harmful effects of corporal pun-
ishment. Given the critical ethos of science, it is
only to be expected that the i n c r e a s e d research
has elicited m o r e c o m m e n t a r y and criticism,
e s p e c i a l l y on the part of t h o s e w h o believed
in c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t in the first place.
Three Paradoxes About Corporal P u n i s h m e n t
Three paradoxical aspects of the m o v e m e n t
away from corporal p u n i s h m e n t are w o r t h not-
ing. The first is that, although approval of corpo-
ral p u n i s h m e n t had declined precipitously in the
last generation, almost all parents c o n t i n u e to
spank toddlers. The s e c o n d p a r a d o x is that pro-
fessionals advising parents, including those w h o
are o p p o s e d to spanking, generally fail to tell par-
ents not to spank. They call this aw)iding a"nega-
tive approach." Finally, anti most paradoxically of
NEW EVIDENCE FOR THE BENEFITS OF NEVER SPANKING
all,focusing almost exclusively on a so-called "posi-
tive approach," unwittingly c o n t r i b u t e s to per-
petuating corporal p u n i s h m e n t and helps explain
the first paradox.
Paradox 1: Contradictory Trends. Some as-
pects of corporal p u n i s h m e n t have changed in
major ways. A smaller and smaller p e r c e n t of the
public favors spanking (Straus and Mathur, 1996).
Fewer parents n o w use belts, hairbrushes and
paddles. The p e r c e n t of parents w h o hit adoles-
cents has d r o p p e d by half since 1975. Neverthe-
less, other aspects of corporal p u n i s h m e n t con-
tinue to be prevalent, chronic, and severe. The
1995 (}allup national survey of parents (Straus and
Stewart, 1999) found that:
9 Almost all parents of toddlers (94 p e r c e n t )
used corporal p u n i s h m e n t that year
9 Parents w h o spanked a toddler, did it an av-
erage of about three times a week
9 28 p e r c e n t of parents of children age 5-12
used an object such as a belt or hairbrush
9 Over a third of parents of 13-year-old chil-
dren hit them that year
The myths about corporal p u n i s h m e n t in Beat-
ing The Devil Out Of Them provide important
clues to understanding w h y parents w h o "don't
believe in spanking" c o n t i n u e to do so. These
myths also u n d e r m i n e the ability of professionals
w h o advise parents to do what is needed to end
corporal punishment.
Paradox 2: Opposing S p a n k i n g Out Failing
to Sale Don't ,Spank. Many pediatricians, devel-
opmental psychologists, and parent educators are
n o w o p p o s e d to corporal punishment, at least m
principle. But most also c o n t i n u e to believe that
there may be a situation w h e r e spanking by par-
ents is necessary or acceptable (Schenck, 2000).
This is based on cultural myths. One myth is that
spanking works w h e n other things do not. An-
o t h e r is that "mild" corporal p u n i s h m e n t is harm-
less. All but a small minority of parents and pro-
fessionals continue to believe these myths despite
the experimental and o t h e r e v i d e n c e s h o w i n g
that other disciplinary strategies work just as well
as spanking, even in the short run and are more
effective in the long run as s h o w n by the first
R)ur of the studies described earlier in this article.
Consequently, w h e n I suggest to pediatricians,
parent educators, or social scientists that it is es-
~7
sential to tell parents that they should never spank
or use any other type of corporal punishment,
with rare exception, that idea has been rejected.
Some, like one of America's leading developmen-
tal psychologists, object because of the u n p r o v e n
belief that it w o u l d turn off parents. Some object
on the false belief that it could be harmful be-
cause parents do not k n o w what else to do. They
argue for a "positive approach" by w h i c h they
mean teaching parents alternative disciplinary
strategies, as c o m p a r e d to w h a t t h e y call the
"negative approach" of advising to never spank.
As a result, the typical pattern is to say nothing
about spanking. Fortunately, that is slowly chang-
ing. Although they are still the exception, an in-
creasing n u m b e r of books for parents, parent edu-
cation programs, and guidelines for professionals
advise never-spanking.
Both the m o v e m e n t away from spanking, and
an important limitation of that m o v e m e n t are il-
lustrated by publication of the "Guidelines For Ef-
fective Discipline" o f the American Academy of
Pediatrics. This was an important step forward,
but it also reflects the same problem. It recom-
mends that parents avoid corporal punishment.
However, it also carefully avoids saying that par-
ents should never spank. This may seem like split-
ting hairs, but because of the typical sequence of
parent-child interaction that eventuates in corpo-
ral p u n i s h m e n t described in the next paragraph,
it is a major obstacle to ending corporal punish-
ment. Omitting a never-spank message is a seri-
ous obstacle because, in the absence of a com-
mitment to never-spank, even parents w h o are
against spanking c o n t i n u e to spank. It is impor-
tant to u n d e r s t a n d what underlies the paradox of
parents w h o are o p p o s e d to spanking, nonethe-
less spanking.
Paradox 3: Failing To Be Explicit A g a i n s t
Spanking Results in More Spanking. The para-
dox that fewer and fewer parents are in favor of
spanking, but almost all spank toddlers reflects a
c o m b i n a t i o n of needing to c o p e with the typical
behavior of toddlers and perceiving those behav-
iors through the lens of the myth that spanking
works w h e n o t h e r things do not.
W h e n toddlers are c o r r e c t e d for misbehavior
(such as hitting a n o t h e r child or disobeying), the
"recidivism" rate is about 80 p e r c e n t within the
same day and about 50 p e r c e n t within two hours.
For some children it is within two minutes. One
researcher ( w h o is a defender of corporal pun-
ishment) found that these "time to failure" rates
58 SOCIETY 9 SEPTEMBER/ OCTOBER 2001
apply equally to corporal punishment and to other
disciplinary strategies (Larzelere, et al., 1996).
Consequently, on any given day, a parent is almost
certain to find that so-called alternative disciplin-
ary strategies such as explaining, deprivation of
privileges and time out,"do not work." W h e n that
happens, they turn to spanking. So, as pointed
out previously, just about everyone (at least 94
percent) spanks toddlers.
The difference b e t w e e n spanking and o t h e r
disciplinary strategies is that, w h e n spanking does
not work, parents do not question its effective-
ness. The idea that spanking works w h e n o t h e r
m e t h o d s do not is so ingrained in American cul-
ture that, w h e n the child repeats the misbehav-
ior an h o u r or two later (or sometimes a few min-
utes later) parents fail to perceive that spanking
has the same high failure rate as o t h e r modes of
discipline. So they spank again, and for as many
times as it takes to ultimately secure compliance.
That is the c o r r e c t strategy because, with consis-
tency and perseverance, the child will eventually
learn. What so many parents miss is that it is also
the c o r r e c t strategy for non-spanking methods.
Thus, unless there is an absolute prohibition on
spanking, parents will "see with their o w n eyes"
that alternatives do not work and continue to find
it is necessary to spank.
"Never-Spank" Must Be The Message
Because of the typical behavior of toddlers and
the almost inevitable information p r o c e s s i n g er-
rors just described, teaching alternative disciplin-
ary techniques by itself is not sufficient. There
must also be an u n a m b i g u o u s "never-spank" mes-
sage, which is needed to increase the chances that
parents w h o disapprove of spanking will act on
their beliefs. Consequently, it is essential for pe-
diatricians and others w h o advise parents to aban-
d o n their r e l u c t a n c e to say "never-spank." To
achieve this, parent-educators must themselves be
educated. They need to understand why, w h a t
they n o w consider a "negative approach," is such
an important part of ending the use of corporal
punishment. Moreover, because they believe that
a "negative approach" does not work, they also
need to k n o w about the e x p e r i e n c e of Sweden.
The Swedish experience shows that, c o n t r a r y to
the currently prevailing opinion, a never-spank
a p p r o a c h has w o r k e d (Durrant, 1999).
In short, the first priority step to end or reduce
spanking may be to educate professionals w h o
advise parents. Once professionals are ready to
move, the key steps are relatively easy to imple-
ment and inexpensive,
Parent-education programs, such as STEP,
w h i c h are n o w silent on spanking, can be
revised to include the evidence that spank-
ing does n o t work better than other disci-
plinary tactics, even in the short run; and to
specifically say "never spank."
The Public Health Service can follow the
Swedish m o d e l and s p o n s o r no-spanking
public service a n n o u n c e m e n t s onTV and on
milk cartons.
There can be a "No-Spanking" p o s t e r and
pamphlets in every pediatrician's office and
every maternity ward.
There could be a notice on birth certificates
such as:
WARNING: SPANKING HAS BEEN DETER-
MINED TO BE DANGEROUS TO THE HEALTH
AND WELL BEING OF YOUR C H I L D - - D O
N O T EVER, U N D E R A N Y CIRCUM-
STANCES, SPANK OR HIT YOUR CHILD
Until professionals w h o advise parents start
advising parents to n e v e r spank, the paradox of
parents b e c o m i n g less and less favorable to spank-
ing while at the same continuing to spank tod-
dlers will continue. Fortunately, that is starting
to happen.
The benefits of avoiding corporal p u n i s h m e n t
are many, but they are virtually impossible for
parents to perceive by observing their children,
The situation with spanking is parallel to that of
smoking. Smokers could perceive the short run
satisfaction from a cigarette, but had no way to
see the adverse health c o n s e q u e n c e s d o w n the
road. Similarly, parents can perceive the benefi-
cial effects of a slap (and, for the reasons explained
in the previous section, fail to see the equal ef-
fectiveness of alternatives), they have no way of
looking a year or more into the future to see if
there is a harmful side effect of having hit their
child to correct misbehavior. The only way par-
ents can k n o w this w o u l d be if there were a pub-
lic policy to publicize the results of research such
as the studies summarized in this article.
Another reason the benefits of avoiding spank-
ing are difficult to see is that they are not dra-
matic in any one case. This is illustrated by the
average increase of 3 or 4 points in mental ability
NEW EVIDENCEFOR THE BENEFITS OF NEVER SPANKING
associated with no-corporal punishment. An in-
crease of that size w o u l d hardly be noticed in an
individual case. However, it is a well e s t a b l i s h e d
p r i n c i p l e in p u b l i c h e a l t h and e p i d e m i o l o g y
that a w i d e l y p r e v a l e n t risk f a c t o r w i t h small
effect size, for e x a m p l e spanking, can have a
m u c h g r e a t e r i m p a c t on public health t h a n a
risk f a c t o r w i t h a large e f f e c t size, but l o w
prevalence, for example, physical abuse. For ex-
ample, assume that: (1) 50 million US children
e x p e r i e n c e d CP and 1 million e x p e r i e n c e d physi-
cal abuse. ( 2 ) T h e probability of being depressed
as an adult is increased by 2 percent for children
w h o e x p e r i e n c e d CP and by 25 p e r c e n t for chil-
dren w h o e x p e r i e n c e d physical abuse. Given
these assumptions, the additional cases of depres-
sion caused by CP is 1.02 times 50 million, or 1
million. The additional cases of depression caused
by p h y s i c a l a b u s e is 1.25 time 1 m i l l i o n or
250,000. Thus CP is associated with a four times
greater increase in depression than is physical
abuse.
Another example of a major benefit resulting
from reducing a risk factor that has a small effect,
but for a large p r o p o r t i o n of the population, might
be the increase in scores on intelligence tests that
has been o c c u r r i n g worldwide. Corporal punish-
ment has also been decreasing worldwide. The
decrease in use of corporal p u n i s h m e n t and the
increase in scores on IQ tests could be just a co-
incidence. However, the results of the study de-
scribed earlier in this article w h i c h s h o w e d that
less spanking is associated with faster cognitive
d e v e l o p m e n t suggest that the trend away from
corporal p u n i s h m e n t may be one of a n u m b e r of
social changes (especially, better e d u c a t e d par-
ents) that explain the increase in IQ scores in so
many nations.
The other four prospective studies reviewed
in this article and the studies in B e a t i n g the Devil
Out o f T h e m s h o w that ending corporal punish-
ment is likely to also reduce juvenile violence,
wife-beating, and masochistic sex, and increase the
probability of c o m p l e t i n g higher education, hold-
ing a high i n c o m e job, and lower rates of depres-
sion and alcohol abuse. Those are not only hu-
manitarian benefits, they can also result in huge
m o n e t a r y savings in public and private costs for
dealing with mental health problems, school prob-
lems, marital and family problems, and crime.
I c o n c l u d e d the first edition of B e a t i n g the
Devil Out o f T h e m in 1994 by suggesting that
ending corporal punishment by parents "portends
59
p r o f o u n d and far r e a c h i n g benefits fi)r humanity."
T h e n e w r e s e a r c h s u m m a r i z e d in this a r t i c l e
makes t h o s e w o r d s even m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e . We
can look f o r w a r d to the day w h e n c h i l d r e n in al-
m o s t all c o u n t r i e s h a v e t h e b e n e f i t of b e i n g
b r o u g h t up w i t h o u t b e i n g hit by t h e i r parents;
and just as i m p o r t a n t , to the day w h e n many na-
tions have the b e n e f i t of the healthier, wealthier,
and wiser citizens w h o w e r e b r o u g h t up free from
the v i o l e n c e that is n o w a part of t h e i r earliest
and m o s t influential life e x p e r i e n c e s .
SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS
Brezina,Timothy. 1999. "Teenage violence toward par-
ents as an adaptation to family strain: Evidence
from a national survey of male adolescents." Youth
& Society 30:416-444.
Durrant, Joan E. 1999. "Evaluating the success of
Sweden's corporal punishment ban" ChildAbuse
Neglect 23:435-448.
Gershoff, ElizabethThompson. In press. "Corporal pun-
ishment by parents and associated child behav-
iors and experiences:A meta-analytic and theo-
retical review." Psychological Bulletin,
Gunnoe, Marjorie L., and Carrie L. Mariner. 1997. "To-
ward a developmental-contextual model of the
effects of parental spanking on children's aggres-
sion."Archives of Pediatric andAdolescent Medi-
cine 151 :768- 775.
Larzelere, Robert E.,William N. Schneider, David B.
Larson, and l~atricia L. Pike. 1996. "The effects of
discipline responses in delaying toddler misbe-
havior recurrences." Child and Family Therapy
18:35-37.
Neisser, Ulric. 1997. "Rising scores on intelligence tests:
Test scores are certainly gong up all over the
world, but whether intelligence itself has risen
remains controversial." A m e r i c a n Scientist
85:440-447.
60 SOCIETY 9 SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2001
Schenck, Eliza R., Robert D. Lyman, and S. Douglas
Bodin. 2000. "Ethical beliefs, attitudes, and pro-
fessional practices of psychologists regarding
parental use of corporal punishment:A survey."
Children's Services:Social Policy, Research, and
Practice 3:23-38.
Simons, Ronald L., Kuei-Hsiu Lin, and Leslie C. Gordon.
1998. "Socialization in the Family of origin and
male dating violence:A prospective study."Jour-
hal of Marriage and the Family 60:467-478.
Straus, MurrayA., and Anitia K. Mathur. 1996. "Social
change and change in approval of corporal pun-
ishment by parents from 1968 to 1994." Pp. 91-
105 in Family violence against children.'A chal-
lenge f o r society., edited by D. Frehsee,W. Horn,
and K-D Bussmann. NewYork:Walter deGruyter.
Straus,MurrayA.,and MallieJ. Paschall. 1999. "Corpo-
ral punishment by mothers and children's cogni-
tive development:A logitudinal study of two age
cohorts." in 6th International Family Violence
Research Conference. Durham, NH: Family Re-
search Laboratory, University of New Hampshire.
Straus, Murray A., and Julie H. Stewart. 1999. "Corpo-
ral punishment by American parents: National
data on prevalence, chronicity, severity, and dura-
tion, in relation to child, and family characteris-
tics." Clinical Child and Family Psychology Re-
view 2:55-70.
Straus, Murray A., David B. Sugarman, and Jean Giles-
Sims. 1997. "Spanking by parents and subsequent
antisocial behavior of children."Archives of pe-
diatric and adolescent medicine 151:761-767.
M u r r a y A. Straus is professor o f sociology a n d co-
director o f the Family Research Laboratory at the
University o f N e w Hampshire. He is the author or
co-author or editor o f 18 books including Stress,
Culture, andAggression. This article is adapted f r o m
Chapter 12 of Beating the Devil Out of Them: Corpo-
ral Punishment inAmerican Families and Its Effects on
Children, 2 n d edition, published by Transaction.