Problem:
Discipline Without Harm: Why Effective Parenting Requires Abandoning Physical Punishment
Parents discipline their children because they love them. Parents also worry about their children's futures, hoping that they will grow up with respect, accountability, and the ability to overcome challenges on their own. For some families, spanking their children is a common practice that is perceived as a sign of love. Some parents may also believe that a swift physical punishment will effectively teach their children a lesson, hence avoiding problems that may arise in the future. Physical discipline is also perceived as a sign of good parenting, and some cultures view it as a form of love, and those who refuse it may be perceived as rebellious.
However, good intentions alone do not make discipline effective. Discipline must be measured by its long-term consequences. The true purpose of discipline is not to establish quick compliance, but rather self-discipline, empathy, and effective decision-making skills. When physical punishment is measured by studies of child development and psychological research, its long-term consequences do not support self-discipline, empathy, or effective decision-making skills. Rather, fear-based compliance is often the outcome of physical punishment, and its consequences carry specific risks for child development. Physical punishment of children is not recommended by parents because physical punishment of children promotes fear-based compliance rather than self-discipline, has negative consequences, and does not offer parents any specific benefits over non-physical discipline strategies.
The purpose of discipline is teaching. When parents discipline a child, parents are teaching the child how he or she will relate to authority, frustration, or conflict in the years ahead. Good discipline teaches a child how to handle emotions and make good decisions even when no adult is around. This is sometimes called a child's "executive functioning." Children don't just learn from what parents say, but also from what parents do in a crisis.
Although spanking may work immediately, there is a big difference between immediately effective and effective long-term. A major study, done by Elizabeth Gershoff and Andrew Grogan-Kaylor, reviewed decades of studies about spanking and its effects on children. What they found was that spanking actually increases aggressive behavior, among other negative outcomes, and that there is no long-term increase in compliance (453-469). This goes against the common perception that spanking is a necessary evil to correct egregious behavior. When a technique doesn't improve long-term outcomes and can lead to aggressive behavior, its overall value is hard to justify.
Children who act from fear will generally only act correctly when the enforcer is present. They will learn to avoid detection, not correctness. When children are taught with explanations and rational consequences, they are more likely to adopt the reasoning for the rules. Internalized values are the values that guide behavior when no one is looking. The key is not fear, but internal regulation, and this is the real purpose of parenting.
However, the research does not stop at behavior. There is considerable evidence that links spanking with developmental risk. Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor state that spanking has been associated with aggressive and antisocial behavior, as well as emotional problems (453-469). The key is that this is still true when controlling for initial child behavior; spanking is not just responding to bad behavior, but actually causing it.
Professional organizations are certainly aware of these studies. The American Academy of Pediatrics, for example, has taken a stand against corporal punishment. Sege and Siegel, in their policy statement, note that corporal punishment is linked with increased aggression and does not confer a particular advantage over other forms of discipline. The key is effective discipline, they say, and it should not cause physical pain. When medical organizations rely on mounting evidence, it is worth considering.
There is also a social learning theory that can be considered. Children observe adults' reactions towards conflicts. When parents physically assault their children in situations of anger, children may be inclined to believe that physically assaulting another human being is a natural reaction when they are upset or in charge. Even though it may be justified as being "for their own good," it is a very loud message. Even studies that have shown spanking can lead to aggression in children have supported this concern (Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor 453-469). Children may not make the distinction between intent and action.
There are some who argue that spanking is not the same as abuse, and that it can be used in a controlled, limited way. They say, for instance, that a light, controlled spanking is not harmful and might prevent bigger problems from developing down the line. Many such advocates point to their own childhoods, claiming they were spanked but turned out to be responsible citizens.
Personal experience might be convincing, but it is not more important than general research. It is not true that just because some people do not experience long-term negative consequences, the practice must be good for people in general. Research has not found any clear benefits of spanking compared to other non-violent discipline methods (Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor 453-469). If there are risks involved and there are no benefits compared to other methods, it is difficult to argue in favor of the practice.
Another concern that parents may have is practicality. When behaviors get out of hand, spanking may seem like an easy solution. However, there are alternatives that not only work well but also have research support. The American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended tools that include giving consequences that have time limits, taking away privileges, and steady communication (Sege and Siegel). These may not always come easily, but they help teach children cause and effect without fear and pain.
Nonviolent discipline is not permissive parenting, where the child never says no to anything. It means establishing clear rules, consequences, and steps for fixing problems when they occur, along with discussions when all parties are calm and rational. This approach is similar to the parenting style labeled "authoritative parenting." Studies have consistently found authoritative parenting to be associated with positive outcomes in terms of academic, emotional, and social development.
However, the debate surrounding spanking isn't simply about disciplining children; it is, in fact, an extension of the ideals we have for authority and respect. For some, extreme physical punishment is an extension of strength and moral obligation. However, as we become more informed and our values change, society has largely moved away from the idea of physical force in any situation between two adults. We are, in essence, teaching children that while it is not okay to be physically forced in public, it is somehow okay to be forced in the home, creating an ethical paradox for ourselves if the intent is to become an adult who solves problems without violence.
Ultimately, the decision on how to parent should always be made with reference to evidence and long-term goals. Smacking a child may solve a temporary problem, but silencing a child is not the same as developing their character. Research continues to show a strong association between spanking and aggressive behavior, among other negative outcomes, with major professional organizations raising concerns about its use (Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor 453-469; Sege and Siegel). On the other hand, well-thought-out non-violent parenting methods have been shown to work effectively.
The argument over physical discipline aside, the crux of the matter isn't that kids need boundaries. They do. The crux is what kind of adults parents want their kids to become. Do we want them to be emotionally well-regulated, empathetic, responsible individuals? Then the discipline itself needs to model these qualities. Authority doesn't need to be exercised through force. In fact, the most powerful kind of authority is exercised through consistency, clarity, and respect.
It doesn't mean that parents who choose non-physical discipline methods are abandoning discipline. Rather, parents are choosing methods that are consistent with what the research suggests, as well as the values parents wish to instill in their children. Discipline that does not harm a child demonstrates traits of self-control, problem-solving, and respect, all of which parents hope their children will develop. Need Assignment Help?
Works Cited
Gershoff, Elizabeth T., and Andrew Grogan-Kaylor. "Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses." Journal of Family Psychology, vol. 30, no. 4, 2016, pp. 453-469.
Sege, Robert D., and Benjamin S. Siegel. "Effective Discipline to Raise Healthy Children." Pediatrics, vol. 142, no. 6, 2018, e20183112.