Issue of corporal punishment: re-examined.

The use of corporal punishment is one of the most controversial parenting practices and it will continue to be controversial. Although the effects of corporal punishment on children is still undergoing rigorous scientific debate, less attention has been devoted to why parents spank their children. The primary concern of this review of issue of corporal punishment was to identify the major reason(s) why parent spank their child. The belief of the reviewer is that there can be no progress until more attention is devoted to why parents spank their children. This is the side of the issue that the critics failed to address. In this article, I describe and compare the prons and cons of issue of corporal punishment. Many educators support the old notion of spare the rod and spoil the child. As a result, they advocate paddling as a method of disciplining children in school. This reinforces the importance of early training in forming a person's lifelong character.

**********

Corporal punishment is a discipline method in which a supervising adult deliberately inflicts pain upon a child in response to a child's unacceptable behavior and/or inappropriate language. The immediate aims of such punishment are usually to halt the offence, prevent its recurrence and set an example for others. The purported long-term goal is to change the child's behavior and to make it more consistent with the adult's expectations. In corporal punishment, the adult usually hits various parts of the child's body with a hand, or with canes, paddles, yardsticks, belts, or other objects expected to cause pain and fear (Dayton 1994).

Under the common law, teachers and other school personnel have the right to administer reasonable corporal punishment, which is the infliction of physical pain on a student for misconduct. State Statutes deal with corporal punishment in different ways. Some States authorize it; others forbid it. Still others are silent on the matter but by implication. New York permits corporal punishment unless local boards of education prohibit it. Kentucky allows a teacher to use physical force to maintain reasonable discipline in a school, class, or other group.

In the landmark Supreme Court decision Ingraham v. Wright, the court held that corporal punishment of students does not violate the Eighth Amendment nor the due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendmend. The Court said that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment applies to criminals only and is not applicable to the disciplining of students in public schools. The Court noted that at common law a single principle has governed the use of corporal punishment since before the American Revolution: Teachers may impose reasonable but not excessive force to discipline a child. The crucial area of concern for this review, then, has been the breadth and scope of progress involvement in the issues of corporal punishment in schools and at home.

There are some isolated tribal hunting and gathering societies in which parents almost never hit children, but these nonviolent societies are the exceptions. They are important, however, because they are also societies where relationships between adults tend to be non-violent. Adults members of most non-literate tribal societies, like people in almost all literate societies, hit children and are also prone to violent among themselves. Societies in which children are hit have cultural norms and beliefs that label corporal punishment as different from violence between adults. But in reality, the basic elements are almost identical. In fact, the only important way they are different is that the culture defines one as legitimate and the other criminal (Straus, 1994).

Corporal punishment of students has been defined by the American Medical Association as the "intentional infliction of pain or discomfort and/or use of physical force upon a student as punishment for an offense or behavior." It does not include the use of physical force in self-defense or to protect other people or property. Corporal punishment takes many forms, including spanking, shaking, choking, excessive exercise, and confinement in an uncomfortable space. It has been imposed for violent acts, like fighting with another student, and non-violent acts, like possessing cigarettes, talking in class, swearing, throwing food, and missing football practice (Orentlicher, 1992).

In the United States, corporal punishment has been a conventional method in disciplining children and youth since our colonial times. Only during the past 20 years has there emerged a growing outcry condemning such practices with school children. Within the Western world, corporal punishment by parents and others who are responsible for children has clearly decreased since the seventeenth century. The major decrease has been in the most extreme types of violence--physical abuse--but for the less extreme violence known as corporal punishment, the pace of change has been glacial.

Corporal punishment in schools has been proscribed in Europe (including Eastern Europe), as well as in other countries. One can trace the roots of corporal punishment in the United States to England, which remains the only European nation legally allowing it. In 1979, Sweden further advanced the rejection of corporal punishment in schools by banning physical punishment by parents, as well.

In 1867, New Jersey became the first state in the United States to legally ban such disciplinary action in school. The current opinion in the United States that it is legally permissible to apply physical punishment to children in school is a major obstacle to establishing a universal ban on corporal punishment. The common law since before the American Revolution has provided that, although teachers may use reasonable force to discipline children, any excessive or unreasonable force will subject the educator to either criminal liability or a civil claim for personal injuries. It is believed that at least 30 states continue to authorize corporal punishment in their schools (Alexander & Alexander, 1997).

Vockell's viewpoints possess much validity when you have a closer examination. According to him, one can see that these positions are not necessarily contradictory. He said that if a type of punishment can be found that can effectively teach children what not to do without suppressing their spontaneity or having other bad results, then the goals of his viewpoints can be reached:

   "All over the country, traditional schools are springing up. Their avowed
   purpose is to get back to the basics of education and to stress effective
   discipline. Often this involves relatively severe corporal punishment for
   misbehavior. These traditional schools are filled to the point of
   overflowing.

   At the same time, other groups are campaigning against the harsh punishment
   of children. These groups maintain that corporal punishment is cruel, and
   they point out that a child can best develop into a mature, creative adult
   in a happy, non-repressive environment. Punishment is said to suppress
   spontaneity" (Vockell, 1977, p.5).

Support for Corporal Punishment

The following research and literature review supports the use of corporal punishment.

The schools are the only public institution in which corporal punishment is still permitted. Corporal punishment was formerly employed in the prisons and the military, but it has since been outlawed in both settings. Children are the only citizens who are regularly subjected to physical punishment. Ordinarily, any physical harm suffered at the hands of another person constitutes a battery, punishable by civil liability and criminal penalties (Orentlicher, 1992).

The use of physical punishment to discipline children is a focus of popular and academic controversy. Several survey-based studies have shown that adults affiliated with Conservative Protestant denominations express stronger support for the principle of corporal punishment than other adults. A large percentage of contemporary religious conservatives consider the Bible to be without error, providing reliable and sufficient insights to guide the conduct of all human affairs, including child rearing. Conservative Protestants often stress that all human relationships and institutions--including and perhaps especially, the family--are shaped by specific patterns of divinely ordained authority relations that should remain unchallenged. Thus, writers and pastors in this tradition tend to emphasize biblical passages extolling the child's obedience to parental authority, as well as the imperative of parental guidance and leadership. Contemporary religious conservatives fear that children reared without proper discipline will be unable and unwilling to submit themselves to the will of God and, hence, will fail to enjoy the fruits of spiritual salvation. Therefore, influential Conservative Protestant pastors and authors cite numerous scriptural passages to support their claim that corporal punishment is the primarily biblically ordained response to overt challenges to parental authority (Ellison, 1996).

Dobson (1970) addressed the issue of corporal punishment from the religious standpoint. He focused on the fact that the lack of discipline and control in America's schools has paralleled the decline of parental authority at home. He addressed the question: "How can we teach constructive attitudes to a generation of young people which is no longer listening to our advice.?" He states,

   "We must direct our attention toward the next generation of Americans--the
   children who are still pliable to guidance and training. Not only must we
   reinstate discipline at home, but the authority of the school must also be
   reconstructed. Parents have the primary responsibility in both objectives,
   since the school is largely responsive to their wishes. They should let the
   teachers and administrators know that they favor reasonable control in the
   classroom, even if it requires an occasional application of corporal
   punishment" (Dobson, 1970, p.99).

Most family physicians and pediatricians support the use of corporal punishment. Some pediatricians offer guidance on discipline more often than family physicians. Most family physicians and pediatricians agree that children should be spanked if they misbehave (McCormick, 1992).

South Korean parents support the use of corporal punishment. South Korea's rapid economic growth is attributed to its education system. School days are Monday-Saturdays from 8a.m to 4 p.m. while the school year stretches from March to March. Korean mothers traditionally oversee children' s education, seeing that homework is done, and allowing corporal punishment. Corporal punishment is quite common in korea. The Korean Protection Agency has reported that all but 3% of the Korean children it surveyed have experienced corporal punishment (Beckham, 1997).

Some physicians and social scientists recently suggested that reducing or banning parental use of non-abusive physical punishment such as spanking would reduce violent and other societal problems. The most important finding of Larzelere's research indicated that there are not enough quality studies that document detrimental outcomes of non-abusive physical punishment to support advice or policies against this age-old parental practice. He concluded that how parents use discipline tactics may be more important than which ones they consider off limits. Effects of physical punishment, as well as non-physical punishment, probably depend on when and how parents implement it, its role in,their overall approach to parental discipline, and the overall parent-child relationship (Larzelere, 1996).

A large national, and even international, controversy exists over whether corporal punishment has negative effects on children's behavioral and psychological adjustment. Bourque (1996) found that there is existence of a threshold effect where corporal punishment appears to have no measurably negative influence on children's psychological adjustment until it reaches a specific magnitude of harshness or perceived unjustness. Results of Bourque's study also suggest that physical punishment is associated with children's psychological maladjustment only if punishment is seen by youths as a form of caretaker rejection.

Harding (1989) concludes that corporal punishment is a form of punishment characterized by an ease of application and ready availability. It can often be administered quickly and with no special skill. On the other hand, Armstrong (1992) contends that there must be procedural safeguards when implementing corporal punishment. The behaviors which are subject to corporal punishment should be operationally defined, and the conditions identified under which corporal punishment will be administered. The school should identify a committee which will be responsible for the implementation and monitoring of corporal punishment. The committee members should receive supervision and training in the use of corporal punishment. Finally, written consent should be obtained from the student" parents or guardians.

The use of corporal punishment is one of the most controversial parenting practices. Although the effects of corporal punishment on children is still undergoing rigorous scientific debate, less attention has been devoted to why parents spank their children. The available research indicates that the determinants of corporal punishment are manifold, including cultural norms, child characteristics, parental characteristics and beliefs, and contextual effects, such as momentary outbursts of anger. Harris and Holden (1999) conducted two studies to assess the relations between the parental disciplinary practices and outcome expectancies. In the first study, mothers of 36-month-old children responded to vignettes about child misbehaviors. Mothers who reportedly used corporal punishment at least once a week believed that it was more likely to result in positive outcomes, including immediate child compliance, better child behavior in the long term, and less maternal guilt than mothers who never spanked or mothers who spanked only occasionally. Study 2 extended those findings by including fathers, other expectancies, and different types of misbehaviors. No significant differences between mothers and fathers were found, though effects due to membership in the group of parents who spanked were present.

Argument Against Corporal Punishment

The following research and literature review will serve to reveal the negative views of corporal punishment. Corporal punishment is a controversial issue as revealed earlier in this paper.

Vockell (1977) addressed the fact that corporal punishment emphatically teaches only what not to do. Corporal punishment can not readily be teamed up with negative reinforcement to teach some desirable behavior at its termination. The punishment ceases when the pain stops hurting. Therefore, no way is easily available to see to it that the child is performing a desirable behavior when the punishment ceases.

As found in the research of Brenner (1998), parents who use frequent punishment have more behavior problems with their children, whereas using less discipline is related to having fewer behavior problems. Interaction theory in parenting focuses on how the behavior of children is affected by the actions of their parents and vice versa. One possible negative consequence of this interaction is that parents' use of verbal and corporal punishment is associated with increased behavior problems in children. Patterson's model of antisocial behavior specifically implicates poor parental use of discipline as the first step in a developmental sequence that leads to antisocial behavior. Because antisocial behavior can be seen in some children by early elementary school, it follows that this poor use of discipline ought to be evident while the children are still very young and asymptomatic. However, evidence of a relationship between parental discipline and behavior problems in very young children has been lacking.

Romeo (1996) focuses on the emotional harm to children who received corporal punishment. She feels that while we need to give serious weight to the physical harm children may receive from corporal punishment, we should not underestimate the emotional and psychological consequences of corporal punishment to the child. The child is a recipient of an act of physical force under conditions which allowed no opportunity for self defense and which produced physical pain. This situation can evoke in a child the strong emotional reactions of humiliation and anger.

Another emotional reaction of the child to corporal punishment is a desire to avoid punishment. Thus, the child escapes this potential situation by not attending school. In essence, the child will engage in such behaviors as tardiness, truancy and eventually drop out of school. These behaviors, on the part of the child, undermine the very basic principle of education which is you cannot educate an absent child (Romeo, 1996). Roter (1994) also conducted research regarding pediatricians and corporal punishment. She noted in her research that primary care clinicians need to go public collectively with their stance against corporal punishment. For several other public health issues--including smoking, excessive use of alcohol, and substance abuse--stimulation of shifts in values at a societal level has been an enabling factor for the effectiveness of individual clinical counseling. Experience in Scandinavian countries, where corporal punishment has been declared illegal, suggests that primary care providers can play an important role by gently but unambiguously presenting their opposition in concert with a positively oriented, nonpunitive public campaign emphasizing alternatives.

Ramsburg (1997) examines the effectiveness of spanking. While spanking may relieve a parent's frustration and stop misbehavior briefly, according to the American Academy of pediatrics, researchers suggest that spanking may be the least effective discipline method. Spanking may be ineffective because it does not teach an alternative behavior. In fact, children usually feel resentful, humiliated, and helpless after being spanked. The primary lesson they learn appears to be that they should try harder not to get caught.

Spanking also sends the wrong message to children. Spanking communicates that hitting is an acceptable way to solve problems, and that it is all right for a big person to strike a smaller one. In addition, when children are spanked, they may know that they have done something wrong, but in many cases, they are too young to understand the lesson. It is a very difficult message for any adult or child to understand: "I hurt you because I don't want you hurt." Finally, when spanking is the primary discipline method used, it may have some potentially harmful long-term effects such as increasing the chances of misbehavior, aggression, violent or criminal behavior, impaired learning, and depression.

Experimental research on punishment may explain, at least in part, why corporal punishment is not as effective as alternative disciplinary measures. In particular, many of the characteristics of effective corporal punishment are not achievable or acceptable in the classroom setting. For example, corporal punishment is most successful when it is imposed with complete surprise and therefore without prior discussion or explanation, immediately after the occurrence of the misbehavior, and with each occurrence of the misbehavior. In general, the severity of the punishment needs to be high to be effective (Orentlicher, 1992).

Czumbil and Hyman (1997) researched the legalities of corporal punishment. They noted that the data presented reveal that when authorities are given the power to inflict pain, they will abuse their power under color of law.

Research Methodology

The primary area of concern for this review was to identify the major reason(s) why parent spank their child. The primary research question was: Give one major reason(s) why you spank your child.

This was a descriptive review designed to identify the major reason(s) why parent spanks their child. A survey telephone was used to collect data. From the survey telephone, parents were asked to give one major reason why they spank their children. Data were collected from a survey telephone of 500 parents. The survey telephone was done in fall and summer of 2001. Subjects for the survey telephone were randomly selected in one of the cities in one of the southeastern states.

Findings

The result indicated that parents spanked for different reasons but the major reason was disobedient. The result was overwhelmed. The responses were 100% for disobedient. Parents saw corporal punishment as a corrective measure and used only when it is considered to be an effective and suitable means of discipline or when other measures used to promote good conduct have been tried and failed to produce positive results

Conclusion

Many educators support the old notion of "Spare the rod and spoil the child." This quotation from the Bible may be the most famous of the Bible's proverbs. The book of proverbs calls punishment a form of love and says that parents who won't discipline their children are in danger of mining them (proverbs 29:15). As a result, they advocate paddling as a method of disciplining children in school. The verse reinforces the importance of early training in forming a person's lifelong character. But you can find individuals who, though well brought up, choose to reject their training. The general role is this: good parents raise good children.

Regarding corporal punishment in school, so many factors figure into the process of helping a mature child into a healthy, psychologically well-balanced adult. Focusing on spanking is, as we know, only a part of the many aspects of that process. My point is that parents must start very early with some form of non-violent training. I have always said that children are like puppies. They need to be trained on how to be people. So, like Pavlov's dog, make them salivate!

References

Armstrong, S., & Sachs, J. (1992). Administration of corporal punishment: Where are the procedural safeguards? Education, 113(2),312.

Baumrind, D. (1996). A blanket injunction against disciplinary use of spanking is not warranted by the data. Pediatrics, 98(4), 828.

Beckham, G., & Ellinger, T. (1997). South Korea: Placing education on top of the family agenda. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(8), 624.

Bourque, S., & Rohner, R. (1996). Children' s perception of corporal punishment, care taker acceptance, and psychological adjustment. Journal of Marriage & the family, 58(4), 842.

Brenner, V., & Fox, R. (1998). Parental discipline and behavior problems in young children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 159(2), 251.

Chmelynski, C. (1996). Is paddling on its way back? Education Digest, 61(7), 49.

Czumbil, M., & Hyman, I. (1997). What happens when corporal punishment is legal? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12 (2), 309.

Dayton, J.J.D. (1994). Corporal punishment in public schools: The legal and political battle continues. Education Law Reporter, 89,729-40.

Dobson, J. (1970). Dare to discipline. Toronto: Bantam Books.

Ellison, C. (1996). Conservative Protestantism aand the corporal punishment of children: Clarifying the issues. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 35(1), 1.

Harding, C., & Ireland, R. (1989). Punishment: Rhetoric, rule, and practice. London: Routledge.

Harris, S., Holden, G., & Miller, R. (1999). The Instrumental side of corporal punishment: Parents reported practices and outcome expectancies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(4), 908.

Larzelere, R. (1996). A review of the outcomes of parental use of nonabusive or customary physical punishment. Pediatrics, 99(6), 904.

McCormick, K. (1992). Attitudes of primary care physicians toward corporal punishment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 267(23), 3161.

Mercure, C. (1994). Elementary schools' answers to corporal punishment. Education Digest, 60(4) 25.

Orentlicher, D. (1992). Corporal punishment in schools. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 267(26), 3205.

Ramsburg, D. (1997). The debate over spanking. Urbanna, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED405139).

Romeo, F. (1996). Corporal punishment is wrong! Hands are not for hitting! Journal of Instructional Psychology, 23(3), 228.

Roter, D., & Wissow, L. (1994). Toward effective discussion of discipline and corporal punishment during primary care visits: Findings from studies of doctor-patient interaction. Pediatrics, 94(4), 587.

Strus, M. (1994). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in American Families. New York: Lexington Books.

Vockell, E. (1977). Whatever happened to punishment? Muncie: Accelerated Development.

Abraham A. Andero, Ph.D. Department of Instructional Support Programs and Allen Stewart, Ph.D., Department of Instructional Support Programs, Acting Chairman, College of Education, Alabama State University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Abraham A. Andero, Alabama State University, Box 178, Montgomery, AL 36101-0271