Child Outcomes of Nonabusive and Customary Physical ...

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

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

Robert E. Larzelere1

This article updates the only previous systematic literature review of child outcomes of
nonabusive 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. All
six studies that used clinical samples (including four randomized clinical studies) and all
three sequential-analysis studies found beneficial outcomes, such as reduced noncompliance
and fighting, primarily when nonabusive spanking was used to back up milder disciplinary
tactics in 2- to 6-year olds. Five of eight longitudinal studies that controlled for initial
child misbehavior found predominantly detrimental outcomes of spanking. However, those
detrimental 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 child
misbehavior. Specific findings suggest discriminations between effective and counterproduc-
tive physical punishment with young children. More research is needed to clarify the role
of spanking and alternative disciplinary tactics in control system aspects of parental discipline.

KEY WORDS: physical punishment; parental discipline.

Few social scientific topics involve such sharp ‘‘probably efficacious’’ (Lonigan, Elbert, &
contradictions as does parental spanking. Consider Johnson, 1998).
the following examples: ● Social scientists generally make sensitivity to
cultural differences a top priority. Yet African-
● About 94% of American 3- and 4-year olds have American families are often denigrated for
been spanked by a parent at least once during spanking, even though most relevant research
the past year (Straus & Stewart, 1999). Yet most finds that moderate spanking has benign or
clinical child psychologists would never suggest beneficial outcomes in African Americans
parental spanking, and one-third consider such (Deater-Deckard & Dodge, 1997, and 11 com-
a suggestion always unethical (Hyman, 1997; mentaries; Gunnoe & Mariner, 1997;
Schenck, Lyman, & Bodin, 2000). Whaley, 2000).
● A large number of social scientists consider the
● Several countries have banned all parental mildest spanking to be more harmful than alter-
spanking, and others are considering such a ban. native disciplinary tactics. Yet the only system-
Yet if spanking were being evaluated as a psy- atic review of nonabusive physical punishment
chological intervention, it would qualify as found little evidence of differential harmfulness
in direct comparisons with alternative disciplin-
1Psychology Department, Munroe–Meyer Institute, University of ary tactics (Larzelere, 1996).
Nebraska Medical Center, and Girls and Boys Town. Corre-
spondence concerning this article should be sent to Robert E. Never before have social scientists advocated a
Larzelere, Psychology Department, Munroe–Meyer Institute, total ban on a practice this widespread. Does the
685450 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE 68198-5450. Email:
[email protected].

199

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

200 Larzelere

available scientific evidence support a total ban on cent studies.2 These procedures yielded 269 poten-
parental spanking, or does the evidence suggest an tial studies.
appropriate but limited role for nonabusive spanking
in parental discipline? These are major questions un- The selection criteria for relevant articles were
derlying this review of the relevant scientific liter- as follows: First, a study had to be published in a
ature. peer-reviewed professional journal in the English
language. Exceptions to this criterion were made for
It is widely known that several methodologic sources in the Gershoff (1999) review and for recent
problems are pervasive in much research on parental unpublished studies that otherwise qualified. Forty-
spanking. First, most research is cross-sectional and one (41) of the 269 potential studies were ruled out
correlational, which cannot establish causation. Sec- because they included no original data on parental
ond, much research emphasizes overly severe forms physical punishment. Second, studies had to have a
of physical punishment. The controversy is about child outcome variable for which beneficial versus
nonabusive physical punishment, not overly severe detrimental outcomes were reasonably unambigu-
forms of physical punishment. Third, many studies ous. This eliminated 40 additional studies. This crite-
incorporate spanking as one item in a broader mea- rion excluded studies in which the only child outcome
sure of punitiveness. Such studies cannot determine concerned the likelihood of using nonabusive physi-
the unique effects of spanking. Thus these three kinds cal punishment as a parent. Studies in which child
of studies were excluded from this literature review. outcomes concerned the child’s subsequent use of
overly severe or frequent physical punishment were
It would have been ideal to focus exclusively on included, however.
studies of explicitly nonabusive spanking. Because
such studies are so few, this review also considers Third, a study had to include at least one mea-
studies of customary spanking. These are studies that sure of nonabusive or customary physical punishment
measure physical punishment without emphasizing by parents. This excluded measures dominated by
the severity of its use. severity or abusiveness (eliminating 37 more studies)
and measures dominated by nonspanking tactics
This review updates the only previous systematic (e.g., washing a child’s mouth out with soap, yelling,
review of child outcomes of nonabusive or customary restraint, nonphysical punishment, which eliminated
physical punishment by parents (Larzelere, 1996) and 39 additional studies). Fourth, the referent period for
its unpublished predecessor (Lyons, Anderson, & parental physical punishment had to precede the time
Larson, 1993). It uses a qualitative ‘‘box-score’’ re- period for the child outcome measure (eliminating
view for two reasons. First, a qualitative review clari- 32 cross-sectional studies). Finally, the average age
fies whether outcomes vary by the causal conclusive- of the child when spanked had to be younger than
ness of the designs, which is essential for conclusions 13 years (eliminating 42 otherwise eligible studies).
about the causal effect of physical punishment. As This criterion also excluded retrospective studies un-
noted by Miller and Pollock (1994), meta-analyses less their survey specified a referent age for spanking
of causally inconclusive studies yield causally incon- that averaged younger than 13 years.3 Table I summa-
clusive summaries. Second, a qualitative review pro- rizes the 38 studies that met all five criteria.
vides more details about the qualifying studies so that
others can more easily critique the conclusions of Because two reviews of physical punishment
this review. This is particularly important, given the came to rather different conclusions (Gershoff, 1999;
controversial nature of the topic. Larzelere, 1996), it might be helpful to clarify which
studies from Gershoff’s (1999) review met the criteria
METHOD
2Diana Baumrind, Kirby Deater-Deckard, Joan Durrant, Chris
Several strategies were used to locate articles Ellison, Leonard Eron, James Garbarino, Elizabeth Thompson
for this review. Articles from 1995 to February 2000 Gershoff, Anthony Graziano, George Holden, Irwin Hyman, John
that addressed corporal punishment were identified Knutson, Joan McCord, Vonnie McLoyd, Jerry Patterson, Kathy
using PsychLit, Medline, and references in those arti- Ritchie, Mark Roberts, Rebecca Socolar, John Steley, Murray
cles. In addition, all sources in two reviews of physical Straus, Claudio Violato, Gail Wallerstein.
punishment’s outcomes were considered as potential 3A prospective study that asked similar questions retrospectively
references (Gershoff, 1999; Larzelere, 1996). Finally, at age 25 found that the retrospective data correlated most
21 leading research investigators were asked for re- strongly with earlier maternal reports of physical punishment at
ages 12 to 14 (Stattin, Janson, Klackenberg-Larsson, & Magnus-
son, 1995).

Outcomes of Physical Punishment 201

for this review and which criteria were not met by teristics. The final part of the Results section then
other studies in that review. Although the Gershoff compares the outcomes of physical punishment with
(1999) review is still being revised for publication, it those of alternative disciplinary techniques in these
has been cited as ‘‘in press’’ for at least 2 years (e.g., 38 studies.
Straus & Mouradian, 1998, citing an earlier version
as Thompson, in press). Research Design: Causal Conclusiveness

Only 16 of the 92 studies in Gershoff (1999) met The child outcomes of physical punishment var-
the criteria for this review. Gershoff’s (1999) other ied dramatically by the type of research design (see
studies were excluded because of (i) the severity of Table I). All 6 clinical studies (including 4 random-
the measure of physical punishment (17 studies), (ii) ized clinical trials) found predominantly beneficial
an overly broad measure of punishment (17 studies), child outcomes, as did the 3 studies using sequential
(iii) a cross-sectional design (22 studies), (iv) a focus analyses. The beneficial outcomes included reduced
on physical punishment of teenagers (19 studies), or noncompliance and fighting and, in one study, en-
(v) no unambiguous child outcome variable (1 study). hanced parental affection. However, 5 of the 8 con-
Thus, the present review focuses more specifically on trolled longitudinal studies found a broader range of
causally relevant studies of nonabusive or customary predominantly detrimental child outcomes of physi-
physical punishment of young children than does the cal punishment, and the remaining 3 studies found
Gershoff (1999) review. neutral outcomes or a mixture of both beneficial and
detrimental outcomes. Almost half (47%) of the 15
For the purposes of summarizing the data, a uncontrolled longitudinal studies found predomi-
finding was counted as a beneficial outcome if physi- nantly detrimental child outcomes, and the rest (53%)
cal punishment predicted a desirable outcome in the found neutral outcomes. Two (2) of the 6 retrospec-
child (e.g., improved compliance) at the 0.05 signifi- tive studies found beneficial outcomes, 1 found detri-
cance level. A finding was counted as a detrimental mental outcomes, and the remaining 3 found neu-
outcome if physical punishment significantly pre- tral outcomes.
dicted an undesirable outcome in the child (e.g.,
lower self-esteem, more delinquency). A study was Of the 12 retrospective studies in Larzelere’s
summarized as finding predominantly beneficial or (1996) earlier review that did not qualify for this
predominantly detrimental outcomes if (i) its only updated review, two-thirds found predominantly det-
relevant significant outcome was in the specified di- rimental outcomes, and the other one-third found
rection, (ii) one of its two or three relevant analyses neutral outcomes. Thus detrimental outcomes have
was significant and in the specified direction, or (iii) previously been most common in retrospective stud-
at least two of its relevant analyses were significant ies, especially when the referent child age is either
and in the specified direction. Otherwise, a study was unspecified or averaged 13 years old or more.
summarized as showing a neutral outcome.
In general, the stronger the causal conclusive-
RESULTS ness of the design, the more likely a study was to
find beneficial child outcomes. There were, however,
Overall, the 38 qualifying studies (Table I) di- important exceptions to that overall tendency. Con-
vided almost equally into predominantly beneficial trolled longitudinal studies were the most causally
child outcomes (32%), predominantly detrimental conclusive studies that found mostly detrimental out-
outcomes (34%), and neutral or mixed outcomes comes. Those studies differed from the randomized
(34%). The following sections consider how various clinical trials on many other dimensions. The clinical
study characteristics discriminate beneficial out- studies tended to focus on using a 2-swat spank to
comes from detrimental outcomes. Relevant study enforce short-term compliance with time out in clini-
characteristics include methodologic characteristics, cally referred 2- to 6-year olds. The controlled longi-
type of outcome, child characteristics, how the physi- tudinal studies were based on maternal reports of
cal punishment was used, and the cultural context. spanking frequency in older, nonclinical samples, us-
Because different characteristics are often con- ing the following long-term outcomes: antisocial be-
founded with each other, a subsequent section havior, fighting, hostility, emotional problems, com-
highlights the 11 studies that are most relevant for petence, and self-esteem. (A later section returns to
untangling common confounds among these charac- these studies to begin untangling these confounds.)

Table I. Studies of Child Outcomes of Nonabusive or Customary Physical Punishment by Parents

Authors Agea N Type Physical Other Child Physical Summary of findingsa,d
2–6 and of punishment discipline outcome punishment
Preschoolers 2–5 genderb (parent)c,d responses measures associatione
Bean & 2–6 sample
Roberts 2–6
(1981) Randomized clinical trials
Day & 2–6
Roberts 8 24 B,G Clinic-referred, 2-swat spank back-up Child release from Compliance with par- ϩ Percentage compliance improved more with spank back-up
1983 16 B,G disruptive for time out (TO) TO, non-time- ent commands than in either of other two conditions. Fewer TOs than
Roberts 3–5 (T1), 18 B,G problems (M) out control Child Release group.
(1988) 7–11 (T2), 36 B,G Compliance with par-
12–16 (T3) Clinic-referred, 2-swat spank back-up Room time out ent commands ϩ Spank back-up and room time out back-up equally effec-
Roberts & disruptive for TO (M) back-up for tive in increasing compliance.
Powers 2–4 (T1), chair TO (bar- Compliance to parent
(1990) 9–11 (T2) Clinic-referred, 2-swat spank back-up rier) commands, escapes ϩ The two back-ups equally effective in reducing escapes
disruptive for TO (M) from time out chair, from time out and in increasing compliance. Room
Preschoolers Room time out verbalizations time-out back-up had fewer verbalizations in first chair
Roberts Clinic-referred, 2-swat spank back-up back-up for TO time out.
(1982) disruptive for TO (M) (barrier) Compliance, TO es-
capes, number of ϩ Spank and room TO yielded fewer escapes from TO and
School age Room TO, child chair TOs needed fewer TOs than hold or child release back-ups. Fifteen
Bernal et al. release, hold as children needed alternative back-up (switch to spank in
(1968) TO backups 12 cases), which increased compliance.

Preschoolers Other clinical studies
Baumrind
& Owens 32 B,G Clinic-referred, 2-swat spank back-up None Escapes from time out ϩ Reduced mean number of escapes from time out from
(2000) disruptive for TO (M) first to second time out attempt.

Ellison et al. 1B Clinic-referred, Good, hard whack Ignore Compliance, aggression, ϩ Increased compliance, decreased aggression, increased
(1998)
disruptive on rear (M) liking of son liking for son.

Longitudinal studies controlling for initial misbehavior

87–135 Children in pre- Frequency of physi- Verbal punish- General competence, Ϫ/0 After controlling for initial level of externalizing problems
B,G schools cal punishment ment cognitive compe- ϩ/Ϫ and cooperation, T1 spanking predicted lower general
from ratings of in- tence, social agency, competence at T2 and T3, lower cognitive competence
terviews and home communal compe- at T2, and lower communal competence at T2. Spanking
observations (B) tence, total problems, frequency at T2 predicted lower general competence at
externalizing prob- T3 with the same control. Then, after dropping the 5% or
467 B,G Nationally repre- Frequency of spank- None lems, internalizing 7% most frequent/severe cases of physical punishment,
sentative ing in previous problems only one of those remained significant (T1 spanking and
sample week at T1 and T2 T2 general competence). This became nonsignificant after
(mother report) Antisocial behavior, controlling also for either positive parenting or malad-
(B) hostility, emotional justed parenting. Using equivalent analyses, T1 verbal
problems punishment predicted detrimental outcomes in five T3
outcomes, four of which held up after dropping ex-
treme verbal punishment cases.

In conservative Protestant families, children who were
spanked only at T1 had fewer T2 problems than chil-
dren who were not spanked at either time. In other
families, there were increased T2 problems for children
spanked at both times, but no effects for those spanked
at T1 but not at T2.

Gunnoe & 4–11 (T1), 1112 B,G Nationally repre- Frequency of spank- None Antisocial behavior, ϩ/Ϫ Spanking frequency predicted a decrease of subsequent
Mariner 9–16 (T2) sentative ing in previous youth-reported fight- ϩ/0 fighting 5 years later for (1) African Americans, (2) 4-to
(1997) sample week (mother re- ing at school 7-year olds, and (3) girls. Spanking frequency predicted
port) (B) an increased frequency of fighting 5 years later for (1)
Larzelere European Americans and (2) 8- to 11-year olds. It also
et al. 2–3 (T1), 4 38 B,G Volunteers in re- Slap hand or spank Reasoning, non- Delay until next recur- predicted higher mother-reported antisocial behavior 5
(1998b) (T2) sponse to news- when used in com- physical punish- rence of fighting or years later, replicating Straus et al. (1997). All analyses
paper article bination with rea- ment, combina- disobedience fol- controlled for T1 bullying.
School age soning (mother re- tions of the lowing subsequent
Adams port) (M) above, other reasoning by itself, Backing up reasoning with either kind of punishment en-
(1995) disruptive behavior hanced the subsequent effectiveness of reasoning by it-
at T2 self in delaying the next recurrence of either misbehavior.
Larzelere This effect occurred for a nonphysical back-up in 8 of 8
& Smith analyses and for physical punishment in 4 of 8 analyses.
(2000) Children whose mothers used reasoning by itself fre-
quently and also backed up reasoning with nonphysical
McLeod punishment showed the largest decrease in T2 disrup-
et al. tive behavior. The same effect for physical punishment
(1994) as a back-up was not significant. Reasoning without pun-
ishment predicted more T2 disruptive behavior.
Straus
et al. 6–12 (T1), 367 B,G National sample Spanked twice or None Academic achievement Ϫ/0 Frequent spanking group had lower global self-esteem in
(1997) 10–16 (T2) with some more in previous in reading and math, boys and for all children. No significant differences on
oversamplingf week or spanked Grounding, send- behavior problems, any of the other four outcome variables for boys. No-
once plus other en- ing to room, re- global self-esteem, thing was significant for girls. Controlled for ethnicity;
dorsement of moving allow- scholastic self-esteem nurturance; cognitive enrichment; poverty; self-esteem
spanking (mother ance, removing and behavior problems; and other variables.
report) (M) privileges in pre- Antisocial behavior
6–9 (T1), 981 B,G National sample vious week Ϫ/0 The frequency of spanking or of any other the four alter-
8–11 (T2) with some Spanking frequency Antisocial behavior natives each predicted a higher rate of antisocial behav-
oversamplingf in previous week None ior 2 years later, controlling for the original level of anti-
(mother report) Antisocial behavior social behavior. Predictions of T2 antisocial from each
4 or more 1866 B,G National sample (M) None disciplinary tactic became nonsignificant when T1 exter-
(T1), 6 or with some nalizing problems were measured more thoroughly. Con-
more (T2) oversamplingf Spanking frequency trolled for five other variables and interactions.
in previous week
6–9 (T1), 807 B,G National sample (mother report) Ϫ/0 Spanking frequency at Time 2 predicted antisocial be-
8–11 (T) with some (M) havior at Time 2 in European Americans but not in
oversamplingf African Americans, controlling for Time 1 antisocial
Spanking frequency behavior. T1 antisocial behavior predicted increased
in previous week spanking in both races.
(mother report)
(M) Ϫ Spanking predicted more antisocial behavior 2 years later,
controlling for initial level of antisocial behavior as well
as five other demographic and parenting-quality mea-
sures and their interactions with spanking, due mostly to
those spanked 3ϩ times weekly. Correlations similar for
four other cohorts, including 3- to 5-year olds and chil-
dren 10 or older.

Sequential analyses

Preschoolers 2–3 38 B,G Volunteers in re- Slap hand or spank Reasoning, non- Delay until next recur- ϩ Either type of punishment without reasoning delayed the
Larzelere
& Merenda sponse to news- (mother report) physical punish- rence of disobedience next disobedience recurrence the most at high levels of
(1994)
paper article (M) ment, combina- or fighting child distress. Reasoning delayed disobedience recur-

tions of above, rences the most at intermediate levels of child distress.

and other Either type of punishment with reasoning at an inter-

mediate child distress was the best at delaying disobedi-

ence recurrences overall.

Larzelere 2–3 38 B,G Volunteers Slap hand or spank Reasoning, non- Delay until next recur- ϩ The combination of either physical or nonphysical punish-
et al.
(1996) (mother report) physical punish- rence of disobedience ment with reasoning was associated with a longer delay

(M) ment, combina- or fighting until the next misbehavior recurrence than following

tions of above, reasoning alone, punishment alone, or other discipline

and other responses.

Table I. (Continued)

Authors Agea N Type Physical Other Child Physical Summary of findingsa,d
Ritchie 3 and of punishment discipline outcome punishment
genderb (parent)c,d responses measures associatione Time out and spank were the only tactics that mothers (1)
(1999) sample were more likely to use for defiance and (2) that was
90 B,G Recruited from Slap hand or spank Ignore, power as- Ability to stop a non- ϩ not followed by an inflated probability of defiance. This
Preschoolers (mother report) sert physically, compliant tactic sug- pattern occurred for other disciplinary tactics only for
Crowne birth records (M) power assert gested with (1) 0 ignore in response to whining and for privilege removal
et al. verbally, time greater likelihood of Ϫ/0 in response to simple refusals. Compliance occurred at
(1969) Kindergarten out, threaten, re- using the tactic in re- higher rates following only ignore and power assert
move privilege, sponse to a given Ϫ/0 physically.
Deater- Kindergarten stu- reasoning, offer child tactic (e.g., de- 0
Deckard dents alternative fiance) when (2) the 0 Mother’s spanking frequency associated with realistic as-
& Dodge disciplinary tactic was 0 pirations more than with unrealistic aspirations (females).
(1997) Kindergarten not followed by a sig- Mother’s spanking frequency ϩr with number of unusual
nificantly increased 0/Ϫ shifts in aspirations. Love withdrawal ϩr with overly cau-
Deater- Kindergarten probability of the Ϫ tious aspirations (males).
Deckard same child tactic;
et al. Birth cohort compliance Nonabusive mild to harsh physical punishment predicted
(1996) over 3 years lower externalizing problems in African Americans com-
Prospective longitudinal studies pared to children of nonspankers, whereas it predicted
Grinder Kindergarten higher externalizing problems in European Americans
(1962) 5 (T1), 18 83 B,G Children in Afri- Frequency of spank- Deprivation of Realistic aspirations (significance not given). The harsh discipline variable
(T2) ing by each parent, privileges, with- (vs. overcautious or predicted subsequent externalizing problems in Euro-
Johannesson can-American extent of physical drawal of love unrealistic), unusual pean Americans, but not in African Americans, unless
(1974) 1–5 (T1), 585 B,G inner city punishment (B) shifts in aspirations African-American parents were nonnurturing.
5.5–12 (T2 Kindergarten Harsh discipline,
McClelland to T8) children No vs. mild to harsh ranging from Externalizing problems Physical punishment ϩr with all 3 measures of acting out
& Pilon physical disci- nonrestrictive (teacher rating) for European Americans, physical punishment Ϫr with
(1983) pline, distin- and positive to all three measures for African Americans, but nonsig-
guished from physi- strict, severe, of- nificantly so.
McCord & cal abuse (M) ten physical
Ensminger Physical punishment and other disciplinary responses
(1997) 4 (T1), 4.5– 566 B,G Mother’s spontane- None Externalizing problems were each unrelated to resistance to temptation.
7.5 (T2) ous report of PP (teacher report), ag-
Michels as responses to 5 Isolation, love gression and conflict Spanking was not associated with subsequent school ag-
et al. 5 (T1), 11–12 140 B,G misbehavior withdrawal, with teacher (peer gression.
(1993) (T2) vignettes (M) privilege depri- report)
vation Physical punishment Ϫr with need for power for males
9–24 mos. 212 B,G Extent of physical Resistance to tempta- only; deprivation of privileges unrelated to all adult
(T1), 10–13 78 B,G punishment (M) None tion to cheat for needs.
(T2) prize in lab game
953 B,G Extent of spanking Deprivation of Frequent spanking predicted a greater probability of the
5 (T1), 31–32 from ‘‘never’’ to privileges Teacher’s rating of ten- three adulthood problems in only 1 of 6 analyses (only
(T2) ‘‘constantly’’ (M) dency to start a quar- increased alcoholism for men; none of three outcomes
None reported rel and have conflict were increased for women).
6 (T1), 32 Extent of physical with peers
(T2) punishment (M) Attention, time Children whose parents thought physical punishment
out, depriva- Need for achievement, worked best were more disruptive in the classroom
M ϭ 5.3 342 B,G Mother’s report as to tion of privi- need for affiliation, than those who thought alternatives worked best or
(T1), M ϭ whether their child leges, reason, need for power who considered discipline not a problem or who said
5.9 (T2) was spanked twice bribe/threaten, nothing worked. Those physically punished weekly or
a week or more formal behav- Criminal violence, de- more were more disruptive than those hit less often.
(M) ior management pression, alcoholism Among those not physically punished, frequency of
system nonphysical punishment was not associated with disrup-
Parents’ report that Disruptive classroom tive behavior.
physical punish- behavior (e.g., hit-
ment worked best. ting, defiance, disrup-
Frequency of physi- tiveness) as reported
cal punishment. by the teacher
(B)

Sears 5 (T1), 12 160 B,G Kindergarten Extent of physical Deprivation of Five types of aggression 0 Of 10 correlations with later aggession, physical punish-

(1961) (T2) punishment (M) privileges, love (e.g., antisocial, pro- ment ϩr only with prosocial agression in girls. The other

withdrawal jected) discipline responses also had one more ϩr than Ϫr.

Sears 5 (T1), 12 160 B,G Kindergarten Extent of physical None Self-esteem 0 Physical punishment not associated with subsequent self-

(1970) (T2) punishment (M) esteem.

Smith & 12 & 36 mos. 715 B,G Low-birth- Mother reported 2 or None IQ 0/Ϫ Girls in the high physical punishment group at both 12

Brooks- (T1), 36 weight more physical pun- and 36 months were lower on IQ than were those not in

Gunn mos. (T2) children ishments in past that group at both ages. The other 11 pairwise compari-

(1997) week or seen hit- sons were not significant.

ting or scolding

(M)

Strassberg 4 (T1), 4.5 273 B,G Kindergarten Spanking frequency Parental violence Observed bullying and Ϫ Spanked children were higher than the 11 nonspanked/

et al. (T2) during past year, reactive, instrumen- nonabused children on total aggression and reactive ag-

(1994) including spank- tal, and total aggres- gression, but not on bullying or instrumental aggression.

ing with object (B) sion at school Spanking frequency not related to any aggression mea-

sures.

Straus & 1–4 (T1), 3–6 960 B,G National sample Frequency of spank- None Cognitive achievement Ϫ Spanking frequency predicted poorer cognitive achieve-

Paschall (T2), 5–9 with some ing during previ- in reading and math ment at T3, controlling for cognitive measures at T1,

(1998) (T3) oversamplingf ous week at T1 age, ethnicity, gender, mother’s education, father pres-

and T2 plus ob- ence, cognitive stimulation, emotional support, etc. Re-

served hitting (M) portedly replicated without 1-year olds in the sample.

Yarrow M ϭ 4.2 58 B,G Nursery school 9-point scale from lit- Isolation, reason- Aggression and depen- Ϫ/0 Physical punishment was associated with more boys’ depen-

et al. (T1), M ϭ children tle to very often ing, privilege re- dency as rated by dency (desired attention and closeness) toward teacher,

(1968) 4.4 (T2) used, rated from in- moval, love two teachers in the but not associated with aggression in either gender (ex-

terview about six withdrawal, iso- nursery school cept physical punishment for sibling aggression predicted

extreme examples lation, scolding, lower aggression in total sample and tended toward sig-

of disobedience diverting atten- nificance for boys). Other disciplinary tactics also gener-

(M) tion, modeling ally unrelated to outcomes.

School age

Paschall 5–9 (T1), 711 B,G National sample Frequency of spank- None Cognitive achievement Ϫ Spanking frequency predicted poorer cognitive achieve-

& Straus 7–11 (T2), with some ing during previ- in reading and math ment at T3, controlling for cognitive achievement at T1

(1998) 9–13 (T3) over samplingf ous week at T1 plus controls for age, ethnicity, gender, mother’s educa-

and T2 plus ob- tion, father presence, cognitive stimulation, emotional

served hitting (M) support, etc.

Retrospective studies

Preschoolers

Rhue & 3–5 & 6–10 53 B,G Top and bottom Severity, frequency None Fantasy proneness Ϫ Fantasy-prone sample reported more frequency and seve-

Lynn (T1), col- 4% of college of early physical rity of physical punishment, were more likely to be hit

(1987) lege age students on punishment; hit when behaving, and were less likely to know why they

(T2) fantasy prone- when behaving; were physically punished.

ness ϩ middle knew why they

group were physically

punished (B)

School-age

Alibrando 7(T1), M ϭ 96 B,G College students Percentage of punish- None analyzed Rebelliousness (vs. con- ϩ/0 Percentage of punishment that was physical predicted

(1987) 22 (T2) ment that was formity), neuroti- lower rebelliousness, controlling for parental accep-

physical, fre- cism, introversion tance or parent or child orientation for physical punish-

quency of spank- (vs. extroversion) ment. Low rebelliousness could be reframed as ex-

ing or physical pun- treme conformity. Physical punishment was unrelated

ishment (B) to neuroticism and introversion.

Table I. (Continued)

Authors Agea N Type Physical Other Child Physical Summary of findingsa,d
and of punishment discipline outcome punishment
genderb (parent)c,d responses measures associatione
sample

Holmes & 6–13 (T1), 200 B,G Alcoholics, de- Spanking and slap- Punched, hit with Differences in three 0 Groups similar in percentage that had experienced spank-
Robins 18–49 (T2) pressives, con- ping used fre- belt or stick, groups (alcoholics or ing frequently or as usual mode of punishment. Con-
(1988) trols quently or as usual confinement, depressives vs. con- trols less likely to have been hit with object frequently
mode of discipline scolding, isola- trols) or beaten, less likely to fear parental discipline, or to
Larzelere (B) tion, beatings be punished in public. Their mothers were more likely
et al. to carry out their threats and share discipline responsi-
(1989) Before 13 157 B,G Home economics Frequency of spank- Alternative pun- Self-esteem bilities with their husbands.
(T1), M ϭ 240 B,G college stu- ing (before 13) (B) ishment factor
MacIntyre & 21 (T2) 5044 B dents (time out, re- Approval of aggression 0 Spanking unrelated to self-esteem, as was the alternative
Cantrell Major punishment moving privi- toward objects or punishment factor. Parent-oriented motivation for
(1995) Before 13 College students style: physical pun- leges, and resti- people spanking predicted low self-esteem.
(T1), M ϭ ishment (No, with tution)
Tennant 24 (T2) U.S. Army sol- explanation, with Usage of three drugs 0 Major physical punishment styles prior to age 13 unrelated
et al. diers in verbal assault, or None and alcohol (Never, to approval of aggression toward either objects or peo-
(1975) 0–14 (T1), Germany spontaneously) (B) occasional, or fre- ple.
M ϭ 23 Noncontact pun- quent)
(T2) Punishment: spank- ishment (e.g., ϩ Drug nonusers were more likely to report spanking than
ing (Yes or no? or stand in cor- were frequent drug users, for three drugs. Ampheta-
most common?) ner), punish- mine nonusers were less likely to report noncontact
(B) ment frequency punishment than frequent users. No association with
alcohol usage. Punishment frequency predicted more
frequent use of two drugs.

aT1 ϭ First data collection period (Time 1), T2 ϭ second data collection period (Time 2), T3 ϭ third data collection period (Time 3)
bB ϭ boys, G ϭ girls.
cM ϭ mother, B ϭ both mother and father.
dTO ϭ time out, ϩr ϭ positively associated (i.e., correlated), Ϫr ϭ negatively associated.
eϩ ϭ Predominantly beneficial child outcomes of physical punishment; Ϫ ϭ predominantly detrimental child outcomes; 0 ϭ generally neutral child outcomes; ϩ/Ϫ ϭ two or more
beneficial child outcomes and two or more detrimental child outcomes; 0/Ϫ ϭ generally neutral outcomes, but one outcome was detrimental out of four or more relevant analyses; Ϫ/
0 ϭ predominantly detrimental outcomes with important exceptions (e.g., disappears with controls, does not generalize across genders or ethnic groups); ϩ/0 ϭ predominantly beneficial

outcomes with important exceptions.
fOversampling of young, single mothers; lower socioeconomic status; and ethnic minorities.

Outcomes of Physical Punishment 207

Uncontrolled longitudinal studies and retrospec- confounded with several other dimensions, addressed
tive studies found detrimental outcomes more often in a later section.
than beneficial outcomes. However, neither of those
designs can rule out the possibility that higher levels Substantive Issues
of child misbehavior caused both the increased physi-
cal punishment and the subsequent detrimental child The findings in the studies in Table I varied by
outcomes (Straus, Sugarman, & Giles-Sims, 1997). several substantive characteristics as well as by meth-
Because a primary purpose of this review is to clarify odologic dimensions. These included the type of out-
the causal effects of physical punishment, the remain- come, the age and clinical status of the child, how
der of the results section generally considers only the the physical punishment was used, and the larger
17 studies that are most causally relevant. Thus the cultural context.
following sections exclude uncontrolled longitudinal
and retrospective studies except for supplementary Type of Child Outcome
information.
The apparent effects of physical punishment
The remaining sections sometimes include more were generally beneficial in reducing noncompliance
than 17 findings. Studies contribute more than one and fighting and in enhancing parental warmth and
finding when their results differ by the dimension milder disciplinary tactics. However, the apparent
summarized or when they have both beneficial and effects of physical punishment were generally detri-
detrimental outcomes. For example, a study that in- mental in increasing externalizing behavior problems
vestigated three types of child outcomes (i.e., behav- and mental health problems, and in reducing compe-
ior problems, mental health, and competence) would tencies.
be counted three times when considering how the
results vary by the type of outcome. All the studies that investigated noncompliance
found that physical punishment reduced it. This in-
Methodologic Issues cluded all 6 clinical studies, all 3 sequential studies,
and the sequential analysis part of 1 controlled longi-
This section summarizes how the results of these tudinal study (Larzelere, Sather, Schneider, Lar-
17 causally relevant studies varied by two methodo- son, & Pike, 1998b).
logic variables: the type of data and whether the
outcome was short or long term. Four of five findings on fighting indicated that
it was reduced by previous physical punishment. This
Beneficial child outcomes were most likely when included the single-case clinical study (Bernal, Du-
the outcome measure was observational (6 of 6 stud- ryee, Pruett, & Burns, 1968), two sequential-analysis
ies) or a specific daily maternal report (3 of 3 studies). studies (Larzelere & Merenda, 1994; Larzelere,
Detrimental child outcomes were most likely when Schneider, Larson, & Pike, 1996), and four of seven
all the measures in a study were based on the same significant findings in a controlled longitudinal study
person’s global reports (5 of 7 results) or on different (Gunnoe & Mariner, 1997). Only Gunnoe and Mari-
persons’ global reports (3 of 4 results). Gunnoe and ner (1997) found that physical punishment increased
Mariner (1997) found mixed beneficial and detrimen- subsequent fighting, and then only in three of seven
tal outcomes when different sources were used for significant findings (e.g., for 8- to 11-year olds and
the spanking and outcome variable, but a uniformly European-Americans as a subgroup).
detrimental outcome when basing all measures on
maternal reports. Overall, beneficial outcomes were A few findings suggest that physical punishment
more likely for more objective, specific outcome mea- can enhance parental nurturance and the effective-
sures. ness of milder disciplinary tactics. The single-case
study in Table I (Bernal et al., 1968) found that spank-
On the second methodologic issue, beneficial ing enhanced the mother’s liking for her clinically
child outcomes were more likely for outcomes mea- disruptive 8-year-old son. All 6 clinical studies and
sured less than 6 months after the use of physical Larzelere et al. (1998b) found that spanking was ef-
punishment (9 of 10 findings). Detrimental outcomes fective in enhancing the subsequent effectiveness of
were more likely for outcomes that were 6 months or milder disciplinary tactics, such as time out or reason-
more after the physical punishment (7 of 10 findings). ing. This enhanced effectiveness of milder disciplin-
The short- vs. long-term status of the outcomes was

208 Larzelere

ary tactics should in turn prevent disciplinary prob- tences. Baumrind and Owens (2000) found that
lems from eroding parental nurturance toward the spanking frequency at ages 3 to 5 predicted lower
child. Further research is needed, however, to clarify subsequent competencies in cognitive, communal,
that speculation. and general areas. All but one of these effects became
nonsignificant after those who used spanking most
In contrast to these generally beneficial out- frequently and severely were dropped from the anal-
comes, physical punishment tended to predict higher yses (5–7% of the sample).4 Adams (1995) found no
rates of externalizing problems, mental health prob- effect on academic achievement.
lems, and lower competencies in the 17 causally rele-
vant studies in Table I. Five (5) of 10 findings indi- Child Characteristics
cated that physical punishment significantly increased
subsequent externalizing problems (Ellison, Mu- The outcomes of physical punishment also var-
sick, & Holden, 1998; Gunnoe & Mariner, 1997; Lar- ied by the child’s age and whether the child was
zelere & Smith, 2000; McLeod, Kruttschnitt, & Dorn- clinically disruptive. Studies of children averaging 6
feld, 1994; Straus et al., 1997). These detrimental or younger in Table I generally found beneficial out-
outcomes were neutralized or reversed in African comes, whereas studies of older children generally
Americans (Gunnoe & Mariner, 1997; McLeod et al., found detrimental outcomes. In children with mean
1994; but see also Straus et al., 1997) and conservative ages under 6, 11 of 12 studies (92%) found predomi-
Protestants (Ellison et al., 1998), two subcultures that nantly beneficial outcomes of physical punishment,
view spanking more normatively. whereas the remaining study (8%) found predomi-
nantly detrimental outcomes. In children averaging
The most consistent causally relevant evidence from 7.5 to 10 years old, 6 studies (86%) found pre-
of detrimental outcomes of physical punishment has dominantly detrimental outcomes and only 1 study
been a subsequent increase in a 6-item antisocial mea- (14%) found beneficial outcomes. In the previous
sure from controlled longitudinal studies of the Na- review, all 4 studies of the physical punishment of
tional Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY: Larzel- teenagers found detrimental outcomes (Larzelere,
ere & Smith, 2000; McLeod et al., 1994; Straus et al., 1996). Since that review, the first controlled longitudi-
1997). It is therefore important to note that (i) similar nal study of spanking of teenagers found increased
increases in antisocial behavior were associated with rates of dating-partner abuse associated with such
each of four other disciplinary tactics included in the spanking, p ϭ 0.06 with complete statistical control
NLSY survey (Larzelere & Smith, 2000) and that (ii) for initial delinquency (Simons, Lin, & Gordon, 1998;
all of these apparently detrimental outcomes became R. Simons, personal communication, 1999).
nonsignificant when the measure of initial child exter-
nalizing problems was expanded to a 16-item mea- The results also varied by whether the child had
sure (Larzelere & Smith, 2000). The other four disci- clinical levels of disruptive behavior. All 6 clinical
plinary tactics in the NLSY survey were removing studies found beneficial outcomes of spanking,
privileges, removing allowance, sending to room, and whereas the other 13 findings were evenly split be-
grounding (Larzelere & Smith, 2000). tween predominantly detrimental outcomes (54%)
and predominantly beneficial outcomes (46%). The
Two of four findings indicated that physical pun- effect of spanking frequency in Straus et al. (1997)
ishment predicted increased mental health problems. depended on initial level of antisocial behavior in 3
This included lower self-esteem (Adams, 1995) and of the 5 cohorts (Straus, personal communication,
increased hostility and emotional problems in part 1996). In those 3 cohorts, spanking decreased subse-
of the sample in Ellison et al. (1998). Both detrimental quent antisocial behavior in the initially most antiso-
findings involved high spanking frequencies; twice a cial group, but it increased antisocial behavior in the
week for Adams’ 6- to 12-year olds or weekly spank- least antisocial group.
ing at ages 9 to 11 in Ellison et al. (1998). For conser-
vative Protestants, however, children who were 4In their publication, Baumrind and Owens (2000) are planning
spanked at ages 2 to 4 but not at ages 9 to 11 had to control for some parenting characteristics before controlling
lower hostility and emotional problems than children for initial externalizing/cooperative behavior. The summary here
not spanked at either age (Ellison et al., 1998). Baum- applies to their data when controlling only for initial externalizing/
rind and Owens (2000) found neutral outcomes on cooperative behavior with and without the most frequent and
internalizing problems. severe users of physical punishment.

Finally, one of two studies found that physical
punishment predicted lower subsequent compe-

Outcomes of Physical Punishment 209

How Physical Punishment Was Used Bates, 1994). None of these studies found detrimental
outcomes for nonabusive or customary physical pun-
The outcomes of physical punishment in the 17 ishment, except for Strassberg et al. (1994). In that
strongest studies in Table I also varied by how physi- study, the 11 children (4%) who were not spanked
cal punishment was used. Child outcomes tended to during the year preceding kindergarten were less ag-
be beneficial when physical punishment was used gressive during kindergarten than the 96% who had
nonabusively, not too frequently, primarily as a back- been spanked. All other studies in Table I that ex-
up to milder disciplinary tactics, and flexibly. cluded abusive parents found beneficial or neutral
outcomes of nonabusive physical punishment.
Not one of the 17 causally relevant studies found
predominantly detrimental outcomes if they did any- Detrimental outcomes were associated with
thing to rule out parents who used physical punish- overly frequent physical punishment as well as overly
ment too severely. To be included in this review, the severe physical punishment. The 8 controlled longitu-
studies could not emphasize severity in their measure dinal studies all investigated spanking frequency or
of physical punishment, but only 2 of the controlled an approximation of it. Linear associations between
longitudinal studies made any attempt to rule out spanking frequency and subsequent outcomes may
abusive physical punishment. The 6 clinical studies be significant due solely to the most frequent spank-
and 2 of the 3 sequential analysis studies made some ers. Most (5 of 8) of the controlled longitudinal stud-
attempt to exclude overly severe physical punish- ies found detrimental child outcomes, but they all
ment. Nine (9) of the 10 findings that ruled out abuse tested linear associations of spanking frequency.
were predominantly beneficial, and the remaining Three (3) of the controlled longitudinal studies pro-
study had generally neutral findings after dropping vided information on various spanking frequencies.
the 5% to 7% of their sample that used physical pun- They indicated that the detrimental outcomes of
ishment most frequently and severely (Baumrind & physical punishment did not become significantly dif-
Owens, 2000). Of the studies that did not rule out ferent from those not spanked until the spanking
abuse, most findings (7 of 11) indicated detrimental frequency reached one to three times a week (6- to
outcomes, 2 indicated beneficial outcomes, and 2 12-year olds: Adams, 1995; 3- to 5-year olds: Baum-
showed neutral outcomes. rind & Owens, 2000; 6- to 9-year olds: Straus et al.,
1997).
Studies that emphasized the severity of physical
punishment found detrimental outcomes, but they In contrast, spanking had predominantly bene-
have been excluded from this review (e.g., Weiss, ficial outcomes when it was used conditionally, pri-
Dodge, & Bates, 1992). Straus and Mouradian (1998) marily to back up milder disciplinary tactics. All 9
addressed this issue in an important cross-sectional studies that emphasized spanking as a back-up for a
study. Mothers were asked, ‘‘When you had to spank milder tactic found beneficial child outcomes. First,
or hit [your child], how often did you spank because the series of clinical studies by Roberts and col-
you were so angry that you ‘lost it’?’’ (p. 357). Moth- leagues specified only one use for spanking: a back-
ers who reported ‘‘losing it’’ half of the time or more up for noncompliance with the time-out procedure.
showed a much stronger association between fre- The beneficial outcomes from the Larzelere series of
quency of spanking and the child’s antisocial and studies occurred primarily when spanking was used
impulsive behavior than those never losing it. For in combination with reasoning, usually with the
mothers who never lost control due to anger, their spanking coming after the reasoning. Both sets of
frequency of spanking was correlated about zero with studies found that the milder disciplinary tactic be-
the child’s antisocial and impulsive behavior. came more effective by itself after being backed up
by spanking. A conditional spanking back-up was
Other studies have investigated the effects of also used by Bernal et al. (1968) that led to improved
mild or moderate physical punishment and the effects compliance and parental affection and reduced
of severe physical punishment in the same study. The fighting.
types of severe physical punishment with detrimental
outcomes included (i) whipping, punching, kicking, The conditional use of spanking after other tac-
or beating up (Bryan & Freed, 1982); (ii) beatings tics have failed is also consistent with how mothers
(Holmes & Robins, 1988); (iii) yelling, throwing change their tactics during extended disciplinary inci-
things, or attempting to injure someone when frus- dents with 3-year olds (Ritchie, 1999). Mothers were
trated or annoyed (McCord, 1988); and (iv) hitting more likely to use verbal commands and reasoning
or beating up a child (Strassberg, Dodge, Pettit, & and offer alternatives early in an extended disciplin-

210 Larzelere

ary incident. The longer an extended disciplinary inci- controlled longitudinal studies investigated the ef-
dent lasted, however, the more likely mothers were fects of physical punishment with ethnic minorities,
to impose negative consequences such as physical usually African Americans. All three studies found
power assertion, time out, a spank, or privilege re- significantly differential effects of spanking by eth-
moval. Other tactics, such as threatening, consenting, nicity. Physical punishment never predicted predomi-
and ignoring, became more frequent during the mid- nantly detrimental outcomes in ethnic minorities, ex-
dle of an extended incident, but then decreased sub- cept for ethnically diverse 6- to 9-year olds spanked
sequently. Putting those patterns together, mothers three times a week or more (Straus et al., 1997). In
tend to use mild verbal tactics at first. Then they contrast, lower spanking frequency predicted signifi-
decide whether to consent, ignore, or continue to cantly lower rates of fighting 5 years later in African-
insist on child cooperation. Finally, they implement American children in one study (Gunnoe & Mariner,
negative consequences or other power assertion as 1997). The other study found neutral outcomes of
a last resort in an extended incident. Resorting to spanking frequency in African-American children
spanking too quickly might lead to its overly frequent but detrimental outcomes in European-American
use and detrimental outcomes. In contrast, skilled children (McLeod et al., 1994).
use of spanking as an occasional back-up for milder
disciplinary tactics with 2- to 6-year olds is more ef- Two uncontrolled longitudinal studies also
fective. found significantly distinct outcomes of spanking for
European Americans and for African Americans
Finally, flexible use of nonabusive spanking and (Deater-Deckard & Dodge, 1997; Deater-Deckard,
alternatives is associated with better child outcomes Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1996). The outcomes were
than primary or exclusive use of physical punishment. predominantly detrimental for European Americans
Flexible use is best illustrated in the study of clinically but neutral for African Americans. The strongest
noncompliant 2- to 6-year olds by Roberts and Pow- evidence of ethnic differences seems to occur in pre-
ers (1990). They investigated four alternative ap- dicting school aggression (see also Polaha, 1998).
proaches to enforcing compliance with time-out: a 2-
swat spank, a 1-minute room isolation, a physical One study found differences in outcomes of
hold, and a child-determined release from time out. spanking by religious groups (Ellison et al., 1998).
The first two back-ups for time out were equally The results varied by whether spanking persisted
effective overall, and more effective than the last from about age 3 to about age 10 and by whether
two procedures. Some clinically defiant preschoolers the family was conservative Protestant. Beneficial
would persist in their noncompliance to time-out outcomes occurred for early, discontinued spanking
even after repeated uses of the assigned back-up pro- relative to those not spanked at either age, but only
cedure. Roberts and Powers (1990) dealt with this for conservative Protestants. Detrimental outcomes
by switching to an alternative back-up procedure if occurred for persistent spankers, but only for the part
the initial back-up was repeated 6 times for the same of the sample that was not conservative Protestants.
time-out. The spank back-up was changed to a brief
room isolation, whereas the brief room isolation and These ethnic and religious subcultural differ-
the physical hold were changed to the spank back- ences in the outcomes of spanking probably depend
up. Switching to an alternative back-up tactic was on how spanking is used and its normative acceptance
sufficient to gain compliance with time-out in all in those subcultures. For example, spanking is more
cases. This suggests that parents should switch disci- likely to be perceived as evidence of parental concern
plinary tactics when the first one is not working, in African-American families, whereas it is more
rather than increasing the intensity of the first tactic. likely to be seen as an indication of parental rejection
It also implies that parents need more disciplinary in European-American families (Deater-Deckard et
options, not fewer ones, to maximize their flexible al., 1996). The tradition within the African-American
use of nonabusive alternatives. subculture views spanking as a means of establishing
appropriate disciplinary control to prevent parents
Cultural Context from the need to yell at their children (Mosby, Rawls,
Meehan, Mays, & Pettinari, 1999). Understanding
Finally, the child outcomes of physical punish- these ethnic differences in the outcomes of spanking
ment differed by the cultural context. Three of the has been the subject of numerous recent articles
(Deater-Deckard & Dodge, 1997, and 11 commentar-
ies; Baumrind, 1996; Mosby et al., 1999; Whaley,
2000).

Outcomes of Physical Punishment 211

Confounding Factors findings, 1 detrimental finding in Straus et al., 1997).
The outcomes in this review did not appear to be
To this point, this review examines the results affected by positive parenting characteristics, al-
of the 17 causally relevant studies of physical punish- though this warrants further investigation.
ment one dimension at a time. However, those di-
mensions were often confounded with each other. In Detrimental outcomes were more likely when
the previous review (Larzelere, 1996), beneficial child outcomes occurred 6 months or more after the physi-
outcomes were found consistently in the causally rele- cal punishment (8 detrimental vs. 3 beneficial find-
vant studies (i.e., four randomized clinical studies), ings). Beneficial outcomes occurred more often when
whereas detrimental child outcomes were more likely outcomes occurred less than 6 months later (e.g.,
in causally ambiguous studies, such as uncontrolled during the next discipline incident or the next day;
longitudinal and retrospective studies. However, sev- all three findings were beneficial). Thus detrimental
eral dimensions were confounded with causal conclu- outcomes were more likely for long-term outcomes
siveness as potential explanations for discriminating than for short-term outcomes, but this time dimen-
beneficial from detrimental child outcomes of physi- sion was often confounded with the other dimensions
cal punishment. Studies showing beneficial child out- in Table II.
comes of physical punishment were also more likely
to (i) focus on short-term outcomes (e.g., during the The outcomes of physical punishment varied lit-
next discipline incident or the next week), (ii) empha- tle by type of outcome in Table II. Beneficial and
size compliance as the child outcome, (iii) study chil- detrimental outcomes were equally likely for the cat-
dren from the ages of 2 to 6, (iv) investigate the use egory of subsequent behavior problems. There was
of spanking to back up milder disciplinary tactics, only one more detrimental outcome than beneficial
and (v) make some attempt to rule out abusive use outcomes for mental health or competence outcomes.
of physical punishment. In contrast, detrimental child
outcomes were most likely in studies that were oppo- Comparisons with Alternative Disciplinary Tactics
site on each of those dimensions as well as being
causally ambiguous. The controlled longitudinal A comparison of the outcomes of physical pun-
studies are directly relevant to untangling some of ishment with outcomes of alternative disciplinary tac-
these confounds. Table II lists them and three other tics is important for sorting out the causality issues.
causally relevant studies that varied the characteris- If the apparently detrimental outcomes of nonsevere
tics that have been confounded with the causal con- physical punishment are artifacts actually caused by
clusiveness of the studies. the initial levels of child misbehavior, then the appar-
ent outcomes of alternative disciplinary tactics should
Predominantly detrimental long-term outcomes be similar to those of spanking when analyzed in the
never occurred in the causally relevant studies in same way. However, if the detrimental outcomes are
Table II under the following conditions: if overly unique to physical punishment, this would strengthen
severe users of physical punishment were removed the case for uniquely detrimental effects of physical
from the analyses, if spanking was measured as a punishment. Twenty (20) studies in Table I investi-
conditional back up rather than as a frequency mea- gated alternative disciplinary responses as well as
sure, or if the sample of children was initially high physical punishment. They included all 6 clinical stud-
on externalizing problems. Only one study found det- ies, all 3 sequential-analysis studies, 3 of the 8 con-
rimental outcomes for children under the mean age trolled longitudinal studies, 6 of the 15 uncontrolled
of 6 (Baumrind & Owens, 2000), and it no longer longitudinal studies, and 2 of the 6 retrospective
had predominantly detrimental outcomes after those studies.
parents who overused physical punishment were re-
moved from the analyses. In contrast, 6 of 9 findings Only three alternative disciplinary tactics ever
for children over the mean age of 6 indicated predom- had more beneficial outcomes than did physical pun-
inantly detrimental outcomes, and only the single- ishment, and each of those tactics compared unfavor-
case study found beneficial outcomes for children in ably with physical punishment elsewhere. When used
this age range (Bernal et al., 1968). as a back-up with 2- and 3-year olds, nonphysical
punishment enhanced the subsequent effectiveness
Almost all the outcomes in Table II were neutral of disciplinary reasoning by itself in 9 of 10 analyses,
or beneficial for subcultural groups that are more whereas physical punishment enhanced reasoning’s
likely to endorse the use of spanking (3 beneficial effectiveness in only 4 of 10 analyses (Larzelere et

Table II. Causally Relevant Studies of Physical Punishment Pertinent to Major Confounding Variables

Association by outcome type Severe Back-up Clinically Child’s
use of use vs. disruptive age
Authors Behavior Mental Competencea Long-term? punishment frequency Positive
problemsa healtha removed of spanking parenting sample (years)

Controlled longitudinal studies

Adams (1995) 0— 0 Yes No Frequency Controlled No 6–12
Baumrind & 00 — 4–5
Yes Then 0 Frequency 0 effect when No
Owens 2–4 and
(2000) effectsf controlled 9–11
Ellison et al.
(1998) ϩ (Cons Prosb) ϩ (Cons Prosb) Yes No Frequency Not controlled No 4–7 and
Gunnoe & Ϫ (Othersb) Ϫ (Othersb) 8–11
Mariner ϩ (Younger,
(1997) Yes No Frequency Controlled for No 2–3
Larzelere et al. Blacks, girls) praise
(1998) Ϫ (Older, Whites) 6–9
Larzelere & 0 Yes Yes Back-up Controlled No
Smith (2000) 6 or
McLeod et al. Ϫd Yes No Frequency Controlled No older
(1994)
Straus et al. Ϫ (Whites) Yes No Frequency Not controlled No 6–9
(1997) 0 (Blacks)
Ϫ Yes No Frequency Controlled Noc

Other causally relevant studies

Bernal et al. ϩ No Yes Back-up Enhanced by Yes 8
(1968) ϩ No Yes Back-up spank No 2–3

Larzelere & ϩ No Yes Back-up Partially No 2–3
Merenda controllede
(1994)
Partially
Larzelere et al. controllede
(1996)

Note: The most causally conclusive studies (Roberts’ four randomized clinical trials) are not included because the purpose of this table is to evaluate confounds that differentiate those

studies (with uniformly beneficial outcomes) from uncontrolled longitudinal and retrospective studies (with predominantly detrimental outcomes).
aϩ ϭ predominantly beneficial effect of physical punishment; Ϫ ϭ predominantly detrimental effect of physical punishment; 0 ϭ neutral effect of physical punishment.
bCons Pros ϭ Conservative Protestants. Beneficial effects only for Conservative Protestants spanked only at ages 2–4. Detrimental effects only for others spanked both at ages 2–4 and

at 9–11.
cInitial antisocial behavior interacted with spanking in three of five cohorts such that spanking decreased subsequent antisocial in the most antisocial children, but increased subsequent

antisocial in the least antisocial children (Straus, personal communication, 1996).
dThe apparent effect of spanking disappeared with an improved statistical control for initial externalizing problem behavior.
ePartly within-subject analyses.
fOnly 1 of 21 associations were significantly detrimental.

Outcomes of Physical Punishment 213

al., 1998b). However, a retrospective study found that 1997) and an evidence-based perspective that at-
spanking predicted a lower likelihood of using three tempts to differentiate between effective vs. counter-
illegal drugs, whereas noncontact punishment pre- productive spanking (Larzelere, Baumrind, & Polite,
dicted a greater likelihood of using one illegal drug 1998a). The unconditional antispanking viewpoint
(Tennant, Detels, & Clark, 1975). Ignoring and physi- holds that spanking invariably has detrimental child
cal power assertion both elicited a significantly in- effects regardless of how it is used, the age of the
creased probability of immediate compliance in Rit- child, the disciplinary situation, the parent–child con-
chie (1999) that was not achieved by spanking or text, or the cultural context. The evidence-based per-
any other disciplinary tactic in that study. However, spective holds that there may be some parental
ignoring was ineffective before spanking was tried spanking that would enhance child outcomes, or at
with an 8-year old’s clinically defiant referral (Bernal least not detract from them. The evidence-based per-
et al., 1968), and physical restraint was a significantly spective also questions whether the current scientific
less effect back-up for time-out than was a spank evidence is adequate for imposing an antispanking
back-up (Roberts & Powers, 1990). In addition to value on all parents. What are the implications of
these three tactics, grounding had more beneficial this review for these contrasting perspectives? The
outcomes with teenagers than did physical punish- next section first considers evidence for the uncondi-
ment (Caesar, 1988; Joubert, 1992; Larzelere, 1996). tional antispanking perspective.

Six additional disciplinary responses were found Is Spanking Invariably Detrimental?
to have less beneficial outcomes than did physical
punishment in at least one study: a child-determined The view that detrimental child outcomes invari-
release from time-out with 2- to 6-year olds (Bean & ably follow from nonabusive spanking is contradicted
Roberts, 1981; Roberts & Powers, 1990); reasoning by several patterns in these results. First, the stronger
without punishment, punishment without reasoning, the causal conclusiveness of the studies, the more
and disciplinary responses other than punishment or likely they are to detect beneficial outcomes of spank-
reasoning with 2- and 3-year olds (Larzelere et al., ing, not detrimental outcomes. Second, causally rele-
1996, 1998b); love withdrawal with 5-year olds vant studies (e.g., controlled longitudinal studies or
(Crowne, Conn, Marlowe, & Edwards, 1969); and better) have never found detrimental child outcomes
verbal punishment with 3- to 5-year olds (Baum- under any one of the following conditions: if abusive
rind & Owens, 2000). parents were removed from the spanking group, if
spanking was measured as a back-up for milder disci-
Focusing only on the 8 controlled longitudinal plinary tactics, or if the sample were clinically defiant
studies, detrimental outcomes of spanking were children. Most causally relevant studies of children
found as strongly for both undesirable alternatives averaging less than 6 years old have found beneficial
(e.g., verbal punishment: Baumrind & Owens, 2000) child outcomes of spanking. The only exception
and recommended alternatives (e.g., privilege re- changed to neutral outcomes after removing the 5%
moval, grounding, allowance removal, sending to to 7% most frequent/severe spankers and controlling
room: Larzelere & Smith, 2000; reasoning: Larzelere for positive parenting (Baumrind & Owens, 2000).
et al., 1998b).
The strongest evidence of invariably detrimental
In sum, the relative child outcomes in direct com- child outcomes came from controlled longitudinal
parisons of spanking and alternatives varied by age. studies of the effect of spanking 6- to 9-year olds on
Nonabusive spanking compared favorably with six their antisocial behavior 2 to 5 years later (Gunnoe &
alternatives in 2- to 6-year olds. Four recommended Mariner, 1997; Larzelere & Smith, 2000; McLeod et
alternatives show outcomes equivalent to spanking al., 1994; Straus et al., 1997). Together, these studies
during the ages 6 to 9. Grounding has been replicated found that the detrimental effect did not generalize
as a more effective disciplinary alternative than consistently to African-American families or to child-
spanking with teenagers (Larzelere, 1996). reported fighting at school. Only Straus et al. (1997)
found consistently detrimental outcomes of spanking
DISCUSSION frequency at ages 6 to 9, predicting increased subse-
quent antisocial behavior according to maternal re-
There are two major current perspectives on pa- ports. The significance of their effect seems to be
rental use of nonabusive physical punishment: an un-
conditional antispanking perspective (Straus et al.,

214 Larzelere

solely due to those spanked at the rate of three times unavoidable negative side effects is difficult to find.
or more a week. Overall, the unique effect of spank- Reviews of side effects of punishment in general have
ing accounted for only 1.3% of the variance in subse- found such effects to be limited and readily avoided
quent antisocial behavior in their study (Larzelere et (Newsom, Favell, & Rincover, 1983; Walters & Gru-
al., 1998a). sec, 1977). For example, Newsom et al. (1983) con-
cluded
Larzelere and Smith (2000) replicated and ex-
tended the Straus et al. (1997) study, using the same Punishment procedures are avoided and underuti-
dataset. They showed that four recommended alter- lized more often from uninformed fears of hypotheti-
native disciplinary tactics predicted the same small cal, all-powerful negative side effects than from
increase in antisocial behavior 2 years later, when knowledgeable appraisals of their generally limited
analyzed in the same way as spanking. Such effects and manageable negative side effects. The result is
for spanking and all four alternatives became nonsig- often the continuation of serious behavior problems
nificant when initial child misbehavior was controlled for months and years when they might be eliminated,
for more adequately, with a 16-item measure of exter- to the client’s immense long-term benefit, in a matter
nalizing problems rather than a trichotomous mea- of days or weeks. (pp. 285–286)
sure of antisocial behavior. Thus, the most consistent
evidence of detrimental outcomes of spanking on Walters and Grusec (1977) came to a similar
subsequent antisocial behavior (Straus et al., 1997) overall conclusion, but noted that increased aggres-
seems to be due to residual confounding, which oc- sion was a likely side effect of physical punishment.
curs when an inadequate measure of the confounding This review found mixed evidence on that point.
variable is used as a covariate (Rothman, 1986). Three causally relevant studies (Bernal et al., 1968;
Gunnoe & Mariner, 1997; Larzelere et al., 1996)
The equivalence of child outcomes for spanking found that physical punishment reduced subsequent
and alternatives is sometimes used as an argument fighting in some circumstances, whereas one of those
that spanking can be banned because equally effec- studies (Gunnoe & Mariner, 1997) found that it also
tive alternatives are available (Graziano, Hamblen, & increased subsequent fighting in other circumstances.
Plante, 1996). By itself, this type of argument would Walters and Grusec (1977) did not have access to
be considered insufficient for banning nonparental causally relevant studies on spanking and aggression.
interventions. For example, the equivalent effective-
ness of a new drug (e.g., Tylenol) would not be suffi- The strongest evidence for a negative side effect
cient grounds for banning a traditional drug (aspirin). of physical punishment occurred for the broader out-
Rather, two drugs whose effectiveness is equivalent come of antisocial behavior, which was considered
on the average would each be preferable in particular previously (Ellison et al., 1998; Gunnoe & Mariner,
cases. Second, each would provide an alternative 1997; McLeod et al., 1994; Straus et al., 1997). The
when the other proved ineffective in a particular case. detrimental effect on antisocial behavior tended to
Third, some applications (e.g., treating high fevers) be small, was contradicted in two subcultural groups,
would involve the combined use of both drugs. The and was replicated by every alternative disciplinary
application of all three principles to spanking and tactic investigated to date (Larzelere & Smith, 2000).
alternatives are illustrated in Roberts and Powers This particular side effect (increased antisocial be-
(1990). As a backup for time-out, spanking and a havior) seems to be contradicted by the replicated
brief room isolation proved equally effective on the effectiveness of behavioral parent training for treat-
average. Each one worked with some children better ing conduct disorder (Brestan & Eyberg, 1998; Kaz-
than the alternative. Each alternative (spanking or a din, 1995). Its effectiveness has been documented
brief room isolation) was effective when the other with either the spank back-up or an alternative back-
alternative was slow in accomplishing the goal of up for time-out. So the empirical evidence for nega-
compliance with the time-out procedure. This sug- tive side effects of nonabusive spanking is sparse
gests that parents can be more effective with multiple and inconsistent.
options in disciplinary tactics, just as they can be
more effective with multiple drugs for treating fevers. Of course, the unconditional antispanking per-
spective sometimes considers empirical evidence ir-
Another concern is that negative side effects are relevant due to the ethical value of protecting chil-
more likely for spanking than for alternative disci- dren from all hitting. This is certainly commendable,
plinary tactics. Unintended side effects are not a spe- but it is not applied absolutely in other areas. There
cial focus of this review, but conclusive evidence of is no widespread advocacy against piercing a child’s
skin for medical shots or surgery. So the value of

Outcomes of Physical Punishment 215

minimizing bodily pain to children is a relative value olds by loving parents. This is consistent with the
that gets balanced with the presumed value of such conditions under which mothers are most likely to
practices. Thus evidence for the effectiveness of use spanking; that is, after milder disciplinary tactics
spanking is relevant to an appropriate balance of have failed (Goodenough, 1931; Mosby et al., 1999;
antipain values with competing values. Ritchie, 1999). The series of studies by Roberts and
colleagues show that the spank back-up is one of the
Moreover, some ethnic and religious groups two most effective tactics for backing up time-out in
have explicit values supporting spanking. There has clinically defiant children in this age range. The series
been little careful scholarship on the justification for of studies by Larzelere and colleagues (1998b)
imposing one set of values on groups with differing showed a similar effect in enforcing disciplinary rea-
values, given various levels of empirical scientific jus- soning among nonclinical 2- and 3-year olds. A bene-
tification. Instead, the discussions about spanking are fit of using spanking as a back-up is that the milder
often based on a superficial understanding of the disciplinary tactic becomes more effective by itself,
empirical data or on a simplistic absolute stance thus rendering spanking less necessary subsequently.
against any pain, which is applied inconsistently to
other issues. At the other extreme, most detrimental out-
comes in causally relevant studies are due to overly
When 94% of parents use physical punishment frequent use of physical punishment. This suggests
at least occasionally with 3- and 4-year olds (Straus & that overly frequent spanking or its correlates are
Stewart, 1999), social scientists must clarify these indicative of counterproductive ways of using spank-
kinds of issues carefully. The inadequacy of the social ing. Because the same apparently detrimental effects
scientific evidence suggests the possibility that uncon- occur for overly frequent use of four recommended
ditional antispanking advocates are inadvertently im- alternative discipline tactics, the dysfunctionality as-
posing one set of values on a very complex issue. sociated with overly frequent punishments general-
Reasoning and nonphysical disciplinary tactics may izes across disciplinary responses rather than being
work better for highly verbal parents in the wealthy unique to spanking. Further research is needed to
suburbs than for many less-advantaged parents. We determine the nature of this dysfunctionality. An ini-
must be sensitive to cultural, religious, and socioeco- tial study suggested that these apparently detrimental
nomic distinctions before imposing our values on effects are methodologic artifacts (e.g., residual con-
other parents on this important issue. founding when the initial level of child misbehavior is
imperfectly controlled for: Larzelere & Smith, 2000).
In sum, Diana Baumrind’s (1996) assessment
still seems applicable: ‘‘A blanket injunction against Between these two extremes, the research evi-
disciplinary spanking by parents is not scientifically dence leaves a gray area with a few empirical clues.
supportable’’ (p. 828). That is not equivalent, of The clues suggest that the following guidelines are
course, to endorsing or even tolerating all forms of more characteristic of effective spanking than of
customary physical punishment (Bauman & Fried- counterproductive physical punishment:
man, 1998).
1. Not overly severe.
Effective vs. Counterproductive Physical 2. Under control, not in danger of ‘‘losing it’’
Punishment
from anger (Straus & Mouradian, 1998).
This review clarifies one form of effective spank- 3. During ages 2 to 6, not during the teenage
ing and one indication of generally counterproductive
use of physical punishment. Additional research is years (Gunnoe & Mariner, 1997; Simons et
needed to clarify the appropriate boundaries be- al., 1998). Although conclusive evidence is
tween these two extremes of customary physical pun- scarce, spanking should be phased out as soon
ishment. A few empirically based hints about this as possible between the ages of 7 and 12.
middle gray area are summarized from this review 4. Used with reasoning (Larzelere et al., 1996),
and related studies. preferably eliciting an intermediate rather
than a high level of child distress (Larzelere &
First, spanking has consistently beneficial out- Merenda, 1994).
comes when it is nonabusive (e.g., two swats to the 5. Used privately (Holmes & Robins, 1988).
buttocks with an open hand) and used primarily to 6. Motivated by concern for the child, not by
back up milder disciplinary tactics with 2- to 6-year parent-oriented concerns (e.g., from frustra-
tion, to show who is boss: Larzelere, Klein,
Schumm, & Alibrando, 1989).

216 Larzelere

7. Used after a single warning, generalizing from Prohibition Amendment seemed a plausible way to
Roberts (1982). Roberts showed that a single reduce alcohol abuse (see also Baumrind, 1983).
warning before time-out reduced the neces- However, the Roberts series of studies and the Lar-
sary time outs by 74% without sacrificing any zelere series of studies have shown that firmer tactics
effectiveness of the behavioral parent are sometimes necessary to enhance the subsequent
training. effectiveness of milder disciplinary tactics. The in-
creased effectiveness of milder disciplinary tactics
8. Used flexibly. If spanking does not work, par- should then reduce the risk of escalation during sub-
ents should try other approaches and other sequent discipline incidents. This suggests the possi-
tactics rather than increasing the intensity of bility that how spanking is used is the critical factor
the spanking (Roberts & Powers, 1990). in whether it increases the risk of escalation toward
abuse. Of course, how other tactics are used within
The first four points are based on multiple stud- disciplinary incidents would also affect changes in
ies, whereas the last four points are based primarily the risk of escalation (see Snyder, Edwards, McGraw,
on one study each. Thus more and better research is Kilgore, & Holton, 1994). Baumrind (1973) noted
needed, which is the topic of the next section. that it was permissive parents who admitted more
often to ‘‘explosive attacks of rage in which they
Research on Physical Punishment inflicted more pain or injury upon the child than they
had intended. . . . Permissive parents apparently be-
A major implication of this review is that better came violent because they felt that they could neither
research is needed on physical punishment and on control the child’s behavior nor tolerate its effect
parental discipline in general. Others have noted upon themselves’’ (p. 35).
major gaps in the empirical evidence for currently
accepted views of optimal parental discipline (e.g., The second pressing issue is the need for a rigor-
Grusec & Goodnow, 1994; Yarrow, Campbell, & ous evaluation of legislation banning parental spank-
Burton, 1968). ing. To my knowledge, there has been very little
empirical evaluation of the first spanking ban in Swe-
The following problems seem pervasive in re- den (Larzelere & Johnson, 1999) and no evaluation
search on physical punishment: (i) failure to take a of such bans in other countries. One of the stated
development perspective; (ii) failure to discriminate purposes of a major survey on corporal punishment
between nonabusive vs. overly severe physical pun- in Sweden was to see whether the spanking ban had
ishment; (iii) failure to control adequately for the even decreased the prevalence of corporal punish-
initial level of child misbehavior; (iv) failure to com- ment 15 years after the ban (Statistics Sweden, 1996).
pare spanking directly with the alternatives that par- That survey found that more than 30% of children
ents could use for similar incidents; (v) failure to raised after the spanking ban had experienced corpo-
distinguish between disciplinary tactics at the initial, ral punishment from their parents. Furthermore, this
middle, and later stages of extended disciplinary inci- percentage had dropped very little compared to the
dents; (vi) failure to consider whether the effects of generation before the spanking ban (e.g., 32% by
spanking depend on a positive parenting context, fathers, compared to 34% in the next oldest genera-
such as reasoning or nurturance; and (vii) failure to tion). Most of the decrease in physical punishment
appreciate subcultural differences in the outcomes in Sweden occurred before the spanking ban, not
and risks of physical punishment. after it. The biggest changes after the spanking ban
was a small decrease in support for mild spanking,
Along with correcting those problems, two other whereas the most problematic types of spanking (e.g.,
research issues seem particularly pressing. The first spanking of teenagers) had not decreased at all.
is to understand escalation processes within disciplin-
ary incidents and the role of physical punishment in It is possible that the prohibition of all spanking
them, when used in different ways. Most cases of eliminates a type of mild spanking that prevents fur-
physical abuse occur during discipline incidents (Ka- ther escalation within discipline incidents. Milder dis-
dushin & Martin, 1981), but there is little solid evi- ciplinary tactics do not get backed up as effectively
dence about what increases or decreases the risk of and thus are less likely to be used. Palmerus and Scarr
escalation toward abuse. (1995) compared American and Swedish parents on
the disciplinary tactics they used. As expected, Swed-
Banning all physical punishment seems to be a ish parents used less corporal punishment, but they
plausible means to reduce child abuse, just as the

Outcomes of Physical Punishment 217

also used less reasoning and fewer behavior modifi- (1994) conclusions about reasoning, it finds the em-
cation tactics, more yelling, and more restraining.5 pirical support for commonly held conclusions about
These kinds of changes in the entire disciplinary sys- nonabusive spanking to be surprisingly weak. An im-
tem might partially account for the 489% increase plication shared with Grusec and Goodnow is that
from 1981 to 1994 in Swedish criminal rates of physi- we must move beyond inconsistently supported over-
cal child abuse of children under 7 (Wittrock, 1992, generalizations to conceptualize and investigate disci-
1995). Many other factors could also have accounted plinary responses more innovatively.
for those increases. The main point is that we need
rigorous, unbiased evaluations of such spanking bans, One possibility is a conditional sequence model
especially given the lack of scientific support for the of optimal disciplinary responses (Larzelere, in
unconditional antispanking perspective. press). This model says that parents should begin
with the mildest disciplinary tactic that they think
Research on Parental Discipline in General will be effective in producing appropriate coopera-
tion from a child (e.g., reasoning). If the disciplinary
In addition to better research on spanking, we issue is important and neither an appropriate cooper-
need better research on parental discipline in general. ation or negotiation occurs, then the parent should
To understand the role of physical punishment or back up the gentle disciplinary tactic (e.g., reasoning)
any disciplinary tactic, we must understand it in the with a nonphysical punishment (e.g., time-out). Only
context of parental discipline as a whole. if the child fails to comply with the nonphysical pun-
ishment should the parent resort to nonabusive
Much research on physical punishment as well spanking (e.g., two open-handed swats to the but-
as other disciplinary tactics views a given tactic as tocks). Each back-up step should be preceded by a
invariably effective or invariably counterproductive. single warning (Roberts, 1982). If something like this
There may be more potential in identifying more vs. conditional sequence is used at ages 2 to 6, then the
less effective ways to use each disciplinary tactic. parent should gradually phase out the ultimate back-
The effect of any tactic may depend on the overall up tactic (spanking) and then the intermediate back-
disciplinary style and the parent–child, family, and up tactic (nonphysical punishment). In this way, gen-
cultural contexts. tle disciplinary tactics such as reasoning will be used
for most disciplinary incidents and they will be effec-
A major article by Grusec and Goodnow (1994) tive in keeping the child within acceptable behav-
had implications that overlap with this review, even ioral limits.
though it emphasized the opposite end of the contin-
uum of traditional disciplinary tactics. Grusec and This conditional sequence model is consistent
Goodnow concluded that the greater effectiveness of with several developmental perspectives whose im-
disciplinary reasoning than various forms of power plications for integrating gentle and firmer disciplin-
assertion was supported inconsistently in the empiri- ary tactics have not been fully exploited (Baumrind,
cal literature. Empirical support for the relative effec- 1973; Bell & Harper, 1977; Hoffman, 1977; Patterson,
tiveness of reasoning came primarily from samples 1982; Valsiner, 1987). In general, these develop-
with low rates of disruptive behavior problems (e.g., mental mini-theories recognize that disciplinary re-
girls in middle-class families). In contrast, reasoning sponses act as part of a control system process, some-
often did not look relatively more effective than what similar to a thermostat-controlled heating
power-assertive methods in samples with high rates system. Traditional methods of statistical analyses
of disruptive behavior problems (e.g., families with are ill suited for investigating such control system
lower socioeconomic status; children with difficult processes, whether cross-sectionally or longitudi-
temperaments). nally. To illustrate, the average morning temperature
in my home during the past year was 61ЊF when
This review focuses on disciplinary spanking, at the furnace was running and 67ЊF when it was not
the opposite end of the continuum of traditional disci- running. This cross-sectional analysis suggests super-
plinary tactics. Similar to Grusec and Goodnow’s ficially that running the furnace causes my house to
be colder. I could design a longitudinal version of
5Palmerus (personal communication, April 2000) thinks that the this study to prove that running the furnace is either
yelling and restraining done by Swedish parents was less aversive positively or negatively correlated with subsequent
than that done by American parents. However, she has not divided house temperatures, depending on the time between
her variables into milder and more aversive categories to test data collection points (6 or 12 months). This illus-
this impression.

218 Larzelere

trates that our traditional analytic methods can easily more forceful tactics should not be overused as initial
come to incorrect conclusions about control system or primary disciplinary responses. This is consistent
processes, depending on how we incorporate the ini- with the fact that overly frequent physical punish-
tial presenting problem into the analyses and whether ment has the most consistent evidence of detrimental
our analyses fit the actual time lag of the causal mech- causal effects on children’s behavior.
anisms.
An optimal disciplinary control system fits an
Parents use disciplinary tactics as part of a con- authoritative parenting style, which combines paren-
trol system process. Their disciplinary responses vary tal nurturance and give-and-take communication
depending on their assessment of such things as the with firm control when necessary. There are a range
importance of the disciplinary issue, whether the of appropriate ways to combine parental nurturance,
child has been cooperating recently, the appropriate- communication, and control with approximately sim-
ness of the child’s negotiation attempts, and the ilar outcomes for the child (Baumrind, 1991). It is
child’s defiance. Accordingly, Ritchie (1999) showed the extreme parenting styles that yield detrimental
that maternal tactics differ in the beginning, middle, child outcomes, whether the extreme is permissive
and end of an extended disciplinary incident. or authoritarian. Similarly, there are many ways for
parents to implement a reasonably effective disciplin-
The control system perspective has many re- ary control system within a loving parent–child rela-
search implications. More information is needed tionship. The extremes are most likely to be counter-
about optimal ways for parents to maintain children’s productive. One extreme would be never or rarely
behavior in the appropriate range, ways to prevent using firm tactics to set effective limits. The other
children from testing the limits, ways to make gentler extreme would be rarely using milder disciplinary
disciplinary tactics effective when the limits are tactics as a preferred disciplinary response before
tested, and so on. Especially for children with more resorting to harsher disciplinary tactics.
difficult temperaments or disruptive behavior prob-
lems, parents must back up those gentle disciplinary A control system process illustrates only one
tactics with power-assertive tactics occasionally, es- possible innovative way to investigate optimal disci-
pecially during the ages from 2 to 6. plinary responses. It seems to be counterproductive
and simplistic to continue viewing some disciplinary
The most consistent finding of beneficial child tactics as invariably good and others as invariably
outcomes of nonabusive spanking is consistent with bad, as long as those tactics are nonabusive. Another
such a control system process. Spanking was effective innovative approach would consider how disciplinary
in reducing subsequent noncompliance and fighting response tactics influence the parent–child relation-
in 2- to 6-year olds when it was used primarily to ship quality and how that quality in turn influences
back up milder disciplinary tactics such as reasoning the effects of disciplinary tactics (Kuczynski & Lollis,
or time-out. Roberts and Powers (1990) showed that, in press). The main point is that parental discipline
on the average, a brief room isolation was equally research needs to break out of some boxes, both
effective as spanking as a back-up of last resort. methodologically and conceptually.

The control system perspective also has impor- In conclusion, this review indicates that we have
tant implications for last-resort disciplinary tactics. a lot to learn about the complexities of appropriate
At some point, eliminating all forceful backup tactics parental discipline. Research on spanking does not
renders the entire disciplinary control system ineffec- support an unconditional antispanking position at
tive. This seems to be illustrated by mothers who this time. It is more difficult to establish conclusive
used reasoning frequently with 2- and 3-year olds boundaries between effective and counterproductive
without ever backing the reasoning up with negative physical punishment. Spanking as a back-up for
consequences (Larzelere et al., 1998b). Their chil- milder disciplinary tactics in 2- to 6-year olds seems
dren’s disruptive behavior increased the most during to produce beneficial child outcomes, at least in re-
the next 20 months. Such a failure of last-resort back- ducing noncompliance and fighting. Overly frequent
ups could easily lead to the development of ‘‘natter- spanking predicts a wider range of detrimental out-
ing,’’ which Patterson (1982) identified as a typical comes, but to a degree matched by overly frequent
parenting pattern in families of antisocial boys. Nat- use of every alternative disciplinary tactic investi-
tering is defined as nagging or scolding irritably with gated to date. Future research must distinguish be-
no intention of following through (Patterson, 1982, tween effective vs. counterproductive physical pun-
p. 112 ; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992, p. 66). ishment. It must also distinguish between effective

A control system perspective also implies that

Outcomes of Physical Punishment 219

vs. counterproductive alternatives and how those al- Caesar, P. (1988). Exposure to violence in the families-of-origin
ternatives compare to nonabusive spanking in similar among wife-abusers and maritally nonviolent men. Violence
disciplinary situations. Research must also explore and Victims, 3, 49–63.
how proactive discipline, disciplinary reasoning,
firmer disciplinary tactics, and parental nurturance Crowne, D. P., Conn, L. K., Marlowe, D., & Edwards, C. N. (1969).
mutually influence each other. Several theoretic per- Some developmental antecedents of level of aspiration. Jour-
spectives in developmental psychology suggest ways nal of Personality, 37, 73–92.
to conceptualize such an integration, but those leads
must be more fully exploited. Day, D. E., & Roberts, M. W. (1983). An analysis of the physical
punishment component of a parent training program. Journal
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS of Abnormal Child Psychology, 11, 141–152.

I thank Sheila Eyberg and two anonymous re- Deater-Deckard, K., & Dodge, K. A. (1997). Externalizing behav-
viewers for very helpful critiques of a previous draft ior problems and discipline revisited: Nonlinear effects and
of this article. variation by culture, context, and gender. Psychological In-
quiry, 8, 161–175.
REFERENCES
Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S.
Adams, M. J. (1995). Youth in crisis: An examination of adverse risk (1996). Physical discipline among African American and Eu-
factors affecting children’s cognitive and behavioral/emotional ropean American mothers: Links to children’s externalizing
development, children ages 10–16. Unpublished doctoral dis- behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32, 1065–1072.
sertation, University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas.
Ellison, C., Musick, M., & Holden, G. (1998). A longitudinal study
Alibrando, S. A., Jr. (1987). The effects of corporal punishment of the effects of corporal punishment: The moderating effect
and contextual parental characteristics on rebelliousness, neu- of conservative Protestantism. Unpublished manuscript.
roticism and introversion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Biola University, LaMirada, CA. Gershoff, E. T. (1999). The effects of parental corporal punishment
on children: A process model and meta-analytic review. Un-
Bauman, L. J., & Friedman, S. B. (1998). Corporal punishment. published manuscript.
Pediatric Clinics of North America, 45, 403–414.
Goodenough, F. L. (1931). Anger in young children. Minneapolis:
Baumrind, D. (1973). The development of instrumental compe- University of Minnesota Press.
tence through socialization. In A. D. Pick (Ed.), Minnesota
Symposia on Child Psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 3–46). Minneapo- Graziano, A. M., Hamblen, L., & Plante, W. A. (1996). Subabusive
lis: University of Minnesota Press. violence in child rearing in middle-class American families.
Pediatrics, 98(4), 845–848.
Baumrind, D. (1983). Specious causal attributions in the social
sciences: The reformulated stepping-stone theory of heroin Grinder, R. E. (1962). Parental childrearing practices, conscience,
use as exemplar. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and resistance to temptation of sixth grade children. Child
45, 1289–1298. Development, 33, 803–820.

Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adoles- Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). Impact of parental disci-
cent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adoles- pline methods on the child’s internalization of values: A recon-
cence, 11, 56–95. ceptualization of current points of view. Developmental Psy-
chology, 30, 4–19.
Baumrind, D. (1996). A blanket injunction against disciplinary use
of spanking is not warranted by the data. Pediatrics, 98, Gunnoe, M. L., & Mariner, C. L. (1997). Toward a developmental–
828–831. contextual model of the effects of parental spanking on chil-
dren’s aggression. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medi-
Baumrind, D., & Owens, E. B. (2000). Does normative physical cine, 151, 768–775.
punishment by parents cause detrimental child outcomes: A
prospective longitudinal study. Manuscript in preparation. Hoffman, M. L. (1977). Moral internalization: Current theory and
research. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental
Bean, A. W., & Roberts, M. W. (1981). The effect of time-out social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 85–133). New York: Aca-
release contingencies on changes in child noncompliance. demic Press.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 9, 95–105.
Holmes, S. J., & Robins, L. N. (1988). The role of parental disciplin-
Bell, R. Q., & Harper, L. V. (1977). Child effects on adults. Hills- ary practices in the development of depression and alcoholism.
dale, NJ: Erlbaum. Psychiatry, 51, 24–36.

Bernal, M. E., Duryee, J. S., Pruett, H. L., & Burns, B. J. (1968). Hyman, I. A. (1997). The case against spanking. San Francisco:
Behavior modification and the brat syndrome. Journal of Con- Jossey-Bass.
sulting and Clinical Psychology, 32, 447–455.
Johannesson, I. (1974). Aggressive behavior among school chil-
Brestan, E. V., & Eyberg, S. M. (1998). Effective psychosocial dren related to maternal practices in early childhood. In J.
treatments of conduct-disordered children and adolescents: deWit & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Determinants and origins of
29 years, 82 studies, and 5,272 kids. Journal of Clinical Child aggressive behavior (pp. 413–426). The Hague: Mouton.
Psychology, 27(2), 180–189.
Joubert, C. E. (1992). Antecedents of narcissism and psychological
Bryan, J. W., & Freed, F. W. (1982). Corporal punishment: Norma- reactance as indicated by college students’ retrospective re-
tive data and sociological and psychological correlates in a ports of their parents’ behaviors. Psychological Reports, 70,
community college population. Journal of Youth & Adoles- 1111–1115.
cence, 11, 77–87.
Kadushin, A., & Martin, J. A. (1981). Child abuse: An interactional
event. New York: Columbia University Press.

Kazdin, A. E. (1995). Conduct disorders in childhood and adoles-
cence (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kuczynski, L., & Lollis, S. (in press). Four foundations for a dy-
namic model of parenting. In J. R. M. Gerris (Ed.), Dynamics
of parenting. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Larzelere, R. E. (1996). A review of the outcomes of parental use
of nonabusive or customary physical punishment. Pediatrics,
98, 824–828.

Larzelere, R. E. (in press). Combining love and limits in authorita-
tive parenting: A conditional sequence model of disciplinary

220 Larzelere

responses. In J. C. Westman (Ed.), Parenthood in America. per presented at the conference of the Society for Research
Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. on Child Development, Indianapolis, IN.
Larzelere, R. E., Baumrind, D., & Polite, K. (1998a). Two emerging Paschall, M. J., & Straus, M. A. (1998). Corporal punishment by
perspectives of parental spanking from two 1996 conferences. mothers and child’s cognitive development: A second longitudi-
Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 152, 303–305. nal study. Unpublished abstract.
Larzelere, R. E., & Johnson, B. (1999). Evaluation of the effects Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Eugene, OR:
of Sweden’s spanking ban on physical child abuse rates: A Castalia Press.
literature review. Psychological Reports, 85, 381–392. Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial
Larzelere, R. E., Klein, M., Schumm, W. R., & Alibrando, S. boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia.
A., Jr. (1989). Relations of spanking and other parenting Polaha, J. A. (1998). The relationship between physical discipline
characteristics to self-esteem and perceived fairness of paren- and child behavior problems: A study of group differences.
tal discipline. Psychological Reports, 64, 1140–1142. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, Au-
Larzelere, R. E., & Merenda, J. A. (1994). The effectiveness of burn, AL.
parental discipline for toddler misbehavior at different levels Rhue, J. W., & Lynn, S. J. (1987). Fantasy proneness: Develop-
of child distress. Family Relations, 43, 480–488. mental antecedents. Journal of Personality, 55, 121–137.
Larzelere, R. E., Sather, P. R., Schneider, W. N., Larson, D. B., & Ritchie, K. L. (1999). Maternal behaviors and cognitions during
Pike, P. L. (1998b). Punishment enhances reasoning’s effec- discipline episodes: A comparison of power bouts and single
tiveness as a disciplinary response to toddlers. Journal of acts of noncompliance. Developmental Psychology, 35,
Marriage and the Family, 60, 388–403. 580–589.
Larzelere, R. E., Schneider, W. N., Larson, D. B., & Pike, P. L. Roberts, M. W. (1982). The effects of warned versus unwarned
(1996). The effects of discipline responses in delaying toddler time-out procedures on child noncompliance. Child & Family
misbehavior recurrences. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, Behavior Therapy, 4, 37–53.
18, 35–57. Roberts, M. W. (1988). Enforcing chair timeouts with room ti-
Larzelere, R. E., & Smith, G. L. (2000, August). Controlled longitu- meouts. Behavioral Modification, 12, 353–370.
dinal effects of five disciplinary tactics on antisocial behavior. Roberts, M. W., & Powers, S. W. (1990). Adjusting chair timeout
Paper presented at the annual convention of the American enforcement procedures for oppositional children. Behavior
Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Therapy, 21, 257–271.
Lonigan, C. J., Elbert, J. C., & Johnson, S. B. (1998). Empirically Rothman, K. S. (1986). Modern epidemiology. Boston, MA: Little,
supported psychosocial interventions for children: An over- Brown and Co.
view. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 138–145. Schenck, E. R., Lyman, R. D., & Bodin, S. D. (2000). Ethical
Lyons, J. S., Anderson, R. L., & Larson, D. B. (1993). The use beliefs, attitudes, and professional practices of psychologists
and effects of physical punishment in the home: A systematic regarding parental use of corporal punishment: A survey.
review. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Acad- Children’s Services: Social Policy, Research, and Practice,
emy of Pediatrics, Washington, DC. 3(1), 23–38.
MacIntyre, D. I., & Cantrell, P. J. (1995). Punishment history and Sears, R. R. (1961). Relation of early socialization experiences to
adult attitudes towards violence and aggression in men and aggression in middle childhood. Journal of Abnormal and
women. Social Behaviour and Personality, 23, 23–28. Social Psychology, 63, 466–492.
McClelland, D. C., & Pilon, D. A. (1983). Sources of adult motives Sears, R. R. (1970). Relation of early socialization experiences
in patterns of parent behavior in early childhood. Journal of to self-concepts and gender role in middle childhood. Child
Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 564–574. Development, 41, 267–289.
McCord, J. (1988). Parental aggressiveness and physical punish- Simons, R. L., Lin, K.-H., & Gordon, L. C. (1998). Socialization
ment in long term perspective. In G. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, in the family of origin and male dating violence: A prospective
J. Kilpatrick, & M. Straus (Eds.), Family abuse and its conse- study. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 467–478.
quences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Smith, J. R., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1997). Correlates and conse-
McCord, J., & Ensminger, M. E. (1997). Multiple risks and comor- quences of harsh discipline for young children. Archives of
bidity in an African-American population. Criminal Behav- Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 151, 777–786.
iour and Mental Health, 7, 339–352. Snyder, J., Edwards, P., McGraw, K., Kilgore, K., & Holton, A.
McLeod, J. D., Kruttschnitt, C., & Dornfeld, M. (1994). Does (1994). Escalation and reinforcement in mother–child conflict:
parenting explain the effects of structural conditions on chil- Social processes associated with the development of physical
dren’s antisocial behavior? A comparison of blacks and aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 305–321.
whites. Social Forces, 73, 575–604. Statistics Sweden. (1996). Spanking and other forms of physical
Michels, S., Pianta, R., & Reeve, R. (1993). Parent self-reports of punishment (Demography, the Family, and Children
discipline practices and child acting-out behaviors in kinder- 1996:1.2). Stockholm: Statistics Sweden.
garten. Early Education and Development, 4, 139–144. Stattin, H., Janson, H., Klackenberg-Larsson, I., & Magnusson,
Miller, N., & Pollock, V. E. (1994). Meta-analytic synthesis for D. (1995). Corporal punishment in everyday life: An intergen-
theory development. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), erational perspective. In J. McCord (Ed.), Coercion and pun-
The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 457–484). New York: ishment in long-term perspectives (pp. 315–347). Cambridge,
Russell Sage Foundation. England: Cambridge University Press.
Mosby, L., Rawls, A. W., Meehan, A. J., Mays, E., & Pettinari, Strassberg, Z., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. W., & Bates, J. E. (1994).
C. J. (1999). Troubles in interracial talk about discipline: An Spanking in the home and children’s subsequent aggression
examination of African American child rearing narratives. toward kindergarten peers. Development and Psychopathol-
Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 30, 489–521. ogy, 6, 445–461.
Newsom, C., Favell, J. E., & Rincover, A. (1983). Side effects of Straus, M. A., & Mouradian, V. E. (1998). Impulsive corporal
punishment. In S. Axelrod & J. Apsche (Eds.), The effects of punishment by mothers and antisocial behavior and impul-
punishment on human behavior (pp. 285–316). New York: siveness of children. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 16,
Academic Press. 353–374.
Palmerus, K., & Scarr, S. (1995). How parents discipline young Straus, M. A., & Paschall, M. J. (1998, August 1). Corporal punish-
children. Cultural comparisons and individual differences. Pa- ment by mothers and child’s cognitive development: A longitu-

Outcomes of Physical Punishment 221

dinal study. Paper presented at the 14th World Congress of Walters, G. C., & Grusec, J. E. (1977). Punishment. San Francisco:
Sociology, Montreal, Canada. W. H. Freeman.
Straus, M. A., & Stewart, J. H. (1999). Corporal punishment by
American parents: National data on prevalence, chronicity, Weiss, B., Dodge, K. A., & Bates, J. E. (1992). Some consequences
severity, and duration, in relation to child and family charac- of early harsh discipline: Child aggression and a maladaptive
teristics. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, social information processing style. Child Development, 63,
2(2), 55–70. 1321–1335.
Straus, M. A., Sugarman, D. B., & Giles-Sims, J. (1997). Spanking
by parents and subsequent antisocial behavior of children. Whaley, A. L. (2000). Sociocultural differences in the develop-
Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 151, 761– mental consequences of the use of physical discipline during
767. childhood for African Americans. Cultural Diversity and Eth-
Tennant, F. S., Jr., Detels, R., & Clark, V. (1975). Some childhood nic Minority Psychology, 6(1), 5–12.
antecedents of drug and alcohol abuse. American Journal of
Epidemiology, 102, 377–385. Wittrock, U. (1992). Barnmisshandel i kriminalstatistiken, 1981–
Valsiner, J. (1987). Culture and the development of children’s ac- 1991 [Violent crimes against children in criminal statistics,
tions: A cultural–historical theory of developmental psychol- 1981–1991]. KR Info, 1992: 7.
ogy. New York: Wiley.
Wittrock, U. (1995). Barnmisshandel, 1984–1994 [Violent crimes
against children, 1984–1994]. KR Info, 1995: 5.

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