Corporal punishment has been practiced in human society since the civilizations of the ancient world, but corporal punishment is not an effective long-term strategy for modifying human behavior because it can cause developmental issues and behavioral issues in all stages of lifespan development. Corporal punishment is a significant issue for children and adolescents because they are mainly the targets of physical abuse at home or in school under the assumption that it will result in reducing misbehavior.
Three types of corporal punishment include parental corporal punishment, school corporal punishment, and judicial corporal punishment. Other than the death penalty, judicial corporal punishment is no longer practiced in US courts, even though some states still permit the use of corporal punishment in the penal system as a disciplinary measure (Gershoff, 2010). However, corporal punishment of children and adolescents remain an issue at homes and schools. Corporal punishment can be used at home legally in the US if parents are hitting their children with the intention of disciplining them (Gershoff, 2010).
Although 19 states still allow corporal punishment in public schools, the US Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect has made a clear statement against corporal punishments in public institutions, such as schools or group homes, but they do not have a clear position on preventing corporal abuse when it comes to parenting strategies (Straus, 2000).
Corporal punishment is still supported as a parenting strategy, and 94 percent of parents in the US practice corporal punishment on their children by the age of three (Gershoff, 2002) while 34 percent of them use corporal punishment on infants (Straus, 2000). There are also no correlations between demographic characteristics of parents and corporal punishment practices because even college-educated mothers resort to corporal punishment approximately 2.5 times per week (Straus, 2000). Another example is the fact that 20 percent of children live in poverty while 94 percent of them experience corporal punishment (Straus, 2000). That indicates corporal punishment on children is a widespread and approved practice that has serious implications for the children’s development and their subsequent adulthood behaviors.
According to the proponents of corporal punishment, the goals of administering punishment are increasing compliance and preventing unwanted behaviors, such as aggressive or antisocial behaviors (Gershoff, 2010). Behaviorism would support that statement it is possible to modify animal and human behavior by resorting to conditioning through both punishment and rewards. The main assumption that resulted in that conclusion was that there are no significant differences between human and animal training (Goodwin, 2008).
Watson also demonstrated that external stimuli can be used to modify human behavior in the experiment Little Albert, in which a child learned to associate an unpleasant sound with a rodent. The child developed a fear of rodents because of that association, so Watson concluded that parents can effectively modify their children’s behavioral development through external stimuli (Goodwin, 2008).
Despite the promising evidence in favor of corporal punishment, subsequent developments in behaviorism found that internal factors, which were usually ignored in favor of measurable data, also have implications in behavioral development (Goodwin, 2008). Tolman’s (1934) latent learning theory, which was developed after studies on rodents that did not receive stimuli every time they passed through a maze, suggests that learning does not depend on reinforcement exclusively.
Therefore, personal choices and psychodynamic processes at an unconscious level will also interfere with the learning process when corporal punishment is applied. A study by Humphreys, Lee, and Tottenham (2012) found that certain characteristics like sensation seeking and temperamental influences can increase the risk for unwanted behaviors. Because these variables depend on the individual’s personality, they will more likely reduce the effects of corporal punishment because it only modifies behavioral patterns.
The application of corporal punishment for the purpose of immediate compliance may also negatively affect moral internalization. Moral internalization is defined as a process in which an individual takes on social values and attitudes because of internal factors rather than as a result of external stimuli (as cited in Gershoff, 2002). When parents resort to forceful and power-dependent discipline strategies, they diminish the importance of internal factors that influence the learning process, making their children dependent on external stimuli for learning.
In addition to reducing moral internalization, the objective of corporal punishment from the children’s point of view is different than the parent’s point of view. Because the method lacks communication and fails to explain to children why their behavior is incorrect or how they should behave, children will more likely learn to avoid being caught rather than learning socially acceptable values and behaviors (Gershoff, 2002). That outcome could explain why corporal punishment will result in immediate compliance, but that compliance could be false as children learn how to avoid getting into trouble instead.
Another limitation for making a conclusion based on early experiments in behaviorism is the fact that long-term consequences of using positive punishment have not been studied extensively. Corporal punishment is a form of positive punishment, which means it is used as a stimulus for changing unwanted behavior. However, extinction occurs when a response to behavior is no longer applied, which means that children who experienced corporal punishment could resort back to unwanted behaviors once the application of the stimuli is terminated. That could mean that even short-term compliance resulting from corporal punishment may not be a realistic expectation.
Short-term compliance achieved by corporal punishment is significantly better when compared to no back-up discipline, but it is inferior to other disciplinary interventions like barrier time-outs (Gershoff, 2010). Even though it may have short-term effects, it is ethically questionable because the child sustains physical injuries and there is no way to objectively determine when corporal punishment turns into criminal physical abuse. Straus and Stewart (1999) estimated that approximately 25 percent of parents in their study resorted to physical abuse and justified it as corporal punishment. Most importantly, it is never an effective long-term strategy for disciplining children, regardless of the potential for immediate compliance.
Various studies found that the use of corporal punishment resulted in decreased compliance and moral behaviors (as cited in Gershoff, 2010). When compared to other disciplinary strategies that did not involve physical violence, such as reasoning, reducing privileges, or time-outs, corporal punishment, corporal punishment did not achieve significant positive effects in long-term behavioral modification (as cited in Gershoff, 2010).
A study by Straus and Kantor (1994) found that adults who are abused as children will more likely engage in domestic abuse later in life than adults who did not experience corporal punishment as children, and they are at a higher risk for depression, suicide ideation, and substance abuse. The probability for subsequent developments of psychosocial issues increases as the frequency of corporal punishment increases (Straus & Stewart, 1999). Even though it is a traditional parenting strategy, evidence suggests that the application of corporal punishment has a detrimental impact on long-term behavioral development. Corporal punishment is not only ineffective in shaping desired long-term behaviors, but it also often increases the behaviors it is trying to eliminate, which means its value and applications should be reconsidered.
Three theories can be used to explain why corporal punishment often has opposite results and increases the practice of aggressive and antisocial behaviors after experiencing it. According to the social-learning theory, a child may conclude that the parents’ aggressive behavior is effective in achieving a desired effect in the child’s behavior (Gershoff, 2010). Therefore, children will imitate their parents’ aggressive behavior to achieve their own goals in the future.
Empirical evidence also supports that perspective. Various studies found that corporal punishment promotes aversive behaviors in the household and immediately increases children’s aggressive behavior (as cited in Gershoff, 2002). Individuals who experience corporal punishment as children will also more likely engage in violence in romantic relationships during adulthood (Gershoff, 2002). There is significant evidence that shows corporal punishment promotes aggressive behavior rather than reducing it, which indicates that it is not an appropriate behavior modification strategy.
The social cognitive theory can be used to explain why individuals who experience corporal punishment will more likely engage in antisocial behaviors than those who do not experience it. After children experience the physical pain inflicted by their parents, they will start developing hostile attributions to others and consequently develop inappropriate behaviors in social interactions (Gershoff, 2010).
The attribution theory explains that children who experience positive punishment from their parents as an external stimulus for engaging in unwanted behaviors will not internalize appropriate behaviors (Gershoff, 2010). Consequently, as the relationship between them and their parents erodes, they will fail to develop self-control, which can also explain why the prevalence rates of criminal and violence behavior among abused children are high (Gershoff, 2002).
Empirical evidence supports both the social cognitive theory and the attribution theory because longitudinal studies showed that children who experience corporal punishment will more likely have higher rates of criminal behavior and encounters with law enforcement officers between the ages of 17 and 45 (as cited in Gershoff, 2002). Therefore, evidence shows that corporal punishment does not prevent antisocial behaviors and may increase delinquency and criminal behavior.
According to Gershoff (2002), all empirical studies conducted on the topic of corporal punishment by parents are consistent with psychological and social theories developed as arguments against corporal punishment, but there is a significant limitation to that body of research. Most studies conducted in the field are not experimental or longitudinal, which does not allow the researchers to make conclusions regarding causality. From the results of those studies, it is not clear whether corporal punishment results in increased instances of antisocial behavior or whether children who display more antisocial behavior experience more corporal punishment.
However, some longitudinal studies did confirm the positive correlation between corporal punishment and increased risk for antisocial behaviors (Gershoff & Bitensky, 2007). Practical interventions also proved that corporal punishment is in fact positively associated with aggressive and anti-social behavior. An intervention parent-training program that aimed to reduce corporal punishment in 500 families showed a significant reduction in the children’s antisocial behaviors once parents reduced corporal punishment and relied on other parenting strategies (Gershoff & Bitensky, 2007). Results from both theoretical studies and interventions aimed at substituting corporal punishment with other disciplinary measures suggest that corporal punishment is the least effective and the most counter-productive disciplinary method for modifying human behavior.
Finally, corporal punishment has too many potential adverse outcomes to be considered effective or safe. The most significant unwanted effects are the possibility of physical injuries and escalation to abuse. Most parents who engage in physical abuse start by enforcing corporal punishment, but their emotional states and stress can serve as triggers that lead to physical abuse and injuries (Gershoff, 2010).
The consequences of physical injuries are the most serious for toddlers, who are sensitive to any level of corporal punishment severity. According to Straus and Stewart (1999), 10 percent of parents in their study reported shaking their infants, and even that mild form of corporal punishment at that age can result in traumatic brain injuries. Disciplinary strategies resulting in potential brain damage should be abolished as soon as possible because most of the brain develops during early childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood.
Early traumatic brain injuries can inhibit the development of brain centers and permanently impair their functions, which results in lower self-control and temperamental issues in later stages of development (Williams, 2012). Empirical studies show that the prevalence of traumatic brain injuries in the incarcerated population is between 50 and 70 percent, which is significantly higher than the 8.5 percent prevalence found in the general population (Williams, 2012). That is why corporal punishment, especially in infants, should be avoided for preserving their healthy development and adjustment to socially acceptable behaviors.
Another serious consequence of corporal punishment is decreased mental health. According to Gershoff (2002), every study that researched the implication of corporal punishment on a child’s mental health found that exposed children developed several types of mental health problem, such as anxiety, depression, and substance abuse. A possible explanation is that psychological stress caused by corporal punishment eventually accumulates and causes elevated levels of cortisol and anxiety symptoms triggered by interactions with parents (Gershoff, 2010). Regardless of the underlying mechanism, the association between corporal punishment and psychological disorders has been confirmed.
Despite the growing evidence of corporal punishment among children, Straus (2000) suggests that most scholars and public health organizations ignore the problem because it is a strong cultural element with a long tradition in the US. It is believed that corporal punishment is acceptable when used in moderation and for the right purposes. Even though the goal justifies the method in this case, the logical justification of corporal punishment is wrong given the amount of evidence against it.
Corporal punishment can reduce the cognitive development when practiced at an early age, and it does not resolve misbehavior issues. Instead, corporal punishment has been associated with the increased rates of criminal behavior, aggression, and other forms of antisocial behavior. While the severity and frequency of corporal punishment have been associated with increases in misbehavior, the reduced application of corporal punishment has been associated with reduced instances of misbehavior. Corporal punishment is therefore an ineffective disciplinary method that often produces undesired results and may lead to physical injuries and psychological issues detrimental to cognitive and behavioral development.
References
Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 539-579.
Gershoff, E. T. (2010). More harm than good: A summary of scientific research on the intended and unintended effects of corporal punishment on children. Law & Contemporary Problems, 73, 31-56.
Gershoff, E. T., & Bitensky, S. H. (2007). The case against corporal punishment of children: Converging evidence from social science research and international human rights law and implications for US public policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13(4), 231-272.
Goodwin, J. C. (2008). A history of modern psychology. (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Straus, M. A. (2000). Corporal punishment and primary prevention of physical abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(9), 1109-1114.
Straus, M. A., & Kantor, G. K. (1994). Corporal punishment of adolescents by parents: a risk factor in the epidemiology of depression, suicide, alcohol abuse, child abuse, and wife beating. Adolescence, 29(115), 543-561.
Straus, M. A., & Stewart, J. H. (1999). Corporal punishment by American parents: National data on prevalence, chronicity, severity, and duration, in relation to child and family characteristics. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2(2), 55-70.
Tolman, E. C. (1934). Theories of learning. In F. A. Moss (Ed.), Comparative psychology (pp. 367-408). New York, NY: Prentice-Hall.
Williams, H. (2012). Repairing shattered lives: Brain injury and its implications for criminal justice. London: Barrow Cadbury Trust. Retrieved from http://www.bctrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Repairing-Shattered-Lives_Report.pdf
