Spanking children: the controversies, findings, and new directions
Abstract
The use of spanking as a discipline technique is quite prevalent, even though whether or not to spank children is controversial among lay and professional audiences alike. Considerable research on the topic has been analyzed in several reviews of the literature that often reach different and sometimes opposite conclusions. Opposing conclusions are not inherently problematic as research develops in an area. However, we propose that both methodological limitations of the research to date as well as the limited focus of the research questions have prevented a better understanding of the impact of parental spanking on child development. The purpose of this article is to convey the basis for limited progress to date and, more importantly, to reformulate the research agenda. The goal is to move toward a resolution of the most relevant questions to parents, professionals, and policymakers. We propose an expanded research agenda that addresses the goals of parental discipline, the direct and concomitant effects of spanking, the influences that foster and maintain the use of spanking, and the processes through which spanking operates.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The main criticism of Gershoff's (2002) meta-analysis was that its definition of physical punishment included harsh and potentially injurious behaviors such as hitting children with objects.
“The main criticism of the Gershoff (2002) meta-analysis has been that it included harsh and potentially injurious behaviors, such as hitting children with objects, in its definition of physical punishment (Baumrind et al., 2002; Benjet & Kazdin, 2003; although note that this criticism applies to the Paolucci & Violato, 2004 meta-analysis as well).”
From Spanking and child outcomes: Old controversies and new meta-analyses. (2016) · cites this paper as Benjet & Kazdin, 2003
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 69 · Cited by 155
- Authors
- Benjet, C., & Kazdin, A. E.
- Affiliations
- Instituto Nacional de Psiquiatría Ramón de la Fuente Muñiz (MX)
- Yale University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kazdin, Alan E
- Venue
- Clinical Psychology Review
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2003-03
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 197-224
- ISSN
- 0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2037709434
- Cited by
- 155
- References
- 69
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 1.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (MH59029, R01MH059029)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
- Social Sciences › Education › Education Discipline and Inequality
- Keywords
- spanking, corporal punishment, child discipline, child development, research agenda, methodological limitations, parental discipline
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Child, Child Abuse, Child Development, Child Welfare, Humans, Parent-Child Relations, Policy Making, Public Policy, Punishment, Research Design
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review