Cited by 155Child Abuse and TraumaChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentEducation Discipline and Inequality

Spanking children: the controversies, findings, and new directions

Benjet, Corina, Kazdin, Alan E·2003·Clinical Psychology Review

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

Crossref · 10.1016/s0272-7358(02)00206-4

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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