What parenting technique should be dropped from the tool kit?

What parenting technique should be dropped from the tool kit?

The research could not be more clear.  A new book, pulling together four decades of research on this parenting technique, shows that this method, while still widely used, has been linked to a host of negative long-term consequences. Research maintains that this technique slows mental development, interferes with language development, promotes weaker emotional ties between parent and child and increases the risk of aggressive behavior later in life.

The technique is familiar to us all – as children, we probably experienced it; as older parents, we might have used it; as current parents, we might be using it now.  One recent study found that over 50% of parents still use this technique.  Other research, referenced in the book by Murray Straus, Emily Douglas and Rose Anne Medeiros, said that roughly 90% of U.S. parents still use it. 

The technique, of course, is spanking.  And the research, from 32 countries, points in only one direction.  Noted Straus, as quoted at psyblog:

“More than 20 nations now prohibit spanking by parents. There is an emerging consensus that this is a fundamental human right for children. The United Nations is asking all nations to prohibit spanking. Never spanking will not only reduce the risk of delinquency and mental health problems, it also will bring to children the right to be free of physical attacks in the name of discipline, just as wives gained that human right a century and a quarter ago.”

Why is spanking still in vogue?  In 1968, a U.S. national survey found that 94% of U.S. parents believed that spanking is sometimes necessary; that number dropped to 70% in 2010.  But still, 70%?

It’s easy to see why it’s still around. It works. Plain and simple. It stops the undesired behavior, both immediately and, most probably, for the next period of time. But here’s the crazy part: it’s no more effective than the other eight methods of discipline (as outlined in the Dimensions of Discipline Inventory) which include time outs and denial of privileges.  Plus, of course, these other methods aren’t associated with long-term drawbacks.

Author, professor and researcher Michael MacKenize (Columbia University School of Social Work) told the NY Times: “Spanking does make the kid stop. . . . It gives the immediate feedback that it’s working. But the goal is to have kids regulate themselves over time. And in that, spanking fails.” Along these lines, author Kim Oliver, in a piece for psychcentral.com, noted that “the Latin root of discipline means ‘to teach,’ while the Latin root of punishment means ‘to inflict pain’.”

So, why does spanking persist? 

It appears, from all accounts, that parents are relying more on their personal history (e.g., “I was spanked and I turned out OK, so what’s the big deal?”) than the research.   But times are changing.  In their book “The Primordial Violence: Spanking Children, Psychological Development, Violence, and Crime,” Straus and his co-authors point out:

“[Parents] who believe that a good hard spanking is sometimes necessary dismiss the idea that spanking is a form of violence.  Before the largely feminist-based effort to end violence against women, if a husband occasionally slapped his wife, it was considered a family fight, not family violence.” Later the authors add: “. . . the longitudinal studies summarized in Chapter 19 show that the more a child was spanked, the greater the probability that he or she will approve of or engage in violence and other crime later in life.”

Developmental psychologist Elizabeth Gershoff, to the Huffington Post: “There's just no evidence that spanking is good for kids. . . . Spanking models aggression as a way of solving problems, that you can hit people and get what you want."

Added author and Ph.D. Darcia Narvaez, writing for Psychology Today: “Spanking does not convey positive guidance on how to behave in a particular situation . . . ” and “it destroys trust. Children trust their parents just a little less. They build a self-protective shield around themselves in terms of relationships generally. Children increasingly mistrust the motives of others and become more threat reactive. It leads to aggressive expectations—they are ready to aggress first before they are aggressed against.”

##