New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Should Parents Spank Their Kids?

A task force concludes that parents probably should not use spanking as a punishment

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Corporal punishment has long been a hotly debated subject, with conflicting study results and opposing ideologies feeding the fire. Now the results of a five-year effort to review the scientific literature are in: a task force appointed by the family services division of the American Psychological Association (APA) concludes that “parents and caregivers should reduce and potentially eliminate their use of any physical punishment as a disciplinary measure.”

Psychologist Sandra A. Graham-Bermann of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, who chairs the task force, announced the recom­mendation in August at the APA’s annual meeting. In a presentation, she explained that the group of 15 experts in child development and psychology found correlations between physical punishment and an increase in childhood anxiety and depression, an increase in behavioral problems, including aggression, and impaired cognitive development—even when the child’s prepunishment behavior and development were taken into consideration.

The task force was not unanimous in its conclusion. Psychologist Robert E. Larzelere of Oklahoma State University argued that the research is flawed and that the evidence against spanking is “faulty.” In the few studies that have compared spanking with other forms of punishment, such as restriction of privileges, grounding and time-outs, all the punitive measures examined resulted in similarly negative outcomes in children, Larzelere said. He recom­mended that parents use spanking as a backup when gentler forms of pun­ishment are not working. “Premature bans against spanking may undermine loving parental authority,” Larzelere said.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Most members of the task force disagree with Larzelere, however, and stand firm in their recommendation against corporal punishment, which is still used by more than 90 percent of American parents at some point and condoned by more than 70 percent of the population, according to 1995 and 2005 survey data.

Long-time physical-punish­ment researcher Murray A. Straus, a sociologist at the University of New Hampshire who served as a consultant to the APA task force, pointed out that although the evidence against spanking is in the form of correlations (not direct causal proof), the association is more robust and stronger than the correlations that have served as bases for other public health inter­ventions, such as secondhand smoke’s relation to cancer, exposure to lead and IQ scores in children, and exposure to asbestos and laryngeal cancer. “I am confident we will eventually arrive at the same place for corporal punish­ment,” Straus said.

The APA is reviewing the majority and minority positions of the task force and will issue its official recommend­ation at a later date.

Note: This story was originally printed with the title "To Spank or Not to Spank"

About Karen Schrock

Kate Schrock has been an editor of Scientific American MIND since 2007, where she edits feature articles and runs Head Lines, the magazine's news department. After studying astronomy and physics at the University of Southern California, she worked in the Laboratory of Neuro Imaging at the University of California, Los Angeles, studying the brain structure of people with schizophrenia. She then enrolled in the Science, Health and Environmental Reporting program at New York University, where she earned a master's degree in journalism.

More by Karen Schrock
SA Mind Vol 20 Issue 7This article was published with the title “To Spank or Not Spank” in SA Mind Vol. 20 No. 7 (), p. 10
doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind0110-10a

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe