Physical punishment and child outcomes: a narrative review of prospective studies.

Physical punishment is increasingly viewed as a form of violence that harms children. This narrative review summarises the findings of 69 prospective longitudinal studies to inform practitioners and policy makers about physical punishment's outcomes. Our review identified seven key themes. First, physical punishment consistently predicts increases in child behaviour problems over time. Second, physical punishment is not associated with positive outcomes over time. Third, physical punishment increases the risk of involvement with child protective services. Fourth, the only evidence of children eliciting physical punishment is for externalising behaviour. Fifth, physical punishment predicts worsening behaviour over time in quasi-experimental studies. Sixth, associations between physical punishment and detrimental child outcomes are robust across child and parent characteristics. Finally, there is some evidence of a dose-response relationship. The consistency of these findings indicates that physical punishment is harmful to children and that policy remedies are warranted.

Recognizing the child's right to protection from physical violence: An update on progress and a call to action.

For centuries, some level of physical violence against children has been normalized, prescribed and legally justified. It has long been argued that violence is not abusive if it is intended as punishment and does not injure the child physically. This proposition has heavily influenced our language, research methods and approaches to intervention with the effect of perpetuating the belief that some level of violence is justifiable and acceptable in children's lives. The United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child precipitated a global recognition that the justification of punitive violence violates children's fundamental protection rights. Yet, in the research literature, terminology, methods and approaches often minimize acts of violence if they are intended as punishment. This article summarizes progress made over the past 30 years and issues a call for transformative change in our conceptualizations of punitive violence.

Defining reasonable force: Does it advance child protection?

Fifty-two countries have abolished all physical punishment of children, yet Canada has retained its criminal defense to 'reasonable' corrective force. In 2004, Canada's Supreme Court attempted to set limits on punitive acts that can be considered reasonable under the law. In the present study, we examined the validity of these limits. If the court's limits provide adequate protection to children, most substantiated child maltreatment cases should exceed those limits. We operationalized each limit and applied it to a provincially representative sample of substantiated child physical maltreatment cases. We found that the majority of substantiated physical abuse cases fell within each of the court's limits. In more than one in four substantiated physical abuse cases, not even one of the court's limits was exceeded. The best predictor of whether a report was substantiated was whether spanking was typical in the child's home. The findings suggest that abolition of physical punishment would provide greater protection to children than attempts to set limits on its use.

Promising intervention strategies to reduce parents' use of physical punishment.

The strong and ever-growing evidence base demonstrating that physical punishment places children at risk for a range of negative outcomes, coupled with global recognition of children's inherent rights to protection and dignity, has led to the emergence of programs specifically designed to prevent physical punishment by parents. This paper describes promising programs and strategies designed for each of three levels of intervention - indicated, selective, and universal - and summarizes the existing evidence base of each. Areas for further program development and evaluation are identified.

Researchers Deserve a Better Critique: Response to.

This commentary addresses the critique by Larzelere, Gunnoe, Roberts, and Ferguson (2017: Marriage & Family Review, 53, 24-35) ostensibly concerning the quality of research on "positive parenting" but actually critiquing physical punishment research. The critique revealed that the authors have a poor understanding of positive parenting. After explicating the different meanings of that term and describing what positive parenting is, we then address each of their four critiques of the physical punishment research. Each critique was flawed in multiple ways. After identifying their errors and correcting misinformation, we then raise broader issues about children's right not to be hit and how professional organizations are increasingly recognizing the need and calling for an end to all physical punishment of children.

What predicts injury from physical punishment? A test of the typologies of violence hypothesis.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the power of child, perpetrator, and socio-economic characteristics to predict injury in cases of reported child physical abuse. The study was designed to assess the validity of the assumption that physically injurious incidents of child physical abuse are qualitatively different from those that do not result in injury, that their generative factors are distinctive, and that the quality of caregiving in these two types of incidents is different. METHOD: A weighted, nationally representative sample of 8,164 substantiated punishment abuse cases in Canada was used. Various models were constructed and evaluated through logistic regression. RESULTS: Of six potential predictors - child age, perpetrator sex, child functioning, parent functioning, economic stress, and social stress - none predicted injury to the child. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that injurious and non-injurious physical abuse cannot be distinguished on the basis of the personal characteristics or circumstances of the child or perpetrator. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: A common criterion for child welfare intervention into cases of suspected physical abuse is injury or risk of injury. This criterion assumes that injurious and non-injurious assaults are qualitatively different phenomena, predicted by different risk factors. In the present study an attempt was made to differentiate between injurious and non-injurious cases of punitive physical abuse on the basis of characteristics of the child, perpetrator, family, and social context. None of these factors explained the likelihood of injury, suggesting that the prediction of injury as an intervention criterion may be questionable.

Physical punishment, culture, and rights: current issues for professionals.

Once considered a legitimate parenting tool, physical punishment is increasingly being redefined as a developmental risk factor by health professionals. Three forces that have contributed to this significant social change are the evolution of pediatric psychology, increasing understanding of the dynamics of parental violence, and growing recognition of children as rights bearers. However, despite the consistency of research findings demonstrating the risks of physical punishment, some practitioners still struggle with the question of whether physical punishment is an appropriate practice among some cultural or ethnic groups. This issue is explored through an analysis of studies examining cultural differences and similarities in physical punishment's effects, as well as legal decisions made throughout the world. Despite practitioners' awareness of the prevalence and impact of parental violence, some still struggle with deciding where to "draw the line" in advising parents about spanking. This issue is addressed through an examination of the role that physical punishment plays in child maltreatment. Finally, the human rights perspective on physical punishment is offered as a new lens through which practitioners may view physical punishment to clarify the fuzzy issues of cultural relativity and the punishment-abuse dichotomy.

Maternal use of physical punishment in response to child misbehavior: implications for child abuse prevention.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to examine the roles of cognition and affect in maternal use of physical punishment. METHOD: Through a review of the literature, distal and proximal predictors (cognitive and affective) of physical punishment use were identified. One hundred and ten mothers of 3-year-old children were interviewed regarding two disciplinary situations that occurred during the previous 2-week period that elicited their strongest reactions: one which resulted in the use of physical punishment (if this occurred) and one which did not. The individual and combined contributions of the predictors of physical punishment use were analyzed through logistic regression. RESULTS: The predictors of physical punishment following individual analyses were: maternal attitude toward physical punishment, maternal perception of the seriousness and intent of the child misbehavior, and maternal anger in response to the child misbehavior. Through multivariate analysis 54% of the variance in physical punishment use was explained. CONCLUSIONS: Both cognitive and affective factors affect the decision to use physical punishment with children. These findings can be useful in establishing parenting educational programming that is directed at decreasing the rates of physical punishment and subsequently child physical abuse.