Dr. Gershoff's review of scientific studies cannot help parents decide whether to use spanking or not, because of two major problems. Dr. Gershoff herself noted the first problem, that there is no scientific basis for any detrimental outcomes being caused^a by corporal punishment: "parental corporal punishment cannot be identified . . . as the cause of these child behaviors" (p. 550). She cites spanking as guilty by association, which would never hold up in a court of law. Better research has shown that it is the excessive child misbehavior that leads to a wide range of detrimental outcomes, not the use of moderate corporal punishment. This excessive misbehavior leads parents to use all disciplinary tactics more frequently, not just spanking. In children under 13, most studies that also investigated other disciplinary methods^b found those methods to be more strongly associated with aggressive-type outcomes and noncompliance than was corporal punishment.^2-11

A second problem is that 65% of the studies in Dr. Gershoff's review measured overly severe corporal punishment, such as slapping in the face (7 studies), beatings (3 studies), or hitting with a fist and causing bruises or cuts (1 study). Most of her summary information is thus dominated by overly severe corporal punishment, clouding the issue further about nonabusive spanking. The few studies that explicitly ruled out abusive or violent parenting reported beneficial child outcomes as often as not.^{2 3 5 6 12 13}

How parents use spanking is more important than whether they use it--as with any other disciplinary method. In contrast to Dr. Gershoff's conclusions, the best research shows that nonabusive spanking is effective with 2- to 6-year-old children when used to back up milder disciplinary methods, such as reasoning and time out.^{14 15} Such usage is not only effective in reducing defiance and fighting, but children then cooperate better with the milder discipline methods, rendering further spanking less necessary. Four studies in Dr. Gershoff's review^{2 3 5 6} and four additional studies^{4 7 8 16} provide causal evidence of the benefits of that approach, and no study contradicts it. It is clear, however, that overuse of corporal punishment in severity or frequency can be harmful to children.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
^aGershoff's review mostly summarizes correlations ("associations"), but correlations do not prove causation. Being in a hospital is associated with detrimental outcomes (e.g., greater likelihood of death), but it does not cause an increased likelihood of death. Instead, the actual cause is the problem that led to the hospitalization. This is generally true of all corrective interventions, whether medical (radiation treatment), psychological (marital counseling), educational (Head Start), or parental (disciplinary responses to misbehavior). Detrimental outcomes are more likely for recipients of all those corrective interventions, compared to people who did not need those corrective interventions.

^bAlternative disciplinary methods include removing privileges, time out (isolation), reasoning, restraint, ignoring, scolding, love withdrawal, brief room isolation, diverting, child-determined release from time out, and reasoning combined with nonphysical punishment. Of these, only a brief room isolation, diverting, and reasoning combined with nonphysical punishment were associated with less aggressive-type behavior or noncompliance than was corporal punishment, but to a degree that was not scientifically reliable ("statistically significant") in any study.

1. Gershoff ET. Parental corporal punishment and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin 2002.

2. Bean AW, Roberts MW. The effect of time-out release contingencies on changes in child noncompliance. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 1981;9:95-105.

3. Day DE, Roberts MW. An analysis of the physical punishment component of a parent training program. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 1983;11:141-152.

4. Roberts MW. Enforcing chair timeouts with room timeouts. Behavior Modification 1988;12:353-370.

5. Roberts MW, Powers SW. Adjusting chair timeout enforcement procedures for oppositional children. Behavior Therapy 1990;21:257-271.

6. Larzelere RE, Schneider WN, Larson DB, Pike PL. The effects of discipline responses in delaying toddler misbehavior recurrences. Child & Family Behavior Therapy 1996;18:35-57.

7. Larzelere RE, Sather PR, Schneider WN, Larson DB, Pike PL. Punishment enhances reasoning's effectiveness as a disciplinary response to toddlers. Journal of Marriage and the Family 1998;60:388-403.

8. Bernal ME, Duryee JS, Pruett HL, Burns BJ. Behavior modification and the brat syndrome. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1968;32:447-455.

9. Straus MA, Mouradian VE. Impulsive corporal punishment by mothers and antisocial behavior and impulsiveness of children. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 1998;16:353-374.

10. Sears RR. Relation of early socialization experiences to aggression in middle childhood. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 1961;63:466-492.

11. Yarrow MR, Campbell JD, Burton RV. Child rearing: An inquiry into research and methods. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1968.

12. LaVoie JC. Punishment and adolescent self-control. Developmental Psychology 1973;8:16-24.

13. McCord J. Parental behavior in the cycle of aggression. Psychiatry 1988;51:14-23.

14. Larzelere RE. Combining love and limits in authoritative parenting. In: Westman JC, editor. Parenthood in America. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 2001:81-89.

15. Larzelere RE. Child outcomes of nonabusive and customary physical punishment by parents: An updated literature review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 2000;3(4):199-221.

16. Roberts MW. Resistance to timeout: Some normative data. Behavioral Assessment 1982;4:239-248.