Impact of Corporal Punishment on Aggressive Behaviors

Introduction

Child discipline is a responsibility of parenting aimed at encouraging behavioral compliance among children. Several methods of discipline exist, but corporal punishment has been not only the predominant approach but also the most controversial. Corporal punishment (CP) is a persisting pre-historic disciplining practice in which the parent employs physical force to cause pain but without injuring the child intended to correct or control certain socially unacceptable child behaviors (Frechette and Elisa Romano 135). Spanking, slapping, shoving, and hitting are the typical forms of CP prevalent both at home and school environments. Historically, CP was not only a socially acceptable form of discipline but also the primary method of punishing errant children. However, beginning in the early 1990s, studies started to uncover links between CP and child aggression, delinquency, and spousal assault later in life. Additionally, CP was not more effective than the other methods (Durrant and Ensom 21; Frechettea et al. 135). Since then, the body of research on CPs has grown significantly, but with mixed findings, some findings point that CP elicits behavioral compliance while other results show that the form of punishment leads to antisocial and psychological problems. Whereas CP is essential and instills instant discipline on children, most countries have outlawed the form of punishment due to its association with antisocial behaviors, aggression, and psychosocial issues.

Research Perspectives on Corporal Punishment

The controversy surrounding the effectiveness of CP in raising happy and respectful children may stem from conflicting research perspectives – pro-CP, conditional CP, and anti-CP. Pro-CP research holds the view that the form of punishment has a net positive effect on enforcing desirable behaviors in children. The approach teaches children to respect authority and helps parents to maintain control over their kids (Frechette et al. 135). However, the main drawback of pro-CP research is the lack of representation in the empirical literature. Instead, the dominant source of data used in the pro-CP study is public opinions and anecdotal evidence. These kinds of data do not produce objective and statistically valid findings to other social settings.

Conditional CP is another perspective of CP research related to pro-CP. This perspective proposes that physical violence as a form of disciplining children may elicit desirable behaviors but only under certain conditions. Literature reviews and meta-analyses studies performed in the early 2000s associated mild and occasional spanking under certain circumstances with immediate compliance suppressed oppositional and antisocial behaviors and reinforced the effectiveness of other disciplinary methods such as explanation and time-out. Conditional CP was appropriate and effective as it is not severe, motivated the child’s concern, effective for children between the age of 2 and 6 years, and is applied privately and when combined with other forms of physical discipline strategies such as reasoning or time out (Frechette et al. 135). However, the main drawback of conditional CP is the lack of clarity on the extent that mild to moderate spanking can harm the child.

Anti-CP is the third perspective of CP research, which maintains the view that physical force, however minor, has a detrimental effect on the child. Moreover, unlike pro-CP and conditional CP, the anti-CP examination consists of both empirical and qualitative evidence, providing more objective findings, including a causal relationship between CP and child behavior over time. In a review of 25 years of CP research, Durrant et al. find out that since the 1990s, anti-CP predominates the literature on CP (20-24). Whereas pro-CP and conditional CP studies provide immediate positive effect, anti-CP research reports both short-term and long-term implications of CP, including spousal violence during adulthood. Durant further reports that most countries have outlawed CP based on the findings of its negative long-term effect on both the social and psychological health of children.

Implications of CP on Children

The Risk of Physical Abuse. Conditional CP claims mild to moderate physical punishment in certain circumstances yields desirable changes in the behavior of children. However, to what extent is mild to moderate punishment beneficial or turns into physical abuse, remains an unresolved issue in the conditional CP research. Although corporal punishment is permissible in most countries, the use of mild or moderate CP can potentially lead to physical abuse of the child (Frechette et al. 136). Physical abuse of a child is the intentional use of force against a young person resulting in injury or the risk for injury. Normal forms of CP used against children include shoving, beating, hitting, kicking, burning, and assaulting. In a cross-sectional national study recruiting 1,173 incomplete cases of child physical abuse in Canada, Durrant et al. examined them against the legal criteria for child abuse – the age of the child, the type of force, and the perpetrator (64-89). The study found out that physical and emotional harm, the need for treatment, and spanking were the most used factors to substantiate cases of physical abuse against a child. Mild CP can turn abusive when the parent to the form of punishment to the extreme such as spanking in the face and repeated spanking in one day. The higher the frequency and severity of CP, the higher the chance that the punishment will get harsher. Current data suggests mild CP can quickly turn into child abuse, and the boundary between mild CP and child physical abuse is not clear.

Aggressive Behaviors. The use of CP has also been associated with an increase in aggressive behaviors among children. Thompson et al. conducted a study to determine the association between CP and parental reports of aggressive actions on children (34-44). The dataset for the research included interview responses from 372 parents. Parents using CP report that their children were 2.8 more likely to exhibit aggressive behaviors than parents who did not use CP. The most common expression of aggressive acts was hitting, kicking, and throwing. Hecker et al. studied the effect of CP on children’s behavior in Tanzania, a country that has both legalized and socialized CP as acceptable and effective forms of disciplining errant children (884-892). In a sample of 409 children, all of them had experienced CP at some point in their life. A higher percentage (82%) of children in Tanzania experience frequent and severe by use of sticks, belts, and other objects, often leading to visible injuries, and 66% punched, slapped, or pinched. Nearly 25% received such a severe punishment that they were injured. These children exhibited current and lifetime aggression, conduct problems, and hyperactivity. Therefore, the more frequent and more severe the CP, the higher the effect on their behaviors. The data indicate an association between CP and aggressive behaviors in children.

The effect of CP on children affects the behavior of the minors as young as two years, suggesting a form of externalization of the behavior. Although CP may achieve short-term compliance, the form of the punishment increases the risk of developing negative social behaviors in the future. Mendez et al. studied the relationship between CP and externalizing behavior in toddlers(887). The research included 218 couples with a toddler. According to the findings, the more frequent the CP, the more frequent the toddler exhibits externalizing behavior. Standard externalizing practices at two years included a lack of concentration, inability to pay attention for a long time, restlessness, and quickly shifting from one activity to another. However, the study determined that parental behavior modified the effect of CP on externalizing behaviors. Positive parenting behavior, such as constructive verbal statements, optimistic affective expression, and physical contact) reduced the impact of CP on a child’s externalizing behaviors.

In contrast, harsher parenting behaviors intensified the effect of CP on externalizing behaviors. Therefore, CP can cause externalizing behaviors, but parental conduct mediate the relationship. For parents, the findings indicate that although they cannot eliminate CP, they can modify its effect on the child by expressing positive behavior.

Spousal Violence. The use of CP could have long-term or even lifetime implications for children. An excellent research area demonstrating the long-term effect of CP is spousal violence. The previous section on aggressive behaviors links CP with numerous adverse effects in childhood (short-term) and adulthood (lifetime effect). Notable adverse outcomes in childhood, such as aggressive and antisocial behaviors, maybe antecedents for future violence of the effected minors as adults. The long-term result of CP in childhood is spousal violence as an adult. Poulsen reviewed the literature on spousal abuse, which suggested a link to CP experienced in childhood (32-41). Nonetheless, corporal punishment during childhood does not that affected children will commit violence against their spouses. However, the transmission rate of violence from one generation from another is about 30%. Children who experienced CP are more likely to engage in spousal abuse as either victims or perpetrators. Analysis of interviews from violent and non-violent husbands indicates that 60% of violent husbands experienced CP during their childhood. Children who were punished violently while they were young would be sympathetic or support spousal violence in adulthood. Therefore, in the formative years, when children are developing attitudes and learning behaviors, parents must not use aggression as a normative means of dealing with frustrations or conflict due to the potential for children to perpetuate immediately or later in life.

Children who experience frequent CP and live in a violent home environment can normalize the same aggression to their spouse and children later. Chan investigated the relationship between CP in children and spousal violence (500-515). In particular, the study examines the prevalence of co-occurrence of spousal violence and child maltreatment and the relationship between spousal abuse and CP. The study enrolled 5,842 students from a representative sample of Hong Kong Schools. The investigation found out that the lifetime and the immediate past year, co-occurrence rates of spousal violence, and CP were 12.3% and 3.6%, respectively. The study concludes that CP and psychological aggression increases the likelihood of physical abuse. Therefore, the investigation recommends the need for a comprehensive assessment of spousal violence and CP.

Experience of CP in childhood not only increases the likelihood of perpetrating violence against a spouse in the future but also raises the possibility of a partner being receptive to violence. Poulson reviews the literature on the effect of CP against girls (4). According to the study, women who regularly received CP in childhood are more likely to become victims of spousal violence in the future. Girls growing up in a violent environment, experiencing CP normalize violence as a form of correcting undesirable behavior, will most likely condone and support the use of CP and will accept spousal abuse in adulthood. In a society that promotes a no-tolerance approach to all forms of violence, reports of violence will also increase. Since about 80% of women do not report spousal abuse to the relevant departments, the current rates of spousal violence may be a gross understatement. The data shows that the effect of CP in childhood between males and females may differ. While males may later grow to become perpetrators, women will more likely grow up to be victims.

The difference in the expression of violence differs between boys and girls. The risk of experiencing CP in childhood and expression of aggression against a spouse, shows gender bias, with boys more at risk of CP and girls likely to be victims of spousal violence. According to Chan, in families characterized by physical violence between parents, 64.7%, and 48% engaged in CP against a child in their lifetime and the preceding year, respectively (510). Physical violence against children has a gender bias, with boys more vulnerable and experiencing higher levels of violence compared to girls. Similarly, more males than females exhibit spousal abuse when they become adults. The explanation for the disproportionate percentage of boys at a higher risk of violence is due to the different societal and behavioral expectations for boys and girls. Parents also place more emphasis on socializing their sons to become masculine when exposed to parental conflicts. On the other hand, girls try to behave well to avoid interaction with the parents and burdening them.

Promoting Positive Discipline

The disproportionate focus of research on CP has led to many authors overlooking the study on positive parenteral behavior. Durrant reports that, in a non-violent home environment, where CP is not a dominant form of punishment, most likely parents with warm, supportive relations will optimize a child’s positive development (22). Positive parental behavior has been associated with a positive development process. Behaviors such as non-aggression, self-regulation, helping children interpret challenging events, and coaching kids to manage stress are essential components of positive parenting. The Republic of Korea eliminated all forms of violence against children, including CP. Furthermore, other countries have abolishing all forms of violence against children.

Theoretical Perspective

Several theories have been proposed to explain the use of corporal punishment and its effect on children and the larger family. Social spillover theory and Colombia theory propose the concept of coming together as the most important element is correcting children. The principles of social learning theory apply to both perpetrators. The social learning theory posits that violent behaviors may harm the child’s behavior. On the other hand, the theory posits that violent behavior is justified on the bases of higher authority.

Conclusion

Corporal punishment is a form of physical retribution designed to cause pain but not to injury. The form of punishment has been used to control undesirable behavior in children, although some nations are prohibiting the approach. Recent data suggest that CP may have negative implications both in the short-term and in the long-term. Children who receive CP may exhibit more disturbing behaviors. Moreover, in the long-term, CP has been associated with spousal violence. While males are always the perpetrators, women are usually the victim. At childhood, CP and parental abuse, influence children to perceive force as a typical type of punishment for controlling errant behaviors. Males apply the behavior through expression, while females accept it as a form of punishment. Therefore, the long term implication of CP has been spousal violence.