The truth about spanking: promoting a ban is counterproductive

National Review, April 21, 2008 by Lawrence Diller

So the AAP meeting stalemated on spanking. The group could agree to criticize spanking the way it is practiced by most parents in America: Based on several studies that demonstrated that limited spanking is more effective than none when teaching children the rules of "time out," the working group could endorse spanking only for this set of defiant toddlers, and only in this setting. Yet the conference did have some effect: Its leaders admitted in the Pediatrics supplement that "we had a preconceived notion that corporal punishment, including spanking, was innately always 'bad.' During the conference, we became increasingly impressed with the interactive nature of corporal punishment, and [concluded] that the issue of whether spanking is harmful or beneficial to a child must be viewed within the total context of a child's life and environment."

Two years later, the AAP finally issued its guidelines on the discipline of children. Not surprisingly, it advocated disciplining children primarily with positive rewards, and held that if punishment is necessary, the preferred form is the time out. Little mention of spanking, pro or con, was made in the body of the recommendations, but, in an addendum, eleven points were raised, all critical of the practice of spanking and the corporal punishment of children.

The AAP had clearly ignored the more neutral conclusions from the Elk Grove meeting. Letters to Pediatrics, some from those who had participated in that meeting, complained that the AAP had used only the negative studies on spanking, in order to justify the proscription in their guidelines.

PEDIATRICIANS AT THE BARRICADES

Also writing in Pediatrics, Mark Wolraich, the head of the committee that wrote the discipline recommendations, defended the AAP anti-spanking stance. "It is because most parents spank that such a policy statement is needed. The AAPis not a police body that disallows child-rearing techniques.... Spanking was only one area addressed but stands out as one in need of change because of its ineffectiveness, side effects, and the frequency of its misuse." Wolraich made a distinction between the families Baumrind studied and "real life," and wrote: "The conclusions needed to guide practice must come from expert opinion about data different from that required for a research program. Just as for civil rights in America, sometimes society, in this case pediatric society, has to espouse something unpopular before the data is complete (or can ever be) to lead in raising consciousness."

Another pediatrician who was part of the committee that wrote the discipline recommendations later confided in me: "It wasn't easy. We knew about the data [that showed spanking to be positive in some contexts]. But we felt if we included it we'd be open to criticism for promoting spanking, its misuse, and therefore potentially increasing the physical abuse of children. The AAP wasn't ready to take on that chance or criticism."

Essentially, then, the AAP decided to ignore the mixed data on corporal punishment of children in order to pursue a perceived social good, the end of spanking in America. The AAP statement at the time generated some, but not much, publicity. It could be seen, perhaps, as another brick in the wall for society's case against spanking. I have noticed, in my practice of behavioral pediatrics over the years since then, an ever-louder chorus of nays about spanking coming from parents--even as the practice has continued.