Living with Children: To clarify my ‘belief’ in spanking |
More Lifestyles

Living with Children: To clarify my ‘belief’ in spanking

It’s time once again for me to clarify my position on spanking. I arrived at this reluctant conclusion because twice in the last week, I’ve been informed that I believe in it, which is not exactly true.

The problem is that in today’s anti-intellectual environment, if one does not take a strong public stand against some controversial issue, then lots of folks think one must approve.

First, I do not hold a mere opinion on spanking. My position is based on solid, replicated research done by objective people who aren’t seeking to affirm an ideological presupposition. The researchers in question are Robert Larzelere, professor of psychology at Oklahoma State University, and Diana Baumrind, professor of psychology at UC-Berkeley, retired. In my estimation, Larzelere’s and Baumrind’s studies of the outcomes of so-called corporal punishment are the only such studies worth the paper they’re printed on.

Unfortunately, the media are prone to giving attention to studies that purport sensationalistic outcomes, such as the claim that spanking lowers IQ or predisposes a child to criminality. Larzelere and Baumrind (identified from here on as L&B) have devoted much of their work to critiquing the studies in question, exposing their design flaws and authors’ contaminating biases.

In a 2010 paper (, L&B report that authoritative parenting — characterized by a high level of nurturing (unconditional love), reasonably high expectations, respect for autonomy and firm discipline (unequivocal authority) — consistently produces the best outcome (according to measures of child well-being and adjustment). All of the authoritative parents in their studies reported that they occasionally spanked. In this parenting context, L&B were unable to identify any negative outcome to occasional, moderate (two swats with the open hand to a child’s buttocks) spankings.

Furthermore, they found that, when used as in conjunction with other discipline such as time-out and removal of privilege, spankings served to enhance the effectiveness of these other methods and could be, and usually was, phased out.

They stress that spanking should not be used with a child younger than 18 months of age and have previously found that its effectiveness, even when used appropriately, greatly diminishes after the sixth birthday.

Therefore, that is my position. I do not believe in spanking in the sense of thinking it is essential to proper discipline. I do believe, however, that with certain children, given certain offenses, and when the parents in question qualify, by L&B’s definition, as authoritative, spanking can be effective and is not harmful.

That rational, logical, research-based position will satisfy some, but it will not satisfy anti-spanking activists, who would have the government tell parents how they may and may not discipline their children.

They see no difference between two open-handed swats to a child’s rear end and a brutal beating. These are some of the extremists Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis had in mind when he wrote that “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding.”

Visit family psychologist John Rosemond’s website at

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.