corporal punishment research articles

Fact sheets

• Facts in pictures
• Publications
• Questions and answers
• Tools and toolkits
• HIV and AIDS
• Hypertension
• Mental disorders
• Top 10 causes of death
• All countries
• Eastern Mediterranean
• South-East Asia
• Western Pacific
• Data by country
• Country presence 
• Country strengthening 
• Country cooperation strategies 
• News releases

Feature stories

• Press conferences

Commentaries

• Photo library
• Afghanistan
• Cholera 
• Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
• Greater Horn of Africa
• Israel and occupied Palestinian territory
• Disease Outbreak News
• Situation reports
• Weekly Epidemiological Record
• Surveillance
• Health emergency appeal
• International Health Regulations
• Independent Oversight and Advisory Committee
• Classifications
• Data collections
• Global Health Estimates
• Mortality Database
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Health Inequality Monitor
• Global Progress
• Data collection tools
• Global Health Observatory
• Insights and visualizations
• COVID excess deaths
• World Health Statistics
• Partnerships
• Committees and advisory groups
• Collaborating centres
• Technical teams
• Organizational structure
• Initiatives
• General Programme of Work
• WHO Academy
• Investment in WHO
• WHO Foundation
• External audit
• Financial statements
• Internal audit and investigations 
• Programme Budget
• Results reports
• Governing bodies
• World Health Assembly
• Executive Board
• Member States Portal
• Fact sheets /

Corporal punishment and health

• Corporal or physical punishment is highly prevalent globally, both in homes and schools. Around 60% of children aged 2–14 years regularly suffer physical punishment by their parents or other caregivers. In some countries, almost all students report being physically punished by school staff. The risk of being physically punished is similar for boys and girls, and for children from wealthy and poor households.
• Evidence shows corporal punishment increases children’s behavioural problems over time and has no positive outcomes.
• All corporal punishment, however mild or light, carries an inbuilt risk of escalation. Studies suggest that parents who used corporal punishment are at heightened risk of perpetrating severe maltreatment.
• Corporal punishment is linked to a range of negative outcomes for children across countries and cultures, including physical and mental ill-health, impaired cognitive and socio-emotional development, poor educational outcomes, increased aggression and perpetration of violence.
• Corporal punishment is a violation of children’s rights to respect for physical integrity and human dignity, health, development, education and freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
• The elimination of violence against children is called for in several targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development but most explicitly in Target 16.2: “end abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children”.
• Corporal punishment and the associated harms are preventable through multisectoral and multifaceted approaches, including law reform, changing harmful norms around child rearing and punishment, parent and caregiver support, and school-based programming.

Corporal or physical punishment is defined by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which oversees the  Convention on the Rights of the Child , as “any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however light.”

According to the Committee, this mostly involves hitting (smacking, slapping, spanking) children with a hand or implement (whip, stick, belt, shoe, wooden spoon or similar) but it can also involve, for example, kicking, shaking or throwing children, scratching, pinching, biting, pulling hair or boxing ears, forcing children to stay in uncomfortable positions, burning, scalding or forced ingestion.

Other non-physical forms of punishment can be cruel and degrading, and thus also incompatible with the Convention, and often accompany and overlap with physical punishment. These include punishments which belittle, humiliate, denigrate, scapegoat, threaten, scare or ridicule the child.

UNICEF’s data from nationally representative surveys in 56 countries 2005–2013 show that approximately 6 out of 10 children aged 2–14 years experienced corporal punishment by adults in their households in the past month. On average, 17% of children experienced severe physical punishment (being hit on the head, face or ears or hit hard and repeatedly) but in some countries this figure exceeds 40%. Large variations across countries and regions show the potential for prevention.

Apart from some countries where rates among boys are higher, results from comparable surveys show that the prevalence of corporal punishment is similar for girls and boys. Young children (aged 2–4 years) are as likely, and in some countries more likely, as older children (aged 5–14 years) to be exposed to physical punishment, including harsh forms. Physical disciplinary methods are used even with very young children – comparable surveys conducted in 29 countries 2012–2016 show that 3 in 10 children aged 12–23 months are subjected to spanking.

Most children are exposed to both psychological and physical means of punishment. Many parents and caregivers report using non-violent disciplines measures (such as explaining why the child’s behaviour was wrong, taking away privileges) but these are usually used in combination with violent methods. Children who experience only non-violent forms of discipline are in the minority.

One in 2 children aged 6–17 years (732 million) live in countries where corporal punishment at school is not fully prohibited. Studies have shown that lifetime prevalence of school corporal punishment was above 70% in Africa and Central America, past-year prevalence was above 60% in the WHO Regions of Eastern Mediterranean and South-East Asia, and past-week prevalence was above 40% in Africa and South-East Asia. Lower rates were found in the WHO Western Pacific Region, with lifetime and past year prevalence around 25%. Physical punishment appeared to be highly prevalent at both primary and secondary school levels.

Consequences

Corporal punishment triggers harmful psychological and physiological responses. Children not only experience pain, sadness, fear, anger, shame and guilt, but feeling threatened also leads to physiological stress and the activation of neural pathways that support dealing with danger. Children who have been physically punished tend to exhibit high hormonal reactivity to stress, overloaded biological systems, including the nervous, cardiovascular and nutritional systems, and changes in brain structure and function.

Despite its widespread acceptability, spanking is also linked to atypical brain function like that of more severe abuse, thereby undermining the frequently cited argument that less severe forms of physical punishment are not harmful. 

A large body of research shows links between corporal punishment and a wide range of negative outcomes, both immediate and long-term:

• direct physical harm, sometimes resulting in severe damage, long-term disability or death;
• mental ill-health, including behavioural and anxiety disorders, depression, hopelessness, low self-esteem, self-harm and suicide attempts, alcohol and drug dependency, hostility and emotional instability, which continue into adulthood;
• impaired cognitive and socio-emotional development, specifically emotion regulation and conflict solving skills;
• damage to education, including school dropout and lower academic and occupational success;
• poor moral internalization and increased antisocial behaviour;
• increased aggression in children;
• adult perpetration of violent, antisocial and criminal behaviour;
• indirect physical harm due to overloaded biological systems, including developing cancer, alcohol-related problems, migraine, cardiovascular disease, arthritis and obesity that continue into adulthood;
• increased acceptance and use of other forms of violence; and
• damaged family relationships.

Th ere is some evidence of a dose–response relationship, with studies finding that the association with child aggression and lower achievement in mathematics and reading ability became stronger as the frequency of corporal punish ment increased.

Risk factors

There are few differences in prevalence of corporal punishment by sex or age, although in some places boys and younger children are more at risk. Children with disabilities are more likely to be physically punished than those without disabilities. Parents who were physically punished as children are more likely to physically punish their own children.

In most of the countries with data, children from wealthier households are equally likely to experience violent discipline as those from poorer households. In contrast, in some resource-poor settings, especially where education systems have undergone rapid expansion, the strain on teachers resulting from the limited human and physical resources may lead to a greater use of corporal punishment in the classroom.

Prevention and response

The INSPIRE technical package presents several effective and promising interventions, including:

• Implementation and enforcement of laws to prohibit physical punishment. Such laws ensure children are equally protected under the law on assault as adults and serve an educational rather than punitive function, aiming to increase awareness, shift attitudes towards non-violent childrearing and clarify the responsibilities of parents in their caregiving role.
• Norms and values programmes to transform harmful social norms around child-rearing and child discipline.
• Parent and caregiver support through information and skill-building sessions to develop nurturing, non-violent parenting.
• Education and life skills interventions to build a positive school climate and violence-free environment, and strengthening relationships between students, teachers and administrators.
• Response and support services for early recognition and care of child victims and families to help reduce reoccurrence of violent discipline and lessen its consequences.

T he  earlier such interventions occur in children's lives, the greater the benefits to the child (e.g., cognitive development, behavioural and social competence, educational attainment) and to society (e.g., reduced delinquency and crime).

WHO Response

WHO addresses corporal punishment in multiple cross-cutting ways. In collaboration with partners, WHO provides guidance and technical support for evidence-based prevention and response. Work on several strategies from the INSPIRE technical package, including those on legislation, norms and values, parenting, and school-based violence prevention, contribute to preventing physical punishment. The Global status report on violence against children 2020 monitors countries’ progress in implementing legislation and programmes that help reduce it. WHO also advocates for increased international support for and investment in these evidence-based prevention and response efforts.

• Global Partnership to End Violence Against Children
• International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect
• Violence Against Children – UNICEF Data

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Corporal punishment and violent behavior spectrum: a meta-analytic review.

• 1 School of Criminal Investigation in People’s Public Security University of China, Beijing, China
• 2 Investigation Department, Hunan Police Academy, Changsha, China
• 3 School of Business, Hunan Institute of Technology, Hengyang, China
• 4 Department of Psychology at Liaoning Normal University, Dalian, China

Corporal punishment is believed to precede various forms of violent behavior, yet prior research has yielded inconsistent findings, partly due to variations in violent types and other factors. This meta-analysis systematically reviewed 35 studies including 144 effect sizes (comprising a total sample size of 159,213) investigating the association between corporal punishment and a spectrum of violent behaviors called Violent Behavior Spectrum (VBS). Additionally, meta-regressions were conducted to explore the moderating impact of punishment severity, violence type and cultural context. Our findings indicated a significant positive relationship between corporal punishment and VBS ( r  = 0.238, 95%, CI [0.176, 0.300]). Notably, punishment severity was found to influence the strength of this association. Namely, The more severe the corporal punishment, the more likely it is to lead to VBS. These results enhance our understanding of the intricate connection between corporal punishment and various forms of violence, providing valuable insights for both parenting practices and policy development.

1 Introduction

The Violent Behavior Spectrum (VBS), referring to the range of violent behavioral manifestations along a continuum of severity, poses critical implications for psychology, criminology, and policymaking ( Huesmann, 2018 ). Elucidating factors underlying VBS is vital for illuminating etiology and informing interventions and policies, particularly regarding the connection between corporal punishment and violence ( Durrant and Ensom, 2012 ). Considerable research has examined potential links between corporal punishment and aggressive behaviors ( Gershoff, 2002 ). However, studies predominantly focused on aggression, with limited exploration of the VBS continuum. Moreover, past studies did not distinguish clearly between aggression and violence, obstructing examination of VBS associations ( Larzelere, 1996 ). Finally, the relationship between corporal punishment and VBS remains ambiguous, with evidence both affirming and refuting associations ( Straus, 1997 ; Larzelere, 2000 ). These inconsistencies likely stem from variations in punishment severity and violent types or other potential moderators. Therefore, a focused meta-analysis quantitatively synthesizing the literature on corporal punishment and VBS is essential.

1.1 Defining and measuring corporal punishment

Definitions of corporal punishment differ across studies. This analysis adopts an inclusive definition of corporal punishment as disciplinary tactics leveraging mild pain to punish misbehaviors ( Straus, 1997 ). Common forms include spanking, slapping, and ear pulling without significant injury. Based on severity, corporal punishment ranges from mild to severe ( Larzelere, 2000 ). The primary distinction between corporal punishment and abuse involves the harm inflicted, with discipline as the former’s aim and anger expression as the latter’s purpose. Consequently, experiencing abuse versus corporal punishment may yield divergent outcomes ( Gershoff, 2002 ). The relationship between abuse and violence has achieved relatively consistent conclusions. However, the association between corporal punishment and various violence forms remains contentious ( Larzelere, 2000 ). Hence, this analysis focuses on the association between corporal punishment and diverse violence types, excluding studies on parental abuse.

Precisely measuring corporal punishment requires established tools like the Corporal Punishment History Scale and the Conflict Tactics Scale ( Smith et al., 2015 ; Lorber and Slep, 2018 ). The Corporal Punishment History Scale collects individuals’ frequency of receiving parental corporal punishment during growth through questionnaire surveys. The Conflict Tactics Scale asks in detail about various disciplinary strategies used by parents in education to assess the use of corporal punishment. Both scales have good reliability and validity and are the main tools for assessing corporal punishment experience in current research.

1.2 Defining and measuring violent behavior spectrum

The Violent Behavior Spectrum (VBS) refers to a comprehensive framework encompassing a continuum of behaviors characterized by varying violence or aggression degrees ( Sánchez-Sansegundo et al., 2020 ). The spectrum ranges from minor acts like verbal disputes and property destruction to severe acts like armed assault and homicide ( Brent, 2011 ). VBS emerged as an integrative model recognizing violence’s multidimensional nature beyond dichotomous classification into aggression presence or absence ( Patrick and Drislane, 2015 ). This conceptualization enables studying factors influencing violence risk across the full severity spectrum. This analysis includes externalizing problems, antisocial behavior, all aggression types, all violence types, and violent crime in the VBS. Although distinct, studying antisocial and violent behavior under the unified VBS framework has merit. First, some antisocial acts involve violence. Second, both can infringe upon others’ rights and well-being. Third, robust violence research provides theoretical models and methodological tools elucidating antisocial behavior mechanisms and management. Fourth, similar developmental and socio-environmental factors may underlie both behaviors’ manifestation ( McCord, 1988 ). Research on the two behaviors can thus advance understanding of individual variations and inform prevention and correctional programs.

The VBS can be assessed through various quantitative and qualitative methods. Self-report tools and behavioral observations document violent acts directly, while official crime and arrest records provide objective severe violence data. Implicit measures like the Weapons Identification Task gage automatic violence associations ( Bushman, 2018 ). Qualitative interviews can elucidate subjective violence perpetration experiences. A multi-method approach combining self-reports, observations, convictions records, and implicit tests enables robust VBS measurement across the continuum ( Jacques and Wright, 2008 ; Sánchez-Sansegundo et al., 2020 ).

Established instruments assess VBS dimensions. The Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory measures violence-proneness through subscales like assault and indirect hostility Established instruments assess VBS dimensions. The Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory measures violence-proneness through subscales like assault and indirect hostility ( Buss and Durkee, 1957 ). The Lifetime Assessment of Violent Acts captures severe violent offenses ( Flannery et al., 2007 ). Governmental criminal records provide objective individual arrest and conviction data ( McCord, 1988 ). Selecting suitable tools and employing them in combination enhances the measurement of VBS ( Coccaro et al., 1997 ).

1.3 Theoretical perspectives

Theoretical perspectives offer differing propositions on corporal punishment’s impacts on the VBS. Social learning theory posits corporal punishment can propagate aggressive tendencies by modeling and reinforcing violence, potentially elevating VBS risk ( Bandura, 1978 ). In contrast, control theories propose that non-abusive discipline promotes self-regulation and socialization, suggesting moderate corporal punishment may not increase VBS risk ( Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990 ). Attachment theories highlight secure caregiver attachment may buffer corporal punishment’s effects on VBS ( Sroufe, 2005 ). Additionally, general aggression models posit frequent corporal punishment use fosters an externalizing cognitive lens toward relationships that feeds into VBS ( Huesmann and Kirwil, 2007 ).

The theory of social moral development posits that morality should not merely be understood as a set of behavioral rules but rather as a mechanism regulating societal relationships. Morality is defined as an interactive process between individuals and social phenomena, shaped by their societal connections ( Kohlberg, 1976 ; Emler, 1987 ). Reward and punishment constitute fundamental means through which adults intervene when moral norms are being upheld or transgressed ( Eriksson et al., 2017 ; Ziv et al., 2021 ). Thus, when employed to uphold moral standards within certain parameters, corporal punishment may not necessarily escalate subsequent aggressive behavior.

Understanding this relationship is particularly crucial for child development as children are sensitive to social norms ( McAuliffe et al., 2017 ). Moreover, children’s comprehension of corporal punishment influences its link with aggression. Research illustrates children aged 5–9 prefer withdrawing from unfair individuals over punishing them ( Lee and Warneken, 2020 ). Recent findings reveal 21-month-olds expect bystanders to engage in third-party punishment of antisocial agents ( Geraci, 2021 ; Geraci and Surian, 2021 ). Conceptualizing punishment of aggression and rewards for prosocial acts as means to maintain order, children likely endorse such measures, thereby mitigating potential adverse outcomes like aggression. Overall, theoretical corporal punishment and VBS links require further empirical investigation.

1.4 Previous empirical research

Empirically, considerable research reveals a positive association between corporal punishment and aggressive behavior ( Gershoff, 2002 ). However, some studies indicate moderate corporal punishment does not increase child aggression ( Larzelere, 1996 ). A meta-analysis concluded corporal punishment predicts higher childhood aggression regardless of baseline levels ( Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor, 2016 ). Evidence indicates a dose–response relationship, with more frequent corporal punishment linked to greater aggression ( Taylor et al., 2017 ). Conclusions are mixed regarding links between corporal punishment and specific violent motives. Moreover, the longitudinal impacts of childhood corporal punishment on adult violent criminality along the spectrum remain underexplored ( Afifi et al., 2017 ). The correlation between corporal punishment and aggression may vary compared to its associations with other violent behaviors like bullying, violence, and violent crime ( Zhu et al., 2017 ). Further research should elucidate the nuances between corporal punishment and the multidimensional VBS construct.

1.5 Potential moderators

The associations between corporal punishment and VBS may influenced by potential moderating factors. The strength and intensity of this relationship are susceptible to the nuanced influences of intervening variables, including the severity of punishment ( Larzelere, 1996 ; Gershoff, 2002 ) and the specific category of behavior within the violent behavior spectrum. Firstly, the severity of punishment emerges as a pivotal factor influencing the association between corporal punishment and the violent behavior spectrum. Distinct levels of corporal punishment may yield divergent impacts on violent behavior. For instance, mild corporal punishment might only contribute to an escalation of violent tendencies, while severe corporal punishment could be more prone to eliciting actual acts of violence. Consequently, considering the intensity and frequency of corporal punishment is imperative in any analysis. Secondly, the specific category within the violent behavior spectrum emerges as yet another possible moderating variable. The violent behavior spectrum encompasses a wide array of behaviors, ranging from less severe acts like verbal disputes to more extreme acts like armed assaults and homicide. The impact of corporal punishment on an individual’s behavior within this spectrum may diverge substantially based on the particular category of violent behavior under consideration.

Other factors that might impose influence on corporal punishment-VBS include developmental stage ( Steinberg, 2009 ), publication year, culture ( Lansford et al., 2005 ), gender, and measurement tools. Given the absence of a comprehensive integrated framework for these factors, this study seeks to investigate them in an exploratory fashion, aiming to comprehend their possible functions in moderating the relationship between corporal punishment and VBS.

1.6 Previous meta-analyses and current study

Several influential meta-analyses have examined the relationship between corporal punishment and child outcomes. Gershoff conducted pioneering research differentiating corporal punishment from abuse and aggression from criminal behaviors ( Gershoff, 2002 ; Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor, 2016 ). Findings indicated children subjected to corporal punishment exhibit higher aggression and antisocial tendencies, with impacts potentially extending into adulthood. Utilizing updated techniques, replicated and expanded upon this earlier meta-analysis, further substantiating the negative sequelae of corporal punishment ( Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor, 2016 ). However, Larzelerea and Kuhn discovered in their meta-analysis that the potential negative impacts of corporal punishment on children hinge on the severity of the punishment and contextual factors ( Larzelere and Kuhn, 2005 ). Mild corporal punishment, under certain circumstances, may prove to be an effective disciplinary strategy. Paolucci and Violato collected 70 empirical studies to explore the relationship between corporal punishment and children’s negative affect, behavior problems, and cognition development ( Paolucci and Violato, 2004 ). The research found that corporal punishment had no significant impact on cognition development, only small negative impacts on negative affect ( r  = 0.20) and behavior problems ( r  = 0.21). The study also called for further in-depth research on potential moderating variables. To get closer to the causal relationship, Ferguson’s meta-analysis solely included longitudinal studies and found weaker correlations between corporal punishment and aggression, antisocial behavior, and cognitive deficits ( Ferguson, 2013 ). This meta-analysis indicated harsh punishment poses greater risk, while mild corporal punishment may not correlate with child problems. Ferguson suggested corporal punishment effects are context-dependent and prohibition may be unwarranted ( Ferguson, 2013 ). In summary, these meta-analyses found inconsistent results, which necessitate further meta-analytic exploration due to the inconsistencies.

While informative, contradictions in prior findings reveal gaps regarding the contexts and mechanisms linking corporal punishment to violent outcomes. The present study aims to contribute uniquely to the literature by comparing corporal punishment effects on a spectrum of aggressive behaviors, from bullying to criminality. Additionally, factors moderating this relationship require clarification. By addressing limitations and integrating previous evidence, the current research tries to provide perspectives to inform practices and policies around parenting and violence prevention. Our central hypothesis is that there is a positive correlation between corporal punishment and the violent behavior spectrum.

The literature search for this meta-analysis was conducted following PRISMA reporting guidelines for the final report ( Page et al., 2021 ). Electronic databases, including PubMed, PsycINFO, Proquest and Web of Science were searched using a combination of keywords and Boolean operators. The search strategy was designed to include studies published between 1950 and 2023, and it focused on the following key terms: (Corporal punishment or physical punishment or spanking or beating or caning or flogging or hitting or smacking or Strict parenting or Coercive parenting or Punitive discipline or Harsh discipline) and (Violent crime or Violent offense or Crime of violence or Violent act or Violent behavior or Aggressive crime or Violent conduct or Violent delinquency or Violent wrongdoing or Violent transgression). In addition to electronic databases, a manual search of relevant journals, conference proceedings, and reference lists of identified studies was performed to ensure completeness ( Cooper and Patall, 2009 ).

Studies were considered eligible for inclusion in this meta-analysis based on the following criteria: (a) Population: Studies involving participants from the general population and criminal offenders were included. (b) Study design: Empirical studies that examine corporal punishment and violent crime and report valid effect sizes or other statistical metrics that can be converted into effect sizes were included. (c) Publication Status: Published articles, conference abstracts, and unpublished dissertations or theses were all eligible for inclusion. (d) Language: Studies published in English were included. Studies were excluded if they did not meet the above inclusion criteria or if they were duplicates. Individuals with mental disorders and various types of clinical samples were also excluded. Two independent authors screened the retrieved studies for eligibility, and any discrepancies were resolved through discussion or consultation with a third author ( Buscemi et al., 2006 ).

2.1 Data extraction and coding

The coding procedures for this meta-analysis involved the selection of relevant variables and the extraction of data from the included studies. Two independent coders were responsible for the coding process, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus ( Castillo-Montoya, 2016 ). The details of coding are as follows: (a) Study characteristics: Information was extracted regarding each study’s authors, publication year, and research design. (b) Sample characteristics: Data were recorded ( Lipsey and Wilson, 2001 ) related to sample size and demographics such as age, gender, and cultural background. Sample gender was coded as the percentage of females. Sample age was coded categorically based on participants’ age range. Samples with a mean age below 13 years were coded as “child” (ch). Samples with a mean age below 19 years were coded as “adolescent” (ad). Samples with a mean age of 19 years or above were coded as “adult” (al). Sample cultural background was coded into East and West categories based on geographical proximity and cultural commonalities. China and Korea were classified as East (e). The United States, Spain, Germany, Canada, and Poland were classified as West (w). (c) Effect sizes: the Pearsons’ r was utilized as the primary effect size metric to assess the strength and direction of relationships between variables. Effect sizes were extracted from studies. If unavailable, they were calculated from reported statistics (e.g., means, standard deviations, sample sizes) using validated methods ( Wilson, 2001 ). (d) Corporal punishment severity: Corporal punishment severity was categorized into three levels based on the injury inflicted (physically and psychologically)- low-level corporal punishment (LCP), medium-level corporal punishment (MCP), and high-level corporal punishment (HCP). LCP incorporated less than one instance of spanking, deprivation of privileges, inductive discipline, and mild forms. MCP involved more than two instances of spanking, power-assertive techniques, penalty tasks, lax or reactive approaches, verbal punishment, caning, and slapping. Finally, HCP included psychological aggression, harsh corporal punishment, and punitive discipline ( Larzelere, 2000 ). (e) VBS type: VBS type was categorized into four categories based on the severity of VBS, from low to high: anti-social behavior, aggressive behavior, violence, and crime. (f) Additional information: Any additional relevant information, such as subgroup analyses, moderators, or follow-up data, was also coded when available ( Lipsey and Wilson, 2001 ).

2.2 Quality assessment

The Troyer scale is used to evaluate the quality of studies in the current meta-analysis ( Troyer and Younts, 1997 ). It involves assessing each study based on several criteria: (a) Sample representativeness and heterogeneity: Studies get 2 points for having a representative, heterogeneous sample; 1 point for a moderately representative sample; and 0 points for an unrepresentative sample. (b) Effect size calculation: Studies get 2 points for using appropriate statistical methods to calculate effect sizes; 1 point for using basic methods; and 0 points for not providing effect sizes. (c) Peer-review: Studies published in peer-reviewed journals get 1 point; non-peer-reviewed studies get 0 points. (d) Sample size: Studies with n  ≥ 100 get 2 points; studies with 50 ≤  n < 100 get 1 point; studies with n < 50 get 0 points. (e) The points are summed to give an overall quality rating: 7–8 represents high quality; 4–6 represents Medium quality; 0–3 represents Low quality. By assessing indicators like sample characteristics, statistical analysis, peer review, and sample size, the Troyer scale provides a relatively comprehensive measure of study quality for meta-analyses.

2.3 Meta-analysis procedure

The coded data were synthesized using meta for packages in R ( R Core Team, 2016 ). Given that some effect sizes are got from the same sample in current data, the three-level meta-analytic methods with random effect size model were used to calculate overall effect sizes and assess heterogeneity among studies, because we hypothesis that there are significant heterogeneity exist. Three-level meta-analysis is a statistical technique employed in meta-analytic research to address the potential issue of non-independence among effect sizes derived from the same sample. To accommodate this non-independence, three-level meta-analysis employs a more sophisticated approach to estimating the overall effect size and its associated uncertainty. Before the formal meta-analysis, each correlation coefficient underwent Fisher’s z-transformation ( Gleser and Olkin, 2009 ), due to the non-normal distribution of correlation coefficients, unless the population correlation coefficient equates to zero. Consequently, this weighting scheme led to larger-scale studies exerting a more substantial influence during the pooling process. Additionally, we conducted an exploration of potential outliers using studentized residuals and executed leave-one-out sensitivity analyses ( Viechtbauer and Cheung, 2010 ).

To explore potential factors that might influence the relationship, we conducted several meta-regressions with categorical variables are dummy codes. To address the issue of Type I errors in analyzing the dummy coded categorical variables, which can arise from multiple comparisons, we applied Bonferroni correction to adjust the probability values ( Jafari and Ansari-Pour, 2019 ). Publication bias is a significant concern in meta-analytic research. It can distort effect size estimates and lead to incorrect conclusions ( Begg and Mazumdar, 1994 ; Egger et al., 1997 ). To tackle this issue, we examined publication bias using various diagnostic methods as follows: we generated funnel plots for effect sizes, displaying effect size estimates against their standard errors. A symmetric funnel plot suggests a lower likelihood of publication bias, while asymmetry may indicate the presence of bias ( Sterne et al., 2011 ). We also used the recommended adapted Egger’s regression test to Diagnostics the possible of publication bias ( Rodgers and Pustejovsky, 2020 ). This method is proved to be more suitable to deal with meta-analytic data with multi-level ( Ditzer et al., 2023 ). the tim-fill method and Rosenthal’s fail-safe N method are also used for detecting publication bias ( Rosenthal, 1979 ; Duval and Tweedie, 2000 ).

3.1 Inclusion of studies and coding consistency

Our initial search was conducted up to July 2023, and subsequently, we conducted an updated systematic search for any newly published studies up to January 2024. This comprehensive search generated a total of 4,833 results. After a meticulous review, we eliminated 1,660 duplicate records and excluded 2,573 studies that did not align with our inclusion criteria.

Finally, we proceeded to assess 600 articles through a thorough examination of their full texts. Unfortunately, 565 of these studies did not provide the essential effect size data required for our analysis. Ultimately, we included a total of 35 pertinent studies, encompassing 144 effect sizes involved 159,213 participants.

For transparency, we have provided a visual representation of the document inclusion process in Figure 1 . It was a high level of agreement, reaching 89%, between the two coders in the selection of relevant literature. To ensure the reliability of our coding process, we utilized Kappa statistic and the Intraclass Correlations Coefficient (ICC). The consistency and agreement in our coding were robust, with values ranging from 0.84 (Kappa) to 0.96. Any discrepancies in coding were promptly resolved through collaborative consensus discussions. Comprehensive information regarding the studies that were included in our analysis can be found in Table 1 .

Figure 1 . PRISMA flow diagram for new systematic review.

Table 1 . Comprehensive information of included studies.

3.2 Overall effect size

The primary effects analysis incorporated 35 pertinent studies, encompassing 144 effect sizes. Sensitivity analysis (with studentized residuals > 2.5 and Cook’s d value > 0.4) found no outlines. To account for the anticipated presence of moderators that could contribute to effect size heterogeneity, we employed a random effects model for the meta-analysis. The combined effect size of corpral punishment and VBS was calculated to be r  = 0.238, with a 95% confidence interval of [0.176, 0.300]. This substantial effect size is indicative of small but significant positive relationship between corpral punishment and VBS as recommended by Lipsey and Wilson’s criterion for defining a high correlation ( Lipsey and Wilson, 2001 ). In terms of the distribution of variance, approximately 9.49%of the variance is attributed to within-study factors ( I 2 level2 ), while 89.6% is attributed to between-study factors ( I 2 level3 ). This result provides robust support for Hypothesis.

3.3 Result of publication bias

In our assessment for the potential presence of publication bias, we employed a multifaceted approach. First and foremost, we scrutinized a funnel diagram ( Figure 2 ) as an integral component of our analysis. Additionally, Due to the nested structure of the data, the traditional Egger’s test for publication bias is not applicable. Therefore, we employed the latest MAML Egger’s test, which uses the standard error of the effect size as a function ( Rodgers and Pustejovsky, 2020 ). If the regression coefficient of the effect size on the standard error variation is significant, it indicates the presence of significant publication bias. The results of yielded a b value of −0.4126 ( p  = 0.500) which shown little evidence for publication bias. Thirdly, we applied the trim-fill method to estimate the number of potentially missing studies on the opposite side of the funnel plot (the number is 0) ( Duval and Tweedie, 2000 ). we also conducted an analysis using Rosenthal’s fail-safe N (safety number) ( Rosenthal, 1979 ). The result revealed a Fail-safe N value of 1,757,217, which is greater than 5*k + 10, where “k” represents the number of observed studies. All of these methods consistently support our conclusion that there is little evidence of substantial publication bias impacting our study results.

Figure 2 . The contour-enhanced funnel plot. The y-axis displays the standard error, while Fisher’s z is plotted on the x-axis. The observed effect sizes are represented by black dots. The overall mean effect is depicted by a middle dashed line. The contour lines, progressing from inner to outer, delineate the 90%, 95%, 99% pseudo confidence interval regions.

3.4 Results of main effect

The results were obtained from the random effect models of three-level meta-analyses. For the overall model, the result showed a positive correlation ( r = 0.238; 95% CI = [0.176, 0.300]), exhibiting a small effect size ( Cohen, 1992 ). As for the LCP model, the result showed a positive relationship ( r = 0.220; 95% CI = [0.089, 0.350]), exhibiting a small to medium effect size. As for the MCP model, a positive relationship ( r = 0.225; 95% CI = [0.162, 0.288]) was found, exhibiting a small to medium effect size. Furthermore, the pooled effect size of the HCP model showed a positive relationship, but the association is not significant ( r = 0.318; 95% CI = [−0.128, 0.764]). Table 2 depicts the results of the main effect analyses.

Table 2 . Pooled effect sizes of corporal punishment-vbs association.

3.5 Result of meta-regression

In order to thoroughly investigate potential moderating factors influencing our research, such as publication year, age, gender, culture VBS type and punishment severity, we carried out comprehensive meta-regression analyses. The outcomes of these analyses are summarized as follows (see Table 2 ): (a) Publication year ( b = 0.005, p = 0.092) did not demonstrate a statistically significant moderating influence on the relationship under investigation. (b) With adulthood as the reference category, developmental stage exhibited non-significant moderating effects for both children ( b = −0.60, p = 0.416) and adolescents ( b = 0.082, p = 0.404) on the relationship. (c) Gender ( b = 0.002, p = 0.067) did not yield a statistically significant moderating effect. (d) Culture ( b = 0.029, p = 0.679) also failed to exert a statistically significant moderating impact. (e)With aggression as the reference category, VBS type exhibited non-significant moderating effects for anti-social behavior ( b = 0.095, p = 0.166), Violence ( b = 0.072, p = 0.471) and Criminal behavior ( b = −0.133, p = 0.182) on the relationship. (f) With low punishment level as the reference category, punishment level exhibited a significant moderating effect for both medium punishment level ( b = 0.084, p = 0.010) and high punishment level ( b = 0.134, p = 0.004) on the relationship. The analysis revealed a noteworthy finding, indicating that punishment severity indeed exerts a statistically significant moderation effect on the relationship, signifying its importance in our study. We also performed subgroup analyses to uncover the specific effect sizes associated with each category of moderators (refer to Table 3 ).

Table 3 . Results of moderators for the effect sizes.

4 Discussion

This study employed a three-level meta-analysis system to delve into the relationship between corporal punishment and the Violent Behavior Spectrum (VBS). The findings revealed a statistically significant but modest effect size between the two variables. These results are consistent with previous empirical studies and meta-analyses, providing further support for social learning theory as a relevant framework. Moreover, the analysis of moderating effects shed light on the significant impact of the intensity of corporal punishment on the relationship between corporal punishment and VBS. This finding aligns with previous studies and offers valuable insights into the nuanced boundary conditions of the relationship between corporal punishment and VBS ( Ferguson, 2013 ; Patrick and Drislane, 2015 ). From a practical perspective, these research findings carry substantial implications for guiding future interventions and developing programs aimed at preventing and addressing the VBS.

4.1 Corporal punishment and VBS

The current findings revealed a positive correlation between corporal punishment and VBS. The findings align with prior research ( Gershoff, 2002 ). This consistency across studies underscores the robustness of this association and provides a solid foundation for our exploration of the intricate mechanisms that underlie this relationship. As we delve deeper into the theoretical underpinnings, it becomes evident that social learning theory offers invaluable insights into explaining the observed correlation. This theoretical framework, firmly grounded in Bandura’s influential work ( Bandura and Jeffrey, 1973 ), emphasizes the role of observational learning in shaping behavior. In the context of corporal punishment, it proposes that when children are exposed to adults employing violence as a disciplinary tactic, they become susceptible to modeling this behavior. The process is akin to a form of social mimicry, where children internalize the observed violent actions and subsequently replicate them in their own interpersonal interactions. Therefore, the positive correlation between corporal punishment and VBS can be attributed to this intricate social learning process. Children, as per this theory, may perceive violence as a legitimate and effective means of problem-solving or conflict resolution because they have witnessed its application by authority figures, such as parents or caregivers. This modeling effect can lead to the adoption of violent behaviors as a learned response to challenging situations, thereby strengthening the link between corporal punishment and the manifestation of VBS. Simultaneously, this study deepens our understanding of the theory of socio-moral development. Rewards and punishments can be used to uphold societal moral standards. When the purpose of punishment is to aid children in learning moral norms and the severity is relatively low, it may not increase aggressive behavior in children. However, highly severe and frequent punishment can contribute to subsequent aggression ( Baker and Liu, 2021 ; Geraci et al., 2023 ).

4.2 Punishment severity as a moderator

In our study, we have uncovered pivotal moderating influences that shed light on the relationship between corporal punishment and the Violent Behavior Spectrum (VBS). These insights provide invaluable guidance for understanding the intricate dynamics at play.

Control theories posit that corporal punishment, when judiciously administered without excessive severity, can serve as a tool to reinforce self-regulation and potentially deter future antisocial behavior ( Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990 ). This perspective hinges on a crucial distinction between the consequences of mild versus severe punishment, aligning with contrasting theoretical models—one emphasizing learning and the other focusing on control. Our findings align with this theoretical framework and resonate with extensive empirical evidence. Notably, Gershoff’s meta-analysis established a clear dose–response relationship, linking more severe and frequent corporal punishment to higher levels of child aggression ( Gershoff, 2002 ). Longitudinal studies have similarly highlighted that experiences of physical abuse during childhood correlate with subsequent involvement in violent crimes, whereas mild spanking does not share this association ( Ferguson, 2013 ). This divergence in outcomes can be attributed to the fact that severe punishment may trigger hostile attribution and heightened rejection sensitivity, whereas milder disciplinary measures offer an avenue for learning without causing trauma ( Xu et al., 2023 ).

4.3 Limitations and future directions

Despite providing valuable insights, this meta-analysis has limitations that present intriguing future research directions: (a) Included studies exhibited methodological and demographic homogeneity. Examining more diverse studies conducted in varying cultural contexts and age groups would be beneficial; (b) The correlational nature of included studies precludes determining causality definitively. Longitudinal designs could offer deeper understanding of the temporal relationship; (c) Measurement heterogeneity may have introduced bias. Standardized, consistent tools could enhance comparability; (d) Context-specific corporal punishment approach impacts on violent tendencies may be a valuable research avenue; (e) Previous research suggests that children’s understanding of corporal punishment may moderate the relationship between corporal punishment and aggressive behavior. However, quantifying children’s perceptions regarding corporal punishment has posed challenges in past work. Therefore, we did not encode children’s understanding as a moderating variable in our study. Going forward, developing quantifiable measures to assess how individuals perceive and comprehend corporal punishment could prove informative. Incorporating such metrics as moderators may further elucidate the nuances of how corporal punishment potentially impacts aggressive behavior; (f) The relatively few included studies led to insufficient statistical power for some subgroup analyses. Understanding when and where certain disciplinary strategies are more or less effective is essential for practical implications. Further research should also evaluate interventions aimed at reducing corporal punishment and associated outcomes. This would provide actionable insights for policymakers and practitioners.

5 Conclusion

In this meta-analysis, we uncovered a mild yet significant correlation between corporal punishment and subsequent violent tendencies, moderated by punishment severity, aligning with theories on conflicting learning and control mechanisms. While more research is warranted, these insights underscore measured, context-aware disciplinary approaches’ importance as we strive to foster safer environments for children and adolescents.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

QP: Conceptualization, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SC: Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing – review & editing. YQ: Data curation, Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Afifi, T. O., Ford, D., Gershoff, E. T., Merrick, M., Grogan-Kaylor, A., Ports, K. A., et al. (2017). Spanking and adult mental health impairment: the case for the designation of spanking as an adverse childhood experience. Child Abuse Negl. 71, 24–31. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.01.014

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Begg, C. B., and Mazumdar, M. (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 50, 1088–1101. doi: 10.2307/2533446

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Baker, E. R., and Liu, Q. (2021). Moral reasoning and moral behavior: intersections of reasoning with aggressive forms and functions in early childhood. Early Educ. Dev. 32, 534–552. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2020.1780561

Bandura, A. (1978). The self-system in reciprocal determinism. Am. Psychol. 33, 344–358. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.33.4.344

Bandura, A., and Jeffrey, R. W. (1973). Role of symbolic coding and rehearsal processes in observational learning. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 26, 122–130. doi: 10.1037/h0034205

Brent, D. (2011). Nonsuicidal self-injury as a predictor of suicidal behavior in depressed adolescents. Am. J. Psychiatry 168, 452–454. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.11020215

Buscemi, N., Hartling, L., Vandermeer, B., Tjosvold, L., and Klassen, T. P. (2006). Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 59, 697–703. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.11.010

Bushman, B. J. (2018). Narcissism, fame seeking, and mass shootings. Am. Behav. Sci. 62, 229–241. doi: 10.1177/000276421773966

Buss, A. H., and Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. J. Consult. Psychol. 21, 343–349. doi: 10.1037/h0046900

Castillo-Montoya, M. (2016). Preparing for interview research: the interview protocol refinement framework. Qualitat. Rep. (TQR) 21, 811–831. doi: 10.46743/2160-3715/2016.2337

Coccaro, E. F., Berman, M. E., and Kavoussi, R. J. (1997). Assessment of life history of aggression: development and psychometric characteristics. Psychiatry Res. 73, 147–157. doi: 10.1016/S0165-1781(97)00119-4

Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 1, 98–101. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783

Cooper, H., and Patall, E. A. (2009). The relative benefits of meta-analysis conducted with individual participant data versus aggregated data. Psychol. Methods. 14, 165–176. doi: 10.1037/a0015565

Ditzer, J., Wong, E. Y., Modi, R. N., Behnke, M., Gross, J. J., and Talmon, A. (2023). Child maltreatment and alexithymia: a meta-analytic review. Psychol. Bull. 149, 311–329. doi: 10.1037/bul0000391

Durrant, J., and Ensom, R. (2012). Physical punishment of children: lessons from 20 years of research. CMAJ 184, 1373–1377. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.101314

Duval, S., and Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 56, 455–463. doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x

Egger, M., Smith, G. D., and Phillips, A. N. (1997). Meta-analysis: principles and procedures. Bmj. 315, 1533–1537. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7121.1533

Emler, N. P. (1987). Socio-moral development from the perspective of social representations. J. Theory Soc. Behav. 17, 371–388. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5914.1987.tb00104.x

Eriksson, K., Strimling, P., Andersson, P. A., and Lindholm, T. (2017). Costly punishment in the ultimatum game evokes moral concern, in particular when framed as payoff reduction. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 69, 59–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2016.09.004

Ferguson, C. J. (2013). Spanking, corporal punishment and negative long-term outcomes: a meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 33, 196–208. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2012.11.002

Flannery, D. J., Vazsonyi, A. T., and Waldman, I. D. (2007). The Cambridge handbook of violent behavior and aggression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Google Scholar

Geraci, A. (2021). Toddlers’ expectations of corporal third-party punishments against the non-defender puppet. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 210:105199. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2021.105199

Geraci, A., Franchin, L., Govrin, A., and Rigo, P. (2023). Nature and determinants of socio-moral development: theories, methods and applications. Front. Psychol. 14:1296472. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1296472

Geraci, A., and Surian, L. (2021). Toddlers' expectations of third-party punishments and rewards following an act of aggression. Aggress. Behav. 47, 521–529. doi: 10.1002/ab.21979

Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: a meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychol. Bull. 128, 539–579. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.539

Gershoff, E. T., and Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2016). Spanking and child outcomes: old controversies and new meta-analyses. J. Fam. Psychol. 30, 453–469. doi: 10.1037/fam0000191

Gleser, L., and Olkin, I. (2009). “Stochastically dependent effect sizes,” in T he handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis , eds. V. H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, and J. C. (New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation), 357–376.

Gottfredson, M. R., and Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Huesmann, L. R. (2018). An integrative theoretical understanding of aggression: a brief exposition. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 19, 119–124. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.04.015

Huesmann, L. R., and Kirwil, L. (2007). Why observing violence increases the risk of violent behavior in the observer . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .

Jacques, S., and Wright, R. (2008). The victimization - termination link. Criminology 46, 1009–1038. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2008.00131.x

Jafari, M., and Ansari-Pour, N. (2019). Why, when and how to adjust your p values? Cell. 20, 604–607. doi: 10.22074/cellj.2019.5992

Kohlberg, L. (1976). “Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-development approach” in Moral development and behavior: Theory research and social issues , 31–53.

Lansford, J. E., Chang, L., Dodge, K. A., Malone, P. S., Oburu, P., Palmérus, K., et al. (2005). Physical discipline and children’s adjustment: Cultural normativeness as a moderator. Child Dev. 76, 1234–1246. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00847.x

Larzelere, R. E., and Kuhn, B. R. (2005). Comparing child outcomes of physical punishment and alternative disciplinary tactics: A meta-analysis. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 8, 1–37. doi: 10.1007/s10567-005-2340-z

Larzelere, R. E. (1996). A review of the outcomes of parental use of nonabusive or customary physical punishment. Pediatrics 98, 824–828. doi: 10.1542/peds.98.4.824

Larzelere, R. E. (2000). Child outcomes of nonabusive and customary physical punishment by parents: an updated literature review. Clin. Child. Fam. Psychol. Rev. 3, 199–221. doi: 10.1023/A:1026473020315

Lee, Y. E., and Warneken, F. (2020). Children's evaluations of third-party responses to unfairness: children prefer helping over punishment. Cognition 205:104374. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104374

Lipsey, M. W., and Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Lorber, M. F., and Slep, A. M. S. (2018). The reliability paradox of the parent-child conflict tactics corporal punishment subscale. J. Fam. Psychol. 32, 145–150. doi: 10.1037/fam0000307

McAuliffe, K., Raihani, N. J., and Dunham, Y. (2017). Children are sensitive to norms of giving. Cognition 167, 151–159. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.01.006

McCord, J. (1988). Parental behavior in the cycle of aggression. Psychiatry 51, 14–23. doi: 10.1080/00332747.1988.11024376

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71

Paolucci, E. O., and Violato, C. (2004). A meta-analysis of the published research on the affective, cognitive, and behavioral effects of corporal punishment. J. Psychol. 138, 197–222. doi: 10.3200/jrlp.138.3.197-222

Patrick, C. J., and Drislane, L. E. (2015). Triarchic model of psychopathy: origins, operationalizations, and observed linkages with personality and general psychopathology. J. Pers. 83, 627–643. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12119

R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing . R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.

Rodgers, M. A., and Pustejovsky, J. E. (2020). Evaluating meta-analytic methods to detect selective reporting in the presence of dependent effect sizes. Psychol. Methods 26, 141–160. doi: 10.1037/met0000300

Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychol. Bull. 86, 638–641. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638

Sánchez-Sansegundo, M., Portilla-Tamarit, I., Rubio-Aparicio, M., Albaladejo-Blazquez, N., Ruiz-Robledillo, N., Ferrer-Cascales, R., et al. (2020). Neurocognitive functioning and suicidal behavior in violent offenders with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Diagnostics (Basel) 10:1091. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics10121091

Smith, J., Mulford, C., Latzman, N. E., Tharp, A. T., Niolon, P. H., and Blachman-Demner, D. (2015). Taking stock of behavioral measures of adolescent dating violence. J. Aggress. Maltreat. Trauma 24, 674–692. doi: 10.1080/10926771.2015.1049767

Sroufe, L. A. (2005). Attachment and development: a prospective, longitudinal study from birth to adulthood. Attach Hum. Dev. 7, 349–367. doi: 10.1080/14616730500365928

Steinberg, L. (2009). Should the science of adolescent brain development inform public policy? Am. Psychol. 64, 739–750. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.64.8.739

Straus, M. A. (1997). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in American families and its effects on children . New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Sterne, J. A., Sutton, A. J., Ioannidis, J. P., Terrin, N., Jones, D. R., Lau, J., et al. (2011). Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. Bmj. 343:d4002. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d4002

Taylor, R. D., Oberle, E., Durlak, J. A., and Weissberg, R. P. (2017). Promoting positive youth development through school-based social and emotional learning interventions: a meta-analysis of follow-up effects. Child Dev. 88, 1156–1171. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12864

Troyer, L. A., and Younts, C. W. (1997). Whose expectations matter? The relative power of first- and second-order expectations in determining social influence. Am. J. Sociol. 103, 692–732. doi: 10.1086/231209

Viechtbauer, W., and Cheung, M. W. L. (2010). Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Res. Synth. Methods 1, 112–125. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.11

Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis effect size calculator [Online calculator]. Available at: https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/research-resources/effect-size-calculator.html .

Xu, X., Wu, Y., Xu, Y., Ding, M., Zhou, S., and Long, S. (2023). The role of parent-child attachment, hostile attribution bias in aggression: A meta-analytic review. Trauma violence abuse. 15248380231210920. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/15248380231210920,

Zhu, J., Yu, C., Bao, Z., Jiang, Y., Zhang, W., Chen, Y., et al. (2017). Deviant peer affiliation as an explanatory mechanism in the association between corporal punishment and physical aggression: a longitudinal study among Chinese adolescents. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 45, 1537–1551. doi: 10.1007/s10802-016-0259-0

Ziv, T., Whiteman, J. D., and Sommerville, J. A. (2021). Toddlers' interventions toward fair and unfair individuals. Cognition 214:104781. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104781

Keywords: corporal punishment, violent behavior spectrum, meta-analysis, children, VBS

Citation: Pan Q, Chen S and Qu Y (2024) Corporal punishment and violent behavior spectrum: a meta-analytic review. Front. Psychol . 15:1323784. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1323784

Received: 18 October 2023; Accepted: 24 January 2024; Published: 07 February 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Pan, Chen and Qu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Siru Chen, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

The Consequences of Corporal Punishment

• Posted December 2, 2019
• By Andrew Bauld

Despite the adverse effects of physical punishment on a child’s development, including increased antisocial behavior and higher risks of depression and other mental health problems, only 53 countries have outright banned the practice. In fact, in Colombia, a country that has been rocked with civil conflict for over half a century, corporal punishment continues to be seen by many as an acceptable punishment for children.

It was unclear just how pervasive corporal punishment in Colombia was until education Ph.D. student Jorge Cuartas made it his mission to shine a light on the practice in his home country and work to ban its use. An economist, Cuartas was a research assistant examining the impact of the Colombian Civil War on displaced citizens when he began to trace the connection between violence occurring at the national level and violence impacting children.

“I was at the Universidad de Los Andes, working with the displaced population of Colombians, and I made the connection between the psychological consequences of war and violence on parental practices,” Cuartas says. “These people were receiving economic support, but we weren’t thinking about the consequences for these young children living in this context and the cycle of violence that was going on.”

Beyond the shock of the testimonies of parents citing the use of violence to discipline their children, Cuartas was also stunned by the lack of research highlighting the problem of corporal punishment in Colombia. Using data from Colombia’s Demographic and Health Surveys, Cuartas produced one of the first studies to make visible the prevalence of corporal punishment in the country. He found that in 2015, nearly 1.7 million children, or almost 40% of children under the age of 5, were exposed to physical punishment.

“And this was at a time when violence had been decreasing nationally,” Cuartas says. “So, for me, it became fundamental to define strategies aimed at protecting children and to influence policymakers to pay attention to this issue.”

At HGSE, Cuartas worked with his adviser, Assistant Professor Dana McCoy , to place Colombia’s incidence of corporal punishment in a wider global context. Using data from UNICEF’s Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys of women and children in low- and middle-income countries, Cuartas found that, despite decades of efforts to educate caregivers about the dangers of using physical violence on children, hundreds of millions of 2- to 4-year-olds were still being exposed to aggressive physical and psychological discipline.

Cuartas set out to influence policymakers to pay attention. Despite nearly half of Colombians approving of parental use of physical punishment, Cuartas spent two years lobbying the Colombian Congress to take up the issue of corporal punishment. At the same time, he began working with the Colombian Institute for Family Welfare (ICBF), which leads child and family policy in the country, to design interventions to reduce corporal punishment. His work helped convince ICBF to prioritize the topic of corporal punishment in their policy agenda this year.

“Jorge's work is unique not only because it draws attention to violence-related issues in an under-represented context, but also because it uses the most advanced statistical methods available to convincingly establish the negative consequences of corporal punishment and community violence on children's developmental outcomes,” McCoy says. “Jorge's work is not only impacting public opinion and policy in Colombia but is also advancing the field of developmental psychology as a whole.”

In October, Cuartas’ efforts brought him front and center of the issue when he was invited to testify before the Colombian Congress as they debated a new law to ban corporal punishment, a law that cites several of Cuartas’ research findings on the lasting effects of corporal punishment on children.

“It was amazing,” Cuartas says. “There was one representative openly against the law who said spanking was good, but in the end, I felt I convinced her of the risks. It was very exciting.”

Having accomplished so much already, Cuartas has no plans to slow down. This year he has another report coming out, coauthored with Harvard University psychology professor Katie McLaughlin, which shows the neurobiological impact of corporal punishment on a child’s brain.

“I was very surprised to find that corporal punishment affects the same brain areas that are affected by severe physical and sexual abuse,” Cuartas said. “The magnitude was lower, but to see that spanking impacts a child’s brain development in the same way was a big surprise.”

In addition to his academic study, Cuartas is continuing to work with the ICBF to scale interventions for families across Colombia, and he is co-directing the nonprofit Apapacho , which provides families in Bogotá, Colombia, with workshops and resources aimed at fostering positive parental practices.

“We’re beginning to see a global change of how corporal punishment is considered, and now it is easier to see that it is not effective and that there are alternatives. I am absolutely hopeful.”

The latest research, perspectives, and highlights from the Harvard Graduate School of Education

Related Articles

Discipline in Schools: Why is Hitting Still an Option?

A pediatrician discusses the prevalence and effects of corporal punishment in schools, and what it might take to end it for good

The Movements Making Change in Public Schools

The current influence of mom groups could shape the future of education

Stories Shared

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

Parental Beliefs and Actual Use of Corporal Punishment, School Violence and Bullying, and Depression in Early Adolescence

Ji-kang chen.

1 Department of Social Work, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; kh.ude.khuc.knil@naPnixiZ

Li-Chih Wang

2 Department of Special Education, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu 300044, Taiwan; wt.ude.uhtn.xm@clgnaw

Associated Data

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author and with permission of the Survey and Behavioural Research Committee, Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Prior studies on adverse outcomes of parental corporal punishment on children have focused on examining one of two broad domains of parental corporal punishment: parental beliefs or actual use. Recently, researchers have argued that parental belief and actual use of corporal punishment should work jointly to contribute to children’s depression and involvement in school violence. Yet, studies supporting this proposition are lacking. This study examined the indirect link from parental attitudes towards corporal punishment to children’s depression and school violence involvement through actual use of corporal punishment. Four hundred and thirty-three elementary school students and their parents in Taiwan participated in this study. The results indicate that positive parental attitudes towards corporal punishment do not predict children’s depression and involvement in school violence. However, parental attitudes towards corporal punishment had significant indirect relationships with depression and involvement in school violence through the actual use of corporal punishment. These findings applied to both genders. This study supports the proposition that parental attitudes and the actual use of corporal punishment could work together to predict children’s depression and school violence. Future intervention programs for decreasing children’s depressive symptoms and involvement in school violence might need to tackle corporal punishment in the family.

1. Introduction

School violence and bullying as well as depression are of significant concern to the public worldwide, particularly among school-aged children [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. Around 10–20% of children globally experience mental health problems and depression, one of the leading causes of illness and disability among children [ 5 ]. Nearly one in three children experienced at least one form of bullying and violence by school peers [ 6 ]. A recent report has also indicated that nearly 30% of children suffer from mental disorders in Taiwan, and around 3% have thought about taking their own lives [ 7 ]. In addition, school bullying and violence are widespread in Taiwan [ 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ], and student victimization by peers, student perpetration against peers, student and maltreatment by teachers are three major forms negatively influencing Taiwanese school-aged students’ well-being [ 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 ].

Until now, numerous studies have been conducted to explore different factors associated with children’s depression, school violence, and bullying [ 9 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ]. Parental corporal punishment, a common parenting practice to discipline children in many countries, particularly in East Asian cultures, such as Taiwan, has been theorized as a potential factor contributing to children’s negative psychological and behavioral outcomes [ 12 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ]. However, relatively few empirical studies have been conducted to examine such direct links, and most of these studies have typically focused on examining one of two broad domains of parental corporal punishment: parental beliefs or actual use of corporal punishment [ 12 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ].

Recently, researchers have argued that positive parental attitudes towards corporal punishment and actual use of corporal punishment are unlikely to act in isolation, and they should be considered jointly to identify risks for children’s psychological and behavioral problems, such as depression and school violence [ 27 ]. Several theories and interactive models provide potential frameworks to further understand how positive parental attitudes towards corporal punishment interact with their actual use to influence their children’s psychological and behavioral health. For example, the three-component model of parenting cognitions, parenting practice, and child adjustment [ 28 ] suggests that certain parental beliefs and values about child rearing, such as parental attitudes toward corporal punishment, guide their rearing practices (e.g., actual use of corporal punishment against children), which, in turn, influence their children’s psychological and behavioral outcomes (e.g., depression and school violence). However, few investigations have simultaneously studied the independent and joint contributions of parental beliefs and actual use of corporal punishment to children’s depression and involvement in school violence [ 27 ]; moreover, much fewer empirical studies have been conducted on the indirect influence of parental attitudes towards corporal punishment on children’s depression and involvement in school violence through actual parental use of corporal punishment.

Furthermore, previous studies on the associations of parental corporal punishment with children’s internalizing and externalizing problems relied primarily on parent surveys to examine research hypotheses [ 25 ]. It is problematic because previous studies have argued that parents’ reports of children’s internalizing and externalizing problems might not reflect children’s psychological and behavioral conditions accurately, decreasing the validity of these studies [ 12 ]. Recently, scholars have suggested adopting multiple reports (e.g., parents and children) to measure parenting and children’s outcome variables to prevent common-method variance and increase research validity [ 11 , 12 , 29 , 30 , 31 ]. However, empirical studies employing multiple perspectives to examine such links are still lacking.

Using multiple pieces of information from parents and children, the current study aims to examine joint contributions of parental beliefs and actual use of corporal punishment to children’s depression and involvement in school violence and proposes a theoretical model to examine the indirect pathways from parental attitudes towards corporal punishment to children’s depression and involvement in school violence through actual parental use of corporal punishment.

1.1. Literature Review

A literature review indicates that theories and empirical studies on the associations between corporal punishment and negative effects on children have mainly explored or examined the direct associations of either parental attitudes/endorsement or actual use of corporal punishment on children’s external and internal problems in separate studies [ 12 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ]. We briefly illustrate the relevant theories and studies in the following paragraphs.

1.1.1. Outcomes of Parental Actual Use of Corporal Punishment

Numerous theories and studies have suggested the direct link from the actual parental use of corporal punishment to children’s internal and external problems. For example, social control theory and social bonding perspectives have suggested that a weak bond with society enhances children’s motivations to engage in deviant behaviors, including school violence [ 32 , 33 ]. These theories suggest that the high quality of attachment with parents is one of the influential social bonds preventing children from further deviant behaviors [ 34 , 35 ]. Parental actual use of corporal punishment has been recognized as an aggressive act against children that may erode the affectionate attachment bond between parent and child [ 33 , 36 ]. Once parents use corporal punishment against their children, the strength of the bonds and relationships between parents and children may deteriorate, which in turn increases children’s risk of being involved in delinquent and violent behavior, such as school violence [ 20 , 33 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 ]. In addition, actual parental use of corporal punishment against children may lessen children’s sense of felt security in the family [ 41 ], enhancing children’s risk of suffering psychological distress, such as depression, anxiety, and fearfulness [ 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ]. A substantial body of empirical studies from East and West has consistently shown a significant link from parental use of corporal punishment to toddlers’ and younger children’s general internal and external problems [ 47 , 48 , 49 ]. However, empirical studies examining the link from the actual parental use of corporal punishment to depression and school violence among school-aged children are still lacking.

1.1.2. Outcomes of Parental Beliefs about Corporal Punishment

Numerous theories have considered parental beliefs about corporal punishment as a risk factor in children’s behavioral and emotional problems. For example, emotional security theory suggests that parental aggression or negative parental attitudes, such as supportive beliefs about corporal punishment, may disrupt the children’s development of security and self-regulatory skills in childhood and lead to children’s emotional insecurity, increasing their risk of having emotional and behavioral problems, such as depression and involvement in school violence [ 50 , 51 ]. However, empirical studies on the link from positive parental attitudes towards corporal punishment to depression and school violence have been contradictory. Although most indicated significant associations [ 12 , 52 , 53 ], some did not [ 54 ]. The findings raised the question of whether certain psychosocial mechanisms influence the associations between parental beliefs in corporal punishment and adverse outcomes on children.

1.2. Indirect Pathway through Parental Actual Use of Corporal Punishment

We argue that parental beliefs and actual use of corporal punishment are unlikely to act in isolation, and they should be considered jointly to identify risks for children’s psychological and behavioral problems, such as depression and school violence. Specifically, we hypothesize that the pathway from parental attitudes towards corporal punishment to children’s depression and involvement in school violence and bullying is indirect through parental use of corporal punishment. The three-component model of parenting cognitions, parenting practices, and child adjustment [ 28 ] provides the framework to support this proposition, which suggests that parental cognitions, such as beliefs and values about child-rearing practice, guide their child-rearing practice, which, in turn, determines their children’s behavioral and psychological outcomes [ 28 ]. Accordingly, parents who believe that corporal punishment is an effective parenting method are more likely to use corporal punishment against their children, enhancing children’s risk of psychological distress (e.g., depression) and involvement in negative behavioral outcomes, such as school violence and bullying.

To the best of our knowledge, no empirical studies have employed the parenting cognitions-parenting practice-child adjustment model as a framework to examine how parental beliefs in corporal punishment indirectly influence children’s depression and involvement in school violence through the actual use of corporal punishment. Only one related study conducted by Fass et al. [ 25 ] found the indirect association of Arab mothers’ positive attitudes towards corporal punishment with their kindergarten children’s internalizing and externalizing behaviors through their actual use of punishment. However, that study relied only on mothers’ self-reports of their beliefs, actual use of corporal punishment, and their kindergarten children’s general internal and external problems, which may have led to inflated associations between variables due to shared source and method variance [ 11 , 12 , 55 ]. As a result, how parental beliefs in corporal punishment indirectly influence school-aged or older children’s depression and involvement in school violence through the actual use of corporal punishment is still unclear.

1.3. Aims of the Current Study

In summary, based on the abovementioned review of the literature, the present study used multi-informant data from both parents and their children to examine how parents’ belief and actual use of corporal punishment work together to contribute to depression and involvement in school violence among early adolescence. Specifically, the present study examines a proposed theoretical model (guided by the three-component parenting cognitions-parenting practice-child adjustment model) of indirect effects of parents’ positive attitudes towards corporal punishment on children’s depression, violence against school peers, and victimization by school peers and teachers through parents’ actual use of corporal punishment.

In addition, it has been argued that the interrelationship between parental beliefs about corporal punishment, actual use of corporal punishment, depression, and involvement in school violence may differ between boys and girls, because some of the previous studies showed gender differences in the impacts of corporal punishment on children’s psychological and behavioral outcomes [ 20 , 56 , 57 ]. In contrast, the parenting cognitions-parenting practice-child adjustment model assumes that the interrelations between parental belief/cognitions, parenting practice, and children’s psychological and behavioral outcomes hold for both genders [ 28 ]. Accordingly, the interrelationships between parental beliefs about corporal punishment, actual use of corporal punishment, depression, and involvement in school violence would be similar across genders. However, empirical evidence supporting such a proposition is lacking. Thus, the present study examined whether the proposed theoretical model would differ by a child’s gender. According to parenting cognitions-parenting practice-child adjustment model, we hypothesized no significant differences between boys and girls in the interrelationship between parental beliefs about corporal punishment, actual use of corporal punishment, depression, and involvement in school violence in this study.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. participants and procedures.

The data were a part of a pilot study of a large-scale research project on school violence and bullying in Chinese societies [ 10 , 30 , 58 , 59 ]. The respondents were recruited from students in grades 4 to 6 of elementary schools and both parents in one Taiwanese county. A cluster random sampling strategy was employed in which 20 schools were first randomly selected from over 60 schools in this county. In each of the selected schools, one class from grades 4 to 6 was chosen randomly. All the students in the selected classes and both of their parents were invited to participate in the study. In Taiwan, parent–teacher conferences are commonly held in every school at the beginning of each semester. Both parents are invited to school to discuss their children’s learning and academic progress as well as the school’s teaching plan with school teachers. Concerning the parental sample, questionnaires for parents were distributed by professionally trained survey monitors to both parents of selected students in a waiting room before parent–teacher meetings held at the beginning of the spring semester of 2016. The parent survey comprised items concerning basic demographics and other personal perspectives on parenting. It took about 5–10 min to complete the survey.

Regarding the student sample, students were given a questionnaire in classrooms under the guidance of professionally trained research assistants at the end of the spring semester in 2016 (around 4–5 months after parent–teacher meetings or conferences). The student questionnaire included items assessing students’ personal and school experiences. It took about 35 min to complete the survey.

Written consent was obtained from school principals and teachers, students, and parents before administering the surveys. The ethics committee of the first author’s university reviewed and approved the questionnaires, procedures, and informed consent forms.

A total of 491 students and their parents participated in the study. We excluded 58 students from single-parent families or two-parent families if only one parent returned the completed surveys. Next, we paired students with both of their parents. As a result, our final sample consisted of 433 parent–child triads. Of this sample, 214 (49.4%) students were boys, and 219 (50.6%) were girls.

2.2. Measurement

2.2.1. parental beliefs about corporal punishment.

One item assessed each parent’s beliefs about corporal punishment of their children on a five-point response scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). This item was “I believe that corporal punishment is the effective means of child discipline.” We constructed a latent variable of parental beliefs about corporal punishment using two items: father’s beliefs (factor loading = 0.65) and mother’s beliefs (factor loading = 0.73).

2.2.2. Actual Use of Physical Punishment

Eighteen items were administered to students to evaluate their parents’ use of corporal punishment to discipline them during the semester, with nine items assessing mothers and nine items assessing fathers. These items included common forms of physical punishment against children in Taiwan, such as spanking, slapping, hitting with rods/belts/other objects, kicking, beating, pinching, pushing, seizing, and grabbing. These items were derived from a scale used in previous large-scale surveys in Taiwan to assess different forms of punishment against children [ 60 , 61 ]. The responses were measured on a five-point Likert scale (1 = never to 5 = all the time). Due to the skewed distribution, each item of this scale was dichotomized as 0 (never) and 1 (at least one time). All dichotomized items were summed to indicate the actual use of corporal punishment. Greater scores indicated a higher level of actual use of corporal punishment. In this study, a latent variable of actual parental use of physical punishment was constructed by two factors/subscales: father’s actual use (factor loading = 0.87) and mother’s actual use (factor loading = 0.93).

2.2.3. Student Victimization by Students

Student victimization by students was measured using a five-item scale assessing children’s exposure to peer violence in school during the semester. These five items, selected from a traditional Chinese version of the California School Climate and Safety Survey (CSCSS), asked student participants to rate on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (over 7 times) how frequently they were cursed, verbally insulted, hit/kicked/beaten, socially excluded, and threatened/blackmailed by schoolmates [ 10 , 11 , 13 , 29 , 30 , 62 ]. Because of a skewed distribution, each item was dichotomized as 0 (never) and 1 (at least one time). All dichotomized items were summed to obtain the scores of student victimization by peers. Greater scores indicated a higher level of student exposure to peer violence in school.

2.2.4. Student Perpetration against Students

Student perpetration was assessed with a five-item scale, asking students whether they bullied their peers in school during the semester. The five questions, selected from a traditional Chinese version of CSCSS, asked students to rate on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (over 7 times) how frequently they cursed, insulted, hit/kicked/beat, excluded, and threatened/blackmailed other schoolmates [ 10 , 15 ]. Because of a skewed distribution, each item of this scale was dichotomized as 0 (never) and 1 (at least one time). All dichotomized items were summed to obtain the scores of student perpetration against students. Greater scores indicated a higher level of perpetration against school peers.

2.2.5. Maltreatment by School Teachers

Three items selected from a traditional Chinese version of CSCSS measured the frequencies of children’s maltreatment by teachers during the semester on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (over 7 times) [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ]. The three items asked children how frequently they were hit, kicked, beaten, slapped, cursed, humiliated, mocked, insulted, and publicly satirized by teachers in school. Because of a skewed distribution, each item of this scale was dichotomized as 0 (never) and 1 (at least one time). All dichotomized items were summed to determine the level of maltreatment by teachers. Greater scores indicated a higher level of maltreatment by teachers.

2.2.6. Depression

A latent variable of depression was assessed by three items selected from a subscale of depression in the Brief Symptoms Rating Scale [ 11 , 12 , 58 , 63 , 64 ] measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very severe). These three items evaluated depressive mood (factor loading = 0.75), worthlessness (factor loading = 0.87) and hopeless (factor loading = 0.79). Cronbach’s alpha for these three items was 0.88.

2.3. Plan of Analysis

Descriptive analyses of the variables in this study were conducted first, followed by a latent variables structural equations modeling (SEM) with maximum likelihood estimation tested using the AMOS 25.0 [ 65 ]. A bootstrapping approach ( n = 2000 bootstrap samples) was used to evaluate the indirect effects of parental beliefs about corporal punishment on dependent variables through the actual use of corporal punishment [ 66 ]. Cross-group SEM was applied to examine gender differences in the theoretical model. The model fit was evaluated using the chi-square (χ 2 ) difference test, which was expected to be non-significant; SEM incremental fit indices, including Normed Fit Index (NFI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), and Confirmatory Fit Index (CFI), with values greater than 0.95 indicating a good model fit [ 67 , 68 , 69 ]; and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), with values of less than 0.06 [ 70 ].

3.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations for the study variables broken down by gender. The correlations between variables are shown in Table 2 . The results show a positive correlation between beliefs about corporal punishment and actual use of corporal punishment ( r = 0.16, p < 0.01). Parental use of corporal punishment correlated positively with student victimization by students ( r = 0.27, p < 0.01), student perpetration against students ( r = 0.24, p < 0.01), maltreatment by teachers ( r = 0.14, p < 0.01), and depression ( r = 0.34, p < 0.01). The bivariate correlations between victimization by students, perpetration against students, maltreatment by the teacher, and depression were all positively related, with Pearson’s r values ranging from 0.12 to 0.54. Parental beliefs about corporal punishment were not correlated with victimization by students, perpetration against students, maltreatment by the teacher, and depression in this study (Pearson’s r values ranged from −0.03 to 0.01).

Means and standard deviations of each scale by sex groups (standard deviations in parenthesis).

Note . a On a scale: from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. b On a scale: 0 = never and 1 = at least one time. c On a scale: 1 = not at all to 5 = very severe.

Intercorrelations between variables in the model.

Note . ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.

3.2. Overall Model

Based on the overall sample, the model analysis results show a good fit to the data, χ 2 (23) = 27.00, p > 0 .05, NFI = 0.980, IFI = 0.997, CFI = 0.997, and RMSEA = 0.020. Figure 1 demonstrates the paths in this model.

Overall model. Note. ** p < 0.001; * p < 0.01.

It shows that parental beliefs about corporal punishment had no significant direct association with victimization by students, perpetration against students, maltreatment by teachers, and depression (β = −0.09, β = −0.03, β = −0.02, and β = −0.10, respectively). However, the indirect association of parental beliefs about corporal punishment with victimization by students, perpetration against students, maltreatment by teachers, and depression through actual use of corporal punishment was significant. Overall, actual use of corporal punishment was a significant predictor of victimization by students, perpetration against students, maltreatment by teachers, and depression in this model (β = 0.34, β = 0.27, β = 0.15, and β = 0.39, respectively).

We generated 2000 bootstrapping samples from the original dataset by random sampling to evaluate the indirect effect. The results reveal that the indirect effects of parental beliefs about corporal punishment on victimization by students, perpetration against students, maltreatment by teachers, and depression through actual use of corporal punishment were, respectively, 0.071 (SE = 0.027, CI = [0.029, 0.139], p < 0.01), 0.057 (SE = 0.022, CI = [0.023, 0.116], p < 0.01), 0.031 (SE = 0.014, CI = [0.011, 0.072], p < 0.01), and 0.082 (SE = 0.030, CI = [0.036, 0.158], p < 0.01). The 95% confidence interval did not contain zero, signifying that parental beliefs about corporal punishment had a significant indirect association on all dependent variables via actual use of corporal punishment.

All variables in this model contributed 11% of the explained variance to the victimization by students (R 2 = 0.11), 7% to perpetration against students (R 2 = 0.07), 2% to perpetration against students (R 2 = 0.02), and 15% to depression (R 2 = 0.15), which suggested that the overall model explained depression better than other dependent variables.

3.3. Gender Comparison

In this multi-group SEM analysis, factor loadings and structural paths in this model were first constrained to be equal. The results reveal that the model fit indices were acceptable: χ 2 (59) = 72.316, p > 0 .05, NFI = 0.947, IFI = 0.990, CFI = 0.989, and RMSEA = 0.023. Next, equality constraints on the structural paths were released one at a time but did not produce a significantly enhanced fit. The final unconstrained model fit the data well, with χ 2 (50) =56.753, p > 0 .05, NFI = 0.958, IFI = 0.995, CFI = 0.995, and RMSEA = 0.018. Chi-square differences between constrained and unconstrained models showed no significant differences (Δ χ 2 (9) = 15.563, p > 0.05), which indicated that no gender differences were found in the model. Figure 2 presents the results of this analysis, which indicates that the regression coefficients between genders for each path and the explained variance accounting for each dependent variable for both genders were similar.

Sex comparison. Note . The coefficients in regular print and those in bold italics represent the results for boy and girl samples, respectively. ** p < 0.001; * p < 0.01.

4. Discussion

Using multiple pieces of information from parents and children, this study examined joint contributions of parental beliefs and actual use of corporal punishment to children’s depression and involvement in school violence. Specifically, this study examined the indirect pathways from parental beliefs about corporal punishment to children’s psychological distress and involvement in school violence through actual parental use of corporal punishment. We also examined whether the abovementioned indirect pathways differ by gender.

4.1. Overall Model

The results show significant direct links from the actual parental use of corporal punishment to student victimization by schoolmates, perpetration against school peers, maltreatment by teachers, and depression. The findings support the social control theory and social bonding perspectives that the deteriorated or broken attachment bonds between parents and children resulting from the actual parental use of corporal punishment reinforce children’s motivations to engage in school violence and increase children’s risk of being exposed to violence in school [ 12 , 30 , 33 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 ]. In addition, the findings support the proposition that actual parental use of corporal punishment against children may lessen children’s sense of felt security in the family [ 41 ], enhancing children’s risk of suffering psychological distress, such as depression [ 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ]. The findings provide further evidence that the actual use of corporal punishment plays a role in children’s involvement in school violence and depression. Although our results show a significant association between parental beliefs and actual use of corporal punishment, the regression coefficient is not large. The findings are in line with previous studies showing a weak or moderate relation between attitudes and behaviors in parenting [ 27 , 28 , 71 ]. The findings may imply that parents’ beliefs in parenting do not map onto practices all the time, although the two variables are significantly related [ 72 ].

Our results show that direct associations of parental beliefs about corporal punishment with student victimization by schoolmates, student perpetration against students, maltreatment by teachers, and depression are not significant, which is consistent with previous research reports showing non-significant relationships between parental endorsement of corporal punishment and children’s externalizing and internalizing problems [ 54 ]. However, it does not mean that parental beliefs about corporal punishment are not important in affecting children’s depression and involvement in school violence, because the results of this study show that positive parental beliefs about corporal punishment have an indirect link with student victimization by schoolmates, student violence against school peers, maltreatment by teachers, and depression through parental use of corporal punishment. The findings suggest that parents who believe that corporal punishment is an effective way of parenting are more likely to use corporal punishment against their children, which increases their children’s risk of victimization by schoolmates, bullying other school peers, maltreatment by teachers, and depression. These findings are consistent with other studies showing that positive parental attitudes towards corporal punishment and actual use of corporal punishment are unlikely to act in isolation, and they should be considered jointly to identify risks of developing psychological and behavioral problems, such as depression and school violence [ 27 ]. Furthermore, the findings are consistent with the parenting cognitions-parenting practice-child adjustment model, which proposes that parents’ beliefs and values about child rearing (i.e., positive attitudes towards corporal punishment) guide their rearing practice (i.e., actual use of corporal punishment), influencing children’s psychological and behavioral outcomes or adjustment problems, such as depression and school violence.

Parental beliefs and actual use of corporal punishment in this study explained 15% of the variance in depression, 11% in victimization by students, 7% in perpetration against students, and 2% in maltreatment by teachers. The overall model explained children’s depression better than victimization by students, perpetration against school peers, and maltreatment by teachers. These findings may imply that parental corporal punishment has stronger negative outcomes on children’s depression compared to student involvement in school violence.

4.2. Gender Differences

The results do not reveal a significant difference between boys and girls in the proposed model. Thus, the model applies to both boys and girls. Additionally, the results show that the interrelationships of parental beliefs with the actual use of corporal punishment, student victimization by schoolmates, perpetration against peers, maltreatment by teachers, and depression between boys and girls were similar. The findings are consistent with the parenting cognitions-parenting practice-child adjustment model in which interrelations between parental belief/cognitions, parenting practice, and children’s psychological and behavioral outcomes were robust to boys and girls [ 28 ]. Furthermore, the previous studies have shown no buffering effect of gender on the association of corporal punishment with children’s externalizing and internalizing behaviors [ 25 ]. These findings may imply that regardless of the differences between boys and girls in the prevalence of parental corporal punishment, school violence, and depression, the interrelationship between these variables and the indirect effects of positive parental attitudes towards corporal punishment on school violence and depression do not differ by gender.

4.3. Limitations

Several limitations of this study need to be considered when interpreting the results. First, the study did not control for time effects when examining the associations between the variables. Thus, the results cannot be used to build causal relationships. Future studies may use panel data and cross-lagged analysis to provide further evidence of causal associations of parental beliefs with the actual use of corporal punishment, school violence, and children’s depression. Second, 433 pairs of both parents and their children participated in this study, and this sample size is relatively small. Larger scale survey studies are encouraged in the future to replicate our findings. Third, this study used a random sample of primary school students in early adolescence in Taiwan. The results may not be generalizable to other age groups or cultural contexts. Future studies could replicate this model in other age groups and countries to confirm our findings. Fourth, we asked students to evaluate their parents’ use of corporal punishment in this study. Future studies may consider collecting information on this variable from other sources, such as parents, to increase research validity. Finally, only one item asked fathers and mothers about their beliefs regarding corporal punishment in this study. Future research may construct more items to assess parental attitudes towards corporal punishment more accurately and increase the research validity.

5. Conclusions

In contrast to previous studies on negative outcomes of corporal punishment typically focusing on examining how either parental beliefs or actual use of corporal punishment affect children’s internal and external problems, this study provides evidence to support a joint effect of parental attitudes and actual use of corporal punishment on children’s psychological and behavioral outcomes. Specifically, the findings of this study indicate that the effects of positive parental attitudes towards corporal punishment on children’s depression and involvement in school violence are dependent on whether corporal punishment is inflicted on children by their parents. Accordingly, intervention programs for decreasing Taiwanese children’s depressive symptoms and involvement in school violence might consider tackling corporal punishment in the family.

Although Taiwan has relatively comprehensive laws and advanced intervention programs for dealing with family child abuse, most parents still believe that they have the right to psychologically and corporally punish their children, and “appropriate” psychological and corporal punishment by parents is commonly acceptable and lawful [ 12 , 73 ]. Our findings highlight the negative effects of parental corporal punishment on children’s depression and involvement in school violence. Thus, we urgently call for practitioners and organizations working for children’s rights in Taiwan to advocate governments and legislators for law reforms prohibiting psychological and corporal punishment in the family to decrease the incidents of parental corporal punishment and further prevent children from developing internal and external behavior problems, such as depression and school violence and bullying. Furthermore, family practitioners in Taiwan should promote parenting education programs to change parents’ beliefs, hinder their use of corporal punishment, and help them adopt positive ways to educate and discipline their children. Intervention programs could further focus on enhancing parents’ knowledge and skills about child rearing. For example, previous studies have suggested that the group-based parent education programs, such as the Adults and Children Together Against Violence educational program and Positive Discipline in Everyday Parenting program, have been effective in teaching parents about nonviolent discipline, child development, and non-punitive problem-solving skills, in shifting parents’ attitudes toward corporal punishment, and in reducing their actual use of corporal punishment [ 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 ]. Meanwhile, children’s rights organizations, communities, and governments in Taiwan may seriously consider launching public education or national campaigns about the risk of corporal punishment and the benefits of alternative nonviolent discipline strategies via various media platforms (e.g., TV or the Internet) or via written content (books and posters) because previous studies have shown that these strategies can efficiently affect parental changes in attitude and use of corporal punishment [ 74 , 78 ].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.-K.C. and Z.P.; methodology, J.-K.C.; software, J.-K.C.; validation, J.-K.C.; formal analysis, J.-K.C.; investigation, J.-K.C.; resources, J.-K.C.; data curation, J.-K.C.; writing—original draft preparation, J.-K.C., Z.P., and L.-C.W.; writing—review and editing, J.-K.C., Z.P., and L.-C.W.; project administration, J.-K.C. and Z.P.; funding acquisition, J.-K.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This study was supported by the General Research Fund, The Research Grants Council, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Hong Kong (Project Number: 14617415); and by the Departmental Initiative Schemes, Department of Social Work, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Survey and Behavioural Research Committee, Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Practitioner
• Organization
• EBP Monthly
• EBP Quarterly
• Event Updates
• Continued Education
• Conferences
• Frontline Pathway
• Leadership Pathway
• MI Skills Day
• Supervisors
• Faculty Guidelines
• Joyfields Institute
• Request Demo
• Masterclasses
• Schedule-A-Mentor
• Login/Sign In

A Review of Corporal Punishment in the United States

Jessica r. morgan, university of new haven.

Corporal punishment can be defined as “paddling, spanking, or other forms of physical punishment imposed on a student” (U.S. Department of Education, 2014 p. 21). The United States is still one of the few members of the United Nations to allow corporal punishment in schools (Gershoff & Font, 2016). Although this practice has been on the decline since the 1970’s (Gershoff et al., 2015), with 25 states banning it between 1974 and 1994, recent data indicate 19 states currently utilize corporal punishment (Ward et al., 2021). In the 2013-2014 academic year, an estimated 600 students per day were struck in schools (Whitaker & Losen, 2019). Other research suggests over 160,000 children are corporally punished in schools each year (Gershoff & Font, 2016).

In essence, educational environments should be a safe space for children to learn, grow, and develop. Educators are charged with creating a healthy learning setting, yet the practice of corporal punishment continues in schools throughout the U.S. Students who attend schools that continue the practice of corporal punishment are at a meaningful disadvantage, because it causes harm on several levels and can have lifelong physical and psychological effects (Hyman, 1995; Gershoff et al., 2019). While the movement towards abolishing corporal punishment originated in the 1970s, it has only eliminated the practice across some of the country. It prevails particularly in the South, leaving lasting marks on children, which is why research and discussion around school corporal punishment must continue (Gershoff & Font, 2016).

The purpose of this paper is to examine how corporal punishment has an intersectional way of oppressing certain groups within schools in the United States. At the core of the practice, children’s rights to safety and education are violated. Education is a top priority in the United States; therefore, schools should be equipped to deal with the range of developmental behaviors in a way that is not detrimental to their safety and wellbeing. Research has been produced showing benefits of other forms of discipline, including positive disciplinary programs that can shift the use of punishment practices. It will be explained that unfair treatment in the classroom is a substantial issue for education, because when the focus is on punishment, learning is minimized. By continuing the practice, educators are failing to promote academic success and student wellbeing.

This paper will detail how corporal punishment causes harm to students and continues a long history of disparity. Such a practice encourages discrimination and inequality among marginalized groups and individuals. Moreover, it is critical to recognize the ability of the government to put an end to the practice in schools, by abolishing it at the federal level. If education is a priority and equity is desired, then the lens must be shifted to acknowledge how education is at stake with the practice. If corporal punishment was to be addressed as a public policy issue, it should be imminent to federally outlaw the practice. Ending corporal punishment is another way to reduce inequalities produced in school systems. Future research on the physical and psychological effects of corporal punishment on students must continue, in order to encourage the abolition of school corporal punishment in the United States.

Background Literature

The United States is not the only country concerned with child protections. The United Nations, an international organization made up of member states, considers and provides protections for children living around the world. In 1959, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration of Rights of the Child. This declaration includes legal protections in order for a child to grow and develop in a healthy and safe way (Declaration of the Rights of the Child, 1959). The United States was one of the countries to help pass this declaration and has since expounded on the protections of children in American practices.

Historically, however, the Ingraham v. Wright (1977) U.S. Supreme Court decision provided legal groundwork for the encouragement of corporal punishment in schools. The decision was made based on rationale that corporal punishment in schools was acceptable as a school disciplinary tool. This ruling supported the notion that corporal punishment was acceptable for school discipline, but not for those who had committed crimes. The ruling was controversial, because Ingraham v. Wright (1977) did not appear to violate any Constitutional language, which is what the majority used as a basis for their arguments. Unfortunately, this ruling made it acceptable to use corporal punishment in schools across the United States, setting the stage for national acceptance of the practice.

Subsequently, the United States also signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture). The United States ratified the ICCPR and Convention against Torture in 1992 and 1994, respectively. Article 7 of the ICCPR expands on how corporal punishment used in schools for education purposes is prohibited (ICCPR, 1966). According to the Convention against Torture, the United Nations prohibits infliction of severe mental and physical pain (Convention against Torture, 1984). Therefore, there are bodies of legislation that hold people accountable for the treatment of children. However, the issue lies in how the accountability is applied.

Previous research supports the movement towards abolishing corporal punishment. Prior to the mid-1990s, there were few quantitative studies on the effects of corporal punishment on children in the U.S. Hyman (1995) thoroughly assessed the debate about corporal punishment and its effectiveness at altering behavior, finding the practice to be associated with physical and psychological damage that can have a lifelong impact. Hyman (1995) specifically revealed an association between excessive use of corporal punishment, conduct disorders, and Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSD). Furthermore, the research indicated children who experience corporal punishment perform lower in problem-solving abilities, academic achievement, and social competence than their counterparts. Moreover, corporal punishment can make children appear more aggressive, disobedient, and oppositional.

Other early research examined race in relationship to use of corporal punishment. McFadden (1992) found that even though Black students make up a smaller portion of serious student misconduct, they are more likely to receive corporal punishment than their non-Black counterparts. Even while controlling for levels of school misconduct, the racial disparity still existed, and therefore cannot be explained by differences in behavior. Overall, previous research uncovered various negative outcomes and effects corporal punishment has on children in school, but contemporary studies help to support earlier findings, fill existing gaps, and expand on the identified issues.

Historical Lynching and Corporal Punishment

Current research has worked to develop the rhetoric of race and punishment. A recent and critical study investigates how corporal punishment in public schools is related to historical lynching within approximate area. Ward et al. (2021) focused on 10 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. All of these states permit corporal punishment in their schools. Ward et al. (2021) used the 2014 US Department of Education definition of corporal punishment, in accordance with the 2013-2014 Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) data. The authors measured corporal punishment through prevalence, incidence, and a Corporal Punishment Disproportionality index. The independent variable of interest was confirmed historic lynchings, all of which were recorded from 1865-1950. County boundary changes over time were taken into account, and a Geographical Information System (GIS) was used to adjust for current boundaries.

Ultimately, Ward et al. (2021) found that corporal punishment was positively associated with total lynchings in each county for all racial groups (p. 50). There was a significantly positive relationship between historic lynchings and both the incidence and prevalence of corporal punishment. If a region had a greater number of historic lynchings, there was more likely to be a presence of corporal punishment and greater numbers of students corporally punished. This could suggest an overall more punitive form of punishment for students when there are more historical lynchings in a region.

When looking at the race-specific effects, however, there was a lesser effect for white students than for Black students. Ward et al. (2021) found with each additional lynching, there was a 6.4% increase of corporal punishment prevalence and 7.5% increase in the incidence rate of corporal punishment for Black students (p. 50). For white students, with each additional lynching there was 4.2% increase of corporal punishment prevalence and a 4.8% increase in the incidence rate of corporal punishment (p. 50). Overall, Black students were more likely to receive corporal punishment in areas with higher rates of historic lynchings. However, while the effects of historic lynchings were largest for Black students receiving corporal punishment, the areas with greater numbers of historic lynchings did not have disproportionately greater racial disparities in corporal punishment (p. 50).

Intersectional Disparities

As of 2020, there was limited research on whether there were various disparities among students who received corporal punishment. In order to examine this issue more deeply, MacSuga-Gage et al. (2020) utilized the 2015-2016 US Department of Education’s office of Civil Rights data. With all public schools included, there would have been 94,781 participating schools. Schools that did not report any corporal punishment were removed, which left 4,139. In order for the schools to be part of the study, they also needed to have recorded at least 10 incidents of corporal punishment. Ultimately, after reviewing the potential schools to include and referencing the states that still legally allow corporal punishment, the sample size became 2,456 schools. This study also used the US Department of Education’s definition of corporal punishment to measure the dependent variable. The focus of this study was on students with disabilities, Black students, Hispanic students, and Black students with disabilities, all of which were compared to their counterparts’ students without disabilities, White students, and White students with disabilities.

Risk ratios (RRs) were used to assess the way subgroups were impacted by corporal punishment in schools. MacSuga-Gage et al. (2020) found significant findings for disproportionality in corporal punishment. Specifically, the authors found that students with disabilities were two times more likely to experience corporal punishment (pg. 6). For students with disabilities, Louisiana and Texas had the highest RRs (p. 6). In addition, Black students were 1.74 times more likely to receive corporal punishment than White students. In contrast, Hispanic students received corporal punishment at a similar rate to White students, when controlling for the covariates (p. 8). When examining the intersection of race and disability, MacSuga-Gage et al. (2020) found that Black students with disabilities are more likely to receive corporal punishment than their white counterparts (p. 8). Overall, this research suggests Black students and student with disabilities are more likely to receive corporal punishment.

Impact of Corporal Punishment on Children

It is important to examine the effects of corporal punishment on student outcomes. Gershoff et al. (2019) assessed this topic through the use of online surveys. With assistance from professors, students in psychology courses at two Texas universities were invited to participate. All of the participants were required to have gone to school in one of the 19 states where corporal punishment was permitted in public schools. In total, there were 876 students surveyed. Of the 876, there were 128 who had experienced corporal punishment. Participants were asked about their experiences with or observing corporal punishment in schools, personal feelings of belonging, depressive symptoms, potential use of spanking their children, perceived effectiveness of corporal punishment, and support of school corporal punishment. The goal was to see whether such recalled school experiences would predict certain differences in mental health or attitudes toward corporal punishment.

In order to reduce the issue of selection bias, the researchers utilized propensity score matching to examine the effect of experiencing corporal punishment. Gershoff et al. (2019) subsequently found that experiencing corporal punishment was significantly related to several variables. The findings indicated lower cumulative GPAs were significantly associated with having experienced corporal punishment (p. 6). Also, lower levels of feelings of belonging to schools were significantly associated with having experienced corporal punishment at school (p. 6). Interestingly, those who had experienced corporal punishment were more likely to think corporal punishment was not acceptable at the elementary and middle school levels; however, they were more likely to see it as acceptable at the high school level (p. 6). Those who experienced school corporal punishment also perceived corporal punishment as being less harmful and more effective (p. 6). However, higher depressive symptoms were found to be significantly related to experiencing school corporal punishment. Gershoff et al. (2019) also found that those who experienced corporal punishment in schools were more likely to support the idea of spanking their potential children. Overall, the researchers concluded that those who have experienced school corporal punishment are more likely to have mental health problems, lower academic outcomes, and to support corporal punishment as a parent.

Discussion and Implications

It is abundantly clear that corporal punishment defies internationally recognized human rights. More specifically, it violates the 1959 Declaration on the Rights of the Child by the United Nations General Assembly (Declaration of the Rights of the Child, 1959). Acknowledging the violations of children’s rights is part of the process or movement towards abolition across the United States. Unfortunately, federal law fails to uphold international legal prohibitions, therefore states are left with the ability to practice school corporal punishment. The most significant and immediate recommendation would be to abolish corporal punishment at the federal level. Ultimately, corporal punishment does violate children’s rights to safety and interferes with education.

In support of changing the current practice, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Human Rights Watch previously put together a 125-page report on Corporal Punishment in Schools (Human Rights Watch, 2008). The report analyzed 181 interviews with students and adults, specifically from schools with high rates of corporal punishment in Texas and Mississippi. Consequently, the ACLU and Human Rights Watch recommended Positive Behavior Support (PBS) systems, originally endorsed by the US Department of Education and US Department of Justice in 2000.

PBS is designed to provide three levels of positive behavior supports: universal, secondary, and tertiary (US Department of Education, 2021). The universal support level attempts to prevent problem behavior by implementing rules and routines. Secondary levels of support consist of individual or small group work like mentoring and programming. Tertiary levels of support involve more intensive intervention for specific problems. Evaluations of the program found significant decreases in referrals to principals and increased teachers’ satisfaction (US Department of Education, 2000). Furthermore, researchers found improvement in academic performance and test scores in Illinois schools (Illinois Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports Network, 2007). Ultimately, this approach shifts the mindset from punishment toward the needs of children.

Changes in policy take time, however. Another immediate recommendation would be enhanced data collection. Making school system personnel more accountable for documentation of corporal punishment would be beneficial. Moreover, corporal punishment is not a school’s only tool of discipline. The Human Rights Watch (2008) suggests implementing positive disciplinary programs and strategies outside the realm of corporal punishment. Learning about and using the tools that other states have successfully implemented into school districts also would be beneficial. This would be significant in implementing evidence-based practices that work with children in their developmental growth.

Future research should continue to investigate the long-term physical and psychological impacts of corporal punishment. Long-term impacts would be essential to study because there are still 19 states that practice corporal punishment. It would also be beneficial to evaluate current positive disciplinary programs more thoroughly. Evaluation research will help to allocate money to various areas, such as programming, staffing, and training, where it is needed. Eventually, more evaluation research will be beneficial for both the states that abolish corporal punishment, and those that already have done so.

Currently, students still face disadvantages in the educational systems because they are subject to corporal punishment. The lack of federal regulation provides leeway for states to have their own practices. Research shows that corporal punishment for children in school is abusive and ineffective (Human Rights Watch, 2008). School corporal punishment can have long lasting psychological and physical impacts (Gershoff et al., 2019; Hyman, 1995). Moreover, Black students appear more likely to receive corporal punishment than their White counterparts, as do students with disabilities (MacSuga-Gage et al., 2020). The intersectionality of punishment is significant to the findings as well. Students who go to school in areas where there are more reported historical lynchings are more likely to experience corporal punishment, and Black students are even more likely to receive corporal punishment in areas with higher reported historical lynchings (Ward et al. 2021).

These findings push forward questions about the punitiveness of discipline and how corporal punishment practices embody historical structures of racism. Some students, based on personal characteristics, are disproportionately more likely to receive such punishment. If these students are more likely to face this practice, this suggests that schools are a source of punishment that provides academic authorities the ability to target certain groups. Ultimately, schools should not be a place where the production of harm is tolerable; furthermore, the evidence supports the abolition of school corporal punishment across the United States.

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture). (1984, December 10) G.A. res. 39/46, annex.

Gershoff, E. & Font, S. (2016). Social Policy Report Director of SRCD Office for Policy and Communications Policy and Communications Committee Publications Committee From the Editor . 30 (1). www.srcd.org/publications/social-policy-report

Gershoff, E., Sattler, K. M. P., & Holden, G. W. (2019). School corporal punishment and its associations with achievement and adjustment. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology , 63 , 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2019.05.004

Gershoff, E. T., Purtell, K. M., & Holas, I. (2015).  Corporal punishment in US public schools: Legal precedents, current practices, and future policy . Springer.

Human Rights Watch (Organization), Farmer, Alice., & Neier, A. (2008). A violent education: corporal punishment of children in US public schools . Human Rights Watch.

Hyman, I. A. (1995). Corporal punishment, psychological maltreatment, violence, and punitiveness in America: Research, advocacy, and public policy. In Applied & Preventive Psychology (Vol. 4). Cambridge University Press.

Illinois Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports Network. (2007). 2005-06 Progress Report. http://www.pbisillinois.org/Downloads/Annual%20Reports/FY06_AnnualRpt_FINAL.pdf

Ingraham v. Wright, 45. U.S.L.W. 4364 (1977).

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). (1966, December 16) G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI).

MacSuga-Gage, A. S., Gage, N. A., Katsiyannis, A., Hirsch, S. E., & Kisner, H. (2020). Disproportionate corporal punishment of students with disabilities and Black and Hispanic students. Journal of Disability Policy Studies . https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207320949960

McFadden, A. C., Marsh, G., Price, B. J., and Hwang, Y. (1992). A Study of Race and Gender Bias in the Punishment of School Children. Education and Treatment of Children, 15(2):140–146.

United Nations. (2021). About Us . https://www.un.org/en/about-us.

UN General Assembly, Resolution 1386 (XIV), (1959, November 20).

U.S. Department of Education. (2016). NEW RELEASE FOR 2016: 2013–2014 Civil Rights Data Collection: A First Look. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/2013-14-first-look.pdf.

US Department of Education. (2000). Safeguarding our Children: An Action Guide. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/actguide/action_guide.pdf

US Department of Education. (2021). School-Wide PBS . Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. https://www.pbis.org/topics/school-wide

Ward, G., Petersen, N., Kupchik, A., & Pratt, J. (2021). Historic lynching and corporal punishment in contemporary southern schools. Social Problems , 68 (1), 41–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spz044

Whitaker, A., & Losen, D. J. (2019). The Striking Outlier: The Persistent, Painful and Problematic Practice of Corporal Punishment in Schools. The Center for Civil Rights Remedies and The Southern Poverty Law Center. www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu

Photo by Loren Cutler on Unsplash

Blog Categories

• News & Announcements
• Continued Evidence-Based Education

Recent Articles

Evidence-Based Professionals' Monthly - June 2024

Evidence-Based Professionals' Monthly - May 2024

Understanding the Criminal Pathways of Victimized Youth

The Price of Punishment: Exclusionary Discipline in Connecticut PreK-12 Schools

Breaking the Cycle of Absenteeism: Strategies for Prevention

Evidence-Based Professionals' Monthly - March 2024

Evidence-Based Professionals' Monthly - April 2024

Quarterly for Evidence-Based Professionals - Volume 8, Number 3

Unlock the Power of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT): Elevate Your Practice!

Get Your  Free Article to...

"Becoming An Evidence-Based Organization (EBO)

Five Key Components To Consider" by David L. Myers, PhD.

Would You Like To Set Your Leadership Apart from The Typical?

"Becoming An Evidence-Based Practitioner (EBP)

How To Set Yourself Apart" By Mark M. Lowis, MINT

Would You Like To Set Your Yourself Apart from The Typical Practitioner?

Masterclass Options

We offer a Masterclass & Certification for LEADERS and PRACTITIONERS. Which are you interested in exploring?

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

Stroke risk higher for the chronically lonely

Testing fitness of aging brain

DNR orders for Down syndrome patients far exceeded pandemic norm

Illustration by Gary Waters

How spanking may affect brain development in children

Manisha Aggarwal-Schifellite

Harvard Staff Writer

Researchers find similarities in neural response to more severe forms of abuse

Spanking may affect a child’s brain development in ways similar to more severe forms of violence, according to a new study led by Harvard researchers.

The research  builds on existing studies that show heightened activity in certain regions of the brains of children who experience abuse in response to threat cues.

The group found that children who had been spanked had a greater neural response in multiple regions of the prefrontal cortex (PFC), including in regions that are part of the salience network. These areas of the brain respond to cues in the environment that tend to be consequential, such as a threat, and may affect decision-making and processing of situations.

“We know that children whose families use corporal punishment are more likely to develop anxiety, depression, behavior problems, and other mental health problems, but many people don’t think about spanking as a form of violence,” said Katie A. McLaughlin , John L. Loeb Associate Professor of the Social Sciences, director of the Stress & Development Lab in the Department of Psychology, and the senior researcher on the study, which was published Friday in the journal Child Development. “In this study, we wanted to examine whether there was an impact of spanking at a neurobiological level, in terms of how the brain is developing.”

According to the study’s authors, corporal punishment has been linked to the development of mental health issues, anxiety, depression, behavioral problems, and substance use disorders. And recent studies show that approximately half of parents in U.S. studies reported spanking their children in the past year and one-third in the past week. However, the relationship between spanking and brain activity had not previously been studied.

McLaughlin and her colleagues — including Jorge Cuartas, first author of the study and a Ph.D. student in education at the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, and David Weissman , a postdoctoral fellow in the Stress & Development Lab — analyzed data from a large study of children between the ages of 3 and 11. They focused on 147 children around ages 10 and 11 who had been spanked, excluding children who had also experienced more severe forms of violence.

“… many people don’t think about spanking as a form of violence.” Katie A. McLaughlin, director of the Stress & Development Lab

Each child lay in an MRI machine and watched a computer screen on which were displayed different images of actors making “fearful” and “neutral” faces. A scanner captured the child’s brain activity in response to each kind of face, and those images were analyzed to determine whether the faces sparked different patterns of brain activity in children who were spanked compared to those who were not.

“On average, across the entire sample, fearful faces elicited greater activation than neutral faces in many regions throughout the brain … and children who were spanked demonstrated greater activation in multiple regions of PFC to fearful relative to neutral faces than children who were never spanked,” the researchers wrote.

By contrast, “There were no regions of the brain where activation to fearful relative to neutral faces differed between children who were abused and children who were spanked.”

The findings are in line with similar research conducted on children who had experienced severe violence, suggesting that “while we might not conceptualize corporal punishment to be a form of violence, in terms of how a child’s brain responds, it’s not all that different than abuse,” said McLaughlin. “It’s more a difference of degree than of type.”

Researchers said the study is a first step toward further interdisciplinary analysis of spanking’s potential effects on children’s brain development and lived experiences.

“These findings aligned with the predictions from other perspectives on the potential consequences of corporal punishment,” studied in fields such as developmental psychology and social work, said Cuartas. “By identifying certain neural pathways that explain the consequences of corporal punishment in the brain, we can further suggest that this kind of punishment might be detrimental to children and we have more avenues to explore it.”

However, they noted that their findings are not applicable to the individual life of each child.

“It’s important to consider that corporal punishment does not impact every child the same way, and children can be resilient if exposed to potential adversities,” said Cuartas. “But the important message is that corporal punishment is a risk that can increase potential problems for children’s development, and following a precautionary principle, parents and policymakers should work toward trying to reduce its prevalence.”

Ultimately, added McLaughlin, “We’re hopeful that this finding may encourage families not to use this strategy, and that it may open people’s eyes to the potential negative consequences of corporal punishment in ways they haven’t thought of before.”

This research was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health

Share this article

You might like.

Study of adults over 50 examines how feelings boost threat over time

Most voters back cognitive exams for older politicians. What do they measure?

Co-author sees need for additional research and earlier, deeper conversations around care

When should Harvard speak out?

Institutional Voice Working Group provides a roadmap in new report

Had a bad experience meditating? You're not alone.

Altered states of consciousness through yoga, mindfulness more common than thought and mostly beneficial, study finds — though clinicians ill-equipped to help those who struggle

College sees strong yield for students accepted to Class of 2028  

Financial aid was a critical factor, dean says

Physical discipline is harmful and ineffective

A new APA resolution cites evidence that physical punishment can cause lasting harm for children

By Eve Glicksman

May 2019, Vol 50, No. 5

Print version: page 22

• Physical Abuse and Violence

APA adopted a new policy about the ineffectiveness and dangers of physical discipline against children to raise awareness among parents, caregivers and mental health professionals.

The Resolution on Physical Discipline of Children By Parents , adopted by APA’s Council of Representatives in February, relies on strong and sophisticated longitudinal research that finds physical discipline does not improve behavior and can lead to emotional, behavioral and academic problems over time, even after race, gender and family socioeconomic status have been statistically controlled.

To start, the research finds that hitting children does not teach them about responsibility, conscience development and self-control. "Hitting children does not teach them right from wrong," says Elizabeth Gershoff, PhD, an expert on the effects of corporal punishment on children who provided research for the resolution. "Spanking gets their attention, but they have not internalized why they should do the right thing in the future. They may behave when the adult is there but do whatever they want at other times."

In addition, children learn from watching their parents. Parents who use physical discipline may be teaching their child to resolve conflicts with physical aggression. Researchers found that spanking can elevate a child’s aggression levels as well as diminish the quality of the parent-child relationship. Other studies have documented that physical discipline can escalate into abuse.

The purpose of this resolution is to promote effective forms of discipline for parents that don’t contribute to antisocial behaviors, aggression and trust issues. "Children do not need pain to learn," says Gershoff, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin, "We don’t allow aggression among adults. It’s a sad double standard that we don’t give children the same protection against violence."

Better discipline models

Upward of 80 percent of mothers spank their children between kindergarten and third grade, according to a large study conducted by Gershoff ( Child Development , May/June 2012).

Most parents raise children the way they were raised and have not been exposed to other models of discipline, says APA President Rosie Phillips Davis, PhD. "I don’t think most people know how to discipline without spanking. We don’t teach people to do it differently; alternatives seem time-consuming," she says.

The APA resolution presents effective alternatives that draw broadly on respectful communication, collaborative conflict resolution and parental modeling. Specifically, these approaches could include conveying anxiety about a dangerous action, taking away privileges or using praise to shape behavior.

Sometimes, simply ignoring the behavior and not engaging in a fight is the best tactic, says Christina Rodriguez, PhD, an associate professor at The University of Alabama at Birmingham and chair of the APA Committee on Children, Youth and Families, who led the resolution effort. "Parents need to learn what they should or shouldn’t respond to."

Parents of 3- to 5- year-olds are the most likely to spank. So, what about a preschooler who can’t be reasoned with? Rodriguez advises parents to think strategically and plan ahead. If your child is prone to act out while you get groceries, bring snacks and toys to redirect the child or choose a time to shop when the child isn’t sleepy, she suggests.

Calling a time-out for certain behaviors can be effective but it is often misused as a stand-alone strategy, Gershoff observes. "Looking at a wall for five minutes won’t teach a child how to behave."

Rather, parents need to give children guidance about what to do differently, what is known as "time out from positive reinforcement (TOPR)." This technique makes time-out an opportunity to regroup and think about how to do better next time.

A new study in American Psychologist offers guidelines in using TOPR to maximize the development of the child’s self-regulation skills while avoiding any weakening of the parent-child attachment bond from the time out ( American Psychologist , Feb. 25, 2019).

Give parents the facts

The APA resolution is clear that any perceived short-term benefits from physical discipline do not outweigh the potential detriments. By adopting the resolution, APA joins a number of professional and public health organizations in recommending that parents reject all physical discipline. The resolution also directs APA to support funding for research in the United States and other countries related to why parents turn to physical discipline.

Davis wants to see more training programs on parental discipline for psychologists. Currently, more than 75 APA members are collaborating to create a toolkit to facilitate conversations in the community about disciplining children. Multiple modules are being developed for parents, colleges, civic organizations and places of worship that will include frequently asked questions. APA also offers the ACT Raising Safe Kids Program to teach positive parenting skills.

Rodriguez hopes the resolution will prompt psychologists to guide parents toward healthier discipline practices than were used in the past. Now that we know the risks of not wearing seatbelts, most parents make sure children buckle up, she comments. "Why is it not the same for rejecting physical discipline when the risks are known?"

Some psychologists feel that it’s not their place to tell parents how to discipline their children, Rodriguez says. "But it is long past opinion that physical discipline makes things worse," she says. "It is incumbent on psychologists to take the opportunity to discuss the facts and share what we know. If mental health professionals don’t take this on, then who?"

To read the full APA resolution on child punishment, go to www.apa.org/about/policy/physical-discipline.pdf .

Recommended Reading

Letters to the Editor

• Send us a letter

• Follow us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter
• Criminal Justice
• Environment
• Politics & Government
• Race & Gender

Expert Commentary

Corporal punishment in schools: Research and reporting tips to guide your coverage

Two scholars offer guidance on covering school corporal punishment, which can result in serious injuries and has, for years, been used disproportionately on Black students and children with disabilities.

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

by Denise-Marie Ordway, The Journalist's Resource August 31, 2023

This <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org/education/corporal-punishment-schools-discipline-research/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org">The Journalist's Resource</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/cropped-jr-favicon-150x150.png" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

This tip sheet on covering corporal punishment in schools, originally published in March 2023, was updated on Aug. 31, 2023 to reflect the number of states that allow the practice and the results of a new study on public support for laws banning physical forms of child discipline. We also added a link to a policy statement the American Academy of Pediatrics released Aug. 21, 2023.

Despite academic studies noting the harms associated with corporal punishment, U.S. public schools use it to discipline tens of thousands of students a year, data from the U.S. Department of Education show .  

Public schools in 22 states reported using physical discipline on students during the 2017-18 academic year, the most recent year for which national data is available. The practice was most common in Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Today, 18 states allow public school personnel to spank, hit or otherwise inflict pain on children to control their behavior, according to Elizabeth Gershoff , a professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Sciences at the University of Texas at Austin.

Corporal punishment is legal in private schools in all but three states: Iowa, Maryland and New Jersey.

It’s not yet clear whether schools have relied on this type of discipline more or less often amid the COVID-19 pandemic. However, school district officials reported a marked increase in student misbehavior in 2021-22, compared with before the coronavirus arrived in the U.S. in 2019. News stories and research studies have documented the pandemic’s widespread effects on kids’ mental and physical health .

When the U.S. Department of Education surveyed public school districts in 2022, 84% agreed or strongly agreed the pandemic has negatively affected students’ behavioral development.

Almost 6 out of 10 public schools reported “increased incidents of classroom disruptions from student misconduct” and 48% reported increased “acts of disrespect towards teachers and staff.” About half reported more “rowdiness outside of the classroom.”

Even if the number of children physically punished at school has fallen in recent years, the issue warrants journalists’ attention considering the serious injuries students sometimes suffer and the fact that Black children and children with mental or physical disabilities have, for many years, received a disproportionate share of school corporal punishment.

The federal government requires public schools and public preschools to report the number of students who receive physical punishment. In 2017-18, public schools physically disciplined a total of 69,492 students at least once — down from 92,479 kids in 2015-16.

That year, public preschool programs, which are often housed within public elementary schools, reported using corporal punishment on a combined 851 children aged 3 to 5 years.

It’s unclear how common corporal punishment is in private schools because the federal government does not require them to report their numbers. Gershoff, one of the country’s foremost experts on corporal punishment, says she knows of no government agency or organization that tracks that information.

She urges journalists to help their audiences understand the various ways schools use physical discipline and its potential impacts on student behavior, mental and physical health, and academic achievement.

“Physical punishment in schools typically involves an adult hitting a child with a two-foot-long wooden board, known euphemistically as a ‘paddle,'” Gershoff writes in an essay published last week in The Hill. “Consider this: If a principal were to hit an adult, say a teacher or a parent, with a two-foot-long board, that person would be charged with assault with a weapon or aggravated assault. School personnel are hitting children with boards that, in any other context, would be considered weapons — and they do so legally.”

The global use of school corporal punishment

The U.S. is the only member of the United Nations that has not yet ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child , an international treaty adopted in 1989 that, among other things, protects children “from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation.” Somalia ratified the convention in 2015 — the 196 th country to do so.

Globally, about half of all children aged 6 to 17 years live in countries where school corporal punishment is “not fully prohibited,” according to the World Health Organization.

But legal bans do not necessarily mean corporal punishment ceases to exist, a team of researchers from the University of Cape Town learned after examining 53 peer-reviewed studies conducted in various parts of the planet and published between 1980 and 2017.

In South Africa, for instance, half of students reported being corporally punished at school despite a ban instituted in 1996, the researchers note.

“There is also concern that school staff and administrators may underreport school corporal punishment even where it is legal,” they write, adding that a study in Tanzania found that students tended to report twice as much corporal punishment as teachers.

While there’s limited research on corporal punishment in U.S. schools, numerous studies of corporal punishment in U.S. homes have determined it is associated with a range of harms. When Gershoff and fellow researcher Andrew Grogan-Kaylor combined and analyzed the results of 75 research studies on parental spanking published before June 1, 2014, they found no evidence it improves children’s behavior.

In fact, they discovered that kids spanked by their parents have a greater likelihood of experiencing 13 detrimental outcomes, including aggression, antisocial behavior, impaired cognitive ability and low self-esteem during childhood and antisocial behavior and mental health problems in adulthood.

Gershoff says children who are physically disciplined at school likely are affected in similar ways.

“There’s nothing to make me think that wouldn’t hold for corporal punishment in schools,” she tells The Journalist’s Resource. “In fact, I think it might be more problematic in schools because of the lack of a strong relationship in the schools between the children and the person who’s doing the paddling.”

Other research by Gershoff offers insights into the types of misbehavior that lead to corporal punishment. She found that public school principals, teachers and other staff members have used physical punishment for a range of offenses, including tardiness, disrespecting teachers, running in the hallways and receiving bad grades.

Some children have been disciplined so harshly they suffered injuries, “including bruises, hematomas, nerve and muscle damage, cuts, and broken bones,” Gershoff and colleague Sarah Font write in the journal Social Policy Report in 2016.

The Society for Adolescent Medicine estimated in 2003 that 10,000 to 20,000 students require medical attention each year in the U.S. as a result of school corporal punishment. The organization has not updated its estimate since then, however.

Black students disciplined disproportionately

James B. Pratt Jr. , an associate professor of criminal justice at Fisk University who also researches corporal punishment, encourages news outlets to dig deeper into the reasons schools in many states still use pain as punishment.

He says reporters should press state legislators to explain why they allow it to continue, even as public health organizations such as the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention oppose its use. Last week, the American Academy of Pediatrics released a policy statement stressing that corporal punishment “is not an effective or ethical method for management of behavior concerns” and calling for it to be abolished in all school settings.

News coverage of corporal punishment needs historical context as well, Pratt says. His research finds that school corporal punishment, which is most concentrated in the U.S. South, plays a role in sustaining a long history of racialized violence in the region.

“Tell the story of corporal punishment as a form of social control,” Pratt says. “There is research to illustrate how corporal punishment has been used historically and today.”

In the U.S., enslaved Black people were whipped, as were Black prisoners in the early 20 th century and Black children who went before juvenile courts in the 1930s, Pratt and his fellow researchers write in “ Historic Lynching and Corporal Punishment in Contemporary Southern Schools ,” published in 2021 in the journal Social Problems.

For generations after emancipation, white supremacists in the South whipped and lynched Black people to intimidate and control them.

When Pratt and his colleagues examined data on student discipline in 10 southern states in 2013-14 and lynchings between 1865 and 1950, they learned that school corporal punishment was more common for all students — but especially Black students — in areas where lynchings had occurred.

Pratt and his coauthors write that banning school corporal punishment “would help dismantle systemic racism, promoting youth and community well-being in a region still haunted by histories of racial terror.”

Guidance from academic scholars

Both Pratt and Gershoff have lots of ideas for helping journalists frame and strengthen their coverage of corporal punishment in schools. Here are some of the tips they shared with The Journalist’s Resource.

1. Find out whether or how schools in your area use corporal punishment, and who administers it.

Public schools generally share only basic information about corporal punishment to the U.S. Department of Education. School officials submit the total number of students they corporally punish in a given academic year and they break down that number according to students’ sex and race and whether they had a disability, were Hispanic or were enrolled in special programs teaching them to speak English.

Not only does the data lack detail — it does not indicate the type of corporal punishment used, for example, or the type of disability the student had — the information is several years old by the time the federal government finishes collecting it and releases it to the public.

Pratt says journalists can help researchers, parents and the public get a clearer picture of what’s happening in local communities by seeking out more details. To get a sense of how often and how local schools use corporal punishment, ask public school districts for copies of disciplinary reports and policies governing the use of corporal punishment.

Interview teacher union leaders and individual teachers to better understand what’s happening in classrooms and what teachers have seen and learned. Reach out to parents whose children have been disciplined to ask about student experiences.

“We know there’s something there, but how it functions on the ground is what we need to understand,” Pratt says.

Some questions to investigate:

• Which misbehaviors lead to corporal punishment?
• Who administers physical discipline?
• What are children hit with and how many times?
• Where on their bodies are they struck?
• How often have children been seriously injured and how were those situations handled?
• Have local schools been sued over corporal punishment?
• In areas where corporal punishment is banned, have school employees been disciplined or terminated for using corporal punishment?

2. Ask how schools’ use of corporal punishment and other forms of discipline changed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Students, teachers and other school staff members experienced a lot of stress during the pandemic, as schools struggled to provide instruction and other student services while also monitoring and responding to COVID-19.

At the start of the pandemic, many schools closed their campuses temporarily and taught lessons online. When everyone returned to campus, the situation was, at times, confusing or somewhat chaotic. Many schools discovered they needed to rely more heavily on substitute teachers , who often do not have classroom management training, to fill in when regular teachers were sick, in quarantine or caring for loved ones.

It’s a good idea for journalists to try to gauge how such changes have affected student behavior and discipline. Local school districts and state departments of education should be able to provide more recent records than the U.S. Department of Education. Another source of data: colleges and universities where faculty are studying school discipline.

A September 2022 analysis from the University of Arkansas, for example, shows a sharp decline in several types of student discipline in that state since before the pandemic began. However, the authors write that they “cannot tell if the decline is the result of improved student behavior or inconsistent reporting by schools.”

“Corporal punishment was used [as] a consequence for 16% of infractions in 2008-09 and declined to being used in 3% of infractions in 2020-21,” they write.

Gershoff expects corporal punishment numbers to continue to fall nationally.

“69,000 is still too many kids being traumatized at school,” she says.

There are parts of the country where school officials in recent months have reinstated corporal punishment or voiced support for it, however. In 2022, the school board in Cassville, Missouri, voted to bring it back after two decades of not using it. And a school board member in Collier County, Florida , announced after his election last November that he wanted schools across the region to reintroduce physical discipline.

3. Learn the legal history of school corporal punishment in the U.S.

It’s important that journalists covering corporal punishment understand the history of the practice , including the stance the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts have taken on the issue.

Individual states have the authority to create and enforce discipline policies for children attending schools within their borders. Generally speaking, Supreme Court justices have been reluctant to intervene in the day-to-day operations of public schools, so long as educators do not heavily infringe on students’ constitutional rights.

Two Supreme Court cases decided in the late 1970s reinforced public schools’ right to use physical discipline. In 1975, in Baker v. Owen , justices ruled that public schools have the right to use corporal punishment without parents’ permission. In Ingraham v. Wright , decided in 1977, the court decided that corporal punishment, regardless of severity, does not violate the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

In writing the majority opinion for Ingraham v. Wright, Justice Lewis Powell asserts that “corporal punishment serves important educational interests.”

“At common law a single principle has governed the use of corporal punishment since before the American Revolution: Teachers may impose reasonable but not excessive force to discipline a child,” Powell writes.

The Supreme Court did not, however, explain what actions would be considered “excessive.” In 1980, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit established a test for determining that. Since then, circuit courts in several federal districts have required lawsuits challenging schools’ use of corporal punishment to meet that threshold, often referred to as the “shocking to the conscience” test.

Under that very high standard, corporal punishment is deemed excessive if “the force applied caused injury so severe, was so disproportionate to the need presented, and was so inspired by malice or sadism rather than a merely careless or unwise excess of zeal that it amounted to a brutal and inhumane abuse of official power literally shocking to the conscience.”

An example of corporal punishment a U.S. appeals court decided was excessive : A football coach in Fulton County, Georgia, struck a 14-year-old freshman so hard in the face with a metal lock, the boy’s left eye “was knocked completely out of its socket,” leaving it “destroyed and dismembered.”  

An example of corporal punishment an appeals court did not consider excessive : A teacher in Richmond, Virginia, allegedly jabbed a straight pin into a student’s upper left arm, requiring medical care. The court, in its ruling, notes that “most persons are with some degree of frequency jabbed in the arm or the hip with a needle by physicians or nurses. While it is uncommon for a teacher to do the jabbing, being jabbed is commonplace.”

Over the years, legal scholars have written multiple law journal articles examining the Ingraham v. Wright decision and its implications. An article by Michigan State University law professor Susan H. Bitensky , for example, looks specifically at its impact on Black children .

She argues corporal punishment has impeded Black children’s educations, undercutting the commitment to social progress the Supreme Court made when it decided in 1954, in the landmark civil rights case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka , that segregating public schools by race was unconstitutional.

“The whole foundation for [the Brown v. Board of Education] holding on segregated schools is a fervent concern that the schools should imbue children, especially black children, with a positive sense of their intellectual worth and should provide them with a commensurate quality of educational experience,” Bitensky writes in the Loyola University Chicago Law Review in 2004.

4. Explain that corporal punishment is a form of social control and that public schools use various types of discipline disproportionately on Black children.

Pratt stresses the importance of putting corporal punishment reports into context.

For many years, public schools have used that disciplinary approach disproportionately on Black youth, according to U.S. Department of Education records . But Black students also are disproportionately suspended, expelled, physically restrained and arrested on suspicion of school-related offenses.

According to the education department’s Civil Rights Data Collection ,  37.3% of public school students who were spanked, paddled or otherwise struck by school employees in 2017-18 were Black. Meanwhile, Black kids comprised 15.3% of public school enrollment nationwide that year.

As a comparison, 50.4% of corporally punished students and 47.3% of all public school students were white.

In public preschools, black children and children with mental and physical disabilities were disproportionately expelled.

Pratt says journalists need to help the public understand how school discipline and other forms of social control such as targeted policing programs and laws prohibiting saggy pants are connected. He encourages reporters to incorporate research into their stories to illustrate how implicit bias and misperceptions about Black children can influence how educators view and interact with Black students.

Research, for example, suggests white adults perceive Black boys to be older than they are and that prospective teachers are more likely to perceive Black children as angry than white children.

“All of [these factors] relate to one another and set the tone,” Pratt says. “This is a collection of harms, and a nefarious one.”

5. Check for errors in school disciplinary reports.

Several news reports in 2021 and 2022 indicate the U.S. government’s tally of children receiving corporal punishment at school may be incorrect.

An investigation the Times Union of Albany published in September reveals hundreds of New York public school students have been physically disciplined in recent years, even though the practice has been generally banned since 1985. State and local government agencies received a total of 17,819 complaints of school corporal punishment from 2016 to 2021, 1,623 of which were determined to be substantiated or founded, the news outlet reported.

“The substantiated cases documented in state Education Department records include incidents where teachers or other staff members pushed, slapped, hit, pinched, spanked, dragged, choked or forcefully grabbed students,” Times Union journalists Emilie Munson , Joshua Solomon and Matt Rocheleau write.

A May 2021 analysis from The 74 , a nonprofit news outlet that focuses on education issues, shows that schools in six states where corporal punishment had been banned reported using it in 2017-18.

Miriam Rollin, a director at the National Center for Youth Law, told The 74 that national figures “are likely a significant undercount.”

“Every school district in the country self-reports its data to the federal government and they’ve long been accused of underreporting data on the use of restraint and seclusion and other forms of harsh discipline,” Rollin told The 74 investigative journalist Mark Keierleber .

6. Press state legislators to explain why they allow school corporal punishment.

Gershoff and Pratt agree journalists should ask legislators in states that allow schools to use physical discipline why they have not stopped the practice.

“Tell the legislative story — who’s legislating this?” Pratt says. “Examine the people doing the work to end [corporal punishment] and also those wanting to maintain it.”

While a handful of members of Congress have introduced bills aimed at eradicating corporal punishment in recent years, none were successful.

In February 2021, U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida introduced the Ending Corporal Punishment in Schools Act of 2021 . But Hastings died two months later, and the bill never made it out of the House Committee on Education and Labor.

U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut introduced the Protecting Our Students in Schools Act in 2020 and 2021 without success. He reintroduced the legislation again in May.

Gershoff notes that many Americans want to ban school corporal punishment. More than 65% of U.S. adults who participated in a national survey on the issue in late 2020 indicated they agree or strongly agree with a federal ban, she and other researchers write in a paper that appears in the September 2023 edition of Public Health. At the same time, only 18% of survey participants believed most other adults feel the same way.

“Americans underestimate support for a ban, which may explain why folks have not been more vocal in calling for a ban even though they agree we should have one,” Gershoff wrote in an email to The Journalist’s Resource.

7. Look for stories in corporal punishment data.

Browse around the U.S. Department of Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection , which provides data on corporal punishment in public schools at the national, state and local levels as of the 2017-18 academic year. Notice trends, disparities and where there are unusually high numbers of corporal punishment cases.

For more recent data, reach out to schools, school districts and state education departments. Also, ask researchers for help explaining whether and how data from 2017-18 are still relevant.

Here are some data points worth looking into from the 2017-18 academic year, the most recent available at the national level:

• Mississippi led the country in corporal punishment cases as of that year. Public schools there reported using it at least once on a total of 20,309 students. In Texas, which had the second-highest number, public schools corporally punished 13,892 kids at least one time each.
• More than 30% of public school students who experienced corporal punishment in Indiana, Ohio, South Carolina and Wisconsin had mental or physical disabilities.
• North Carolina public schools didn’t administer corporal punishment often. But when they did, they used it primarily on Native American students. Of the 57 students disciplined this way, about half were categorized as American Indian or Alaska Native. Native American kids made up less than 1% of public school enrollment in North Carolina.
• Oklahoma is the only other state where a large proportion of corporally punished students were Native American. Schools there used corporal punishment on a total of 3,968 students, 24.4% of whom were categorized as American Indian or Alaska Native. Statewide, 6.6% of public school students were Native American.
• Illinois public schools reported using corporal punishment on a total of 202 students, 80.2% of whom were “English language learners,” or children enrolled in programs to learn English.

8. Familiarize yourself with academic research on corporal punishment at schools and in homes.

Gershoff points journalists toward a large and growing body of research on the short- and long-term consequences of corporal punishment at home and in schools. It’s important they know what scholars have learned to date and which questions remain unanswered.

To get started, check out these five studies:

Punitive School Discipline as a Mechanism of Structural Marginalization With Implications for Health Inequity: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies in the Health and Social Sciences Literature Catherine Duarte; et al. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, January 2023. This is one of the most recent papers examining the relationship between school discipline and student health in the U.S. The authors reviewed 19 studies published between 1990 and 2020 on punitive school discipline, which includes corporal punishment as well as suspension and expulsion. They find punitive school discipline is linked to “greater risk for numerous health outcomes, including persistent depressive symptoms, depression, drug use disorder in adulthood, borderline personality disorder, antisocial behavior, death by suicide, injuries, trichomoniasis, pregnancy in adolescence, tobacco use, and smoking, with documented implications for racial health inequity.” School Corporal Punishment in Global Perspective: Prevalence, Outcomes, and Efforts at Intervention Elizabeth Gershoff. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 2017.

In this paper, Gershoff summarizes what was known at that point in time about the prevalence of school corporal punishment worldwide and the potential consequences for students. She also discusses the various ways schools administer corporal punishment, including forcing students to stand in painful positions, ingest noxious substances and kneel on small objects such as stones or rice. She includes a chart offering estimates for the percentage of students who receive corporal punishment in dozens of countries, including China, India, Indonesia, Jamaica and Peru.

Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses Elizabeth Gershoff and Andrew Grogan-Kaylor. Journal of Family Psychology, 2016.

Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor analyze the results of 75 peer-reviewed studies published before June 1, 2014 on parental spanking, or “hitting a child on their buttocks or extremities using an open hand.” They state that they find “no evidence that spanking does any good for children and all evidence points to the risk of it doing harm.”

Other big takeaways: “In childhood, parental use of spanking was associated with low moral internalization, aggression, antisocial behavior, externalizing behavior problems, internalizing behavior problems, mental health problems, negative parent-child relationships, impaired cognitive ability, low self-esteem, and risk of physical abuse from parents. In adulthood, prior experiences of parental use of spanking were significantly associated with adult antisocial behavior, adult mental health problems, and with positive attitudes about spanking.” Historic Lynching and Corporal Punishment in Contemporary Southern Schools Geoff Ward, Nick Petersen, Aaron Kupchik and James Pratt. Social Problems, February 2021.

School corporal punishment is linked to histories of racial violence in the southeastern U.S., this study finds. The authors analyzed data on school corporal punishment in 10 states in that region during the 2013-2014 academic year and matched it with data on confirmed lynchings between 1865 to 1950. “Of the counties that reported one or more incidents of corporal punishment, 88% had at least one historic lynching and the average number of lynching incidents in these counties is 7.07,” the authors write. They add that banning school corporal punishment in these states would “help dismantle systemic racism, promoting youth and community well-being in a region still haunted by histories of racial terror.”

Disproportionate Corporal Punishment of Students With Disabilities and Black and Hispanic Students Ashley MacSuga-Gage; et al. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 2021.

When researchers looked at student discipline in the 2,456 U.S. public schools that had used corporal punishment at least 10 times during the 2015-16 academic year, they discovered that children with disabilities were almost two times as likely to receive corporal punishment as students without disabilities. The finding is troubling, they write, considering the U.S. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act recommends schools use a behavior modification strategy known as Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports when students with disabilities misbehave.

The researchers, from the University of Florida and Clemson University, also found that Black students without disabilities were twice as likely to be physically disciplined as white students without disabilities. Meanwhile, schools were less likely to use corporal punishment on Hispanic students than white, non-Hispanic students.  

About The Author

Denise-Marie Ordway