Running head: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

Relationships between Corporal Punishment and

Young Childrens Prosocial Behaviors
Kyleigh Pharris
University of New Hampshire

Relationships between Corporal Punishment and

Running head: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

Young Childrens Prosocial Behaviors

This literature research paper examines the impact of corporal punishment and young
childrens development of behavior. The research for this paper was inspired by the current
National Football Leagues ongoing dilemma of professional players receiving repercussions
from the law when using physical punishment to discipline their children. The NFL players have
been identified by the media for abusing their children, and Americans have been discussing
whether or not physical discipline, such as spanking, is negative. Corporal punishment in the
United States has been up for debate for many years. Some Americans believe that this form of
discipline is acceptable, while others view this as another form of domestic violence within the
home. The reason this research topic was chosen is because as an educator, I feel that it is
important for myself to understand the affects of corporal punishment upon young children and
their development. To refine my research I chose to focus upon childrens prosocial behavior
development and try to identify if there is a relationship or correlation between the childrens
behaviors and corporal punishment. I guided my research by asking myself this one question,
What is the impact of corporal punishment within the family on young childrens prosocial
behavior? Educating myself upon these socially disputed topics, will help me further my
understanding upon how to better serve the families of the children I engage with on a daily
basis. Through gathering the research upon this subject I am able to form my own opinion about
the use of corporal punishment to discipline the children of this country. The following article
analysis focuses upon how corporal punishment impacts childrens externalization of their
behaviors toward others.
Analysis
Spanking and Child Development During the First 5 Years of Life

Running head: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

Maguire-Jack, K., Gromoske, A. N., Berger, L. M.

The authors of this peer reviewed article, researched the possible affects that spanking
may have upon young children at ages one, three, and five. The authors used The Fragile
Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCW) to analyze 4,898 children born between 1998 and
2000 in the United States. The population of the study was a majority of children that were born
into unmarried families and were of black and hispanic decent. The FFCW reported upon how
many times the children were spanked within the last month, in between visits from the
researchers. The same group of families were also assessed using the Child Behavior Checklist
(CBCL), and this was used to supply the authors with a better understanding of the childrens
behaviors after being spanked. The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III was used to assess the
childrens cognitive abilities during the same period of time of the previous two studies. The
Emotionality, Activity, and Sociability (EAS) Temperament Survey for Children was used along
with the FFCW to assess the childrens emotional wellbeing and stability. The authors concluded
that, our findings highlight that there do indeed appear to be reciprocal influences of spanking
and child behavior in that we find links between both child emotionally and earlier measures of
child behavior problems with later spankingthe influence of spanking on behavior problems
appears to be stronger than that of behavior problems on spankinglinking spanking to child
behavior than child behavior to spanking (Maguire-Jack, Gromoske, Berger, 2012, pp. 19731974).
The authors of this article have evaluated literature about the issue surrounding corporal
punishment, while providing a definition of what corporal punishment entails. Corporal
punishment involves the use of force to cause pain, but not injury, for the purpose of (behavioral)
correction or control (Straus & Stewart, 1999) (Maguire-Jack, Gromoske, Berger, 2012,

Running head: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

pp.1961). The authors also highlighted the social learning theory that Bandura suggested and
how it relates to children being spanked. children who are spanked may become more likely
to adopt aggressive behaviors because their parents have modeled aggression to them as an
acceptable form of behavior ((Maguire-Jack, Gromoske, Berger, 2012, pp.1961). Through this
explanation the authors explain that children who live in a family in which corporal punishment
is used regularly for disciple, can have an increase in externalizing their behavior. Meaning that
children are more likely to act out behaviorally when a problem arises. While reading the article
it seemed that the authors did not take positions, rather they presented the information clearly
and concise while then presenting what their research evidence has proven when thinking about
spanking and childrens behavior development.
The article was a gateway for myself to see research based conclusions that highlight how
corporal punishment is influencing childrens externalization of behaviors. It relates to my
research question of how corporal punishment impacts childrens prosocial behaviors, because it
focuses upon the way in which children express themselves to others when spanking is used for
discipline. It also helps me think about my own experiences as an educator and how young
children are receptive to the ways that people around them handle problems, and if they are hit
when doing something wrong then that shows them that hitting is a way to solve problems. This
evidence contributes to my understanding because it illustrates how spanking does not show
positive discipline effects and that there is no real reason to spank a child. Although the research
does not prove an overall image of how childrens development is impacted from spanking, it
does show that supporting families and providing education is a way to help families utilize other
means of discipline.

Running head: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

Transactional and Cascading Relations Between Early Spanking and Childrens SocialEmotional Development
Maguire-Jack, K., Gromoske, A. N.
This article builds upon the previous, as the authors made conclusions about their
research findings regarding childrens emotional development in correlation to spanking they
then did more research to discover more about childrens social and emotional development. The
children in this study were of the ages one, three, and five. The authors continued to utilize the
FFCW of 4,898 children that were born in the United States within the years of 1998 and 2000.
The alteration that the authors did to this research is that they limited their analysis to those
families that had completed at least one in home interview. This alteration in the study approach
allowed the authors to ensure they had observational time in the childs natural environment. The
study was focused upon the mothers and the frequency in which they spanked their child for
discipline over the last month. These then was compared to a behavior problem scale where the
mothers reflected the behaviors of the child during this same time period. The mothers were also
asked to rate their children on their emotional qualities of being aroused easily or intensely. The
authors also payed more attention to the mothers racial and ethnic backgrounds, age of childs
birth, along with cognitive ability. The authors concluded that, spanking and externalizing
behaviors transact with one another over time, meaning that parental spanking is prospectively
associated with child externalizing behavior and that child externalizing behavior is
prospectively associated with parental spanking (Maguire-Jack, Gromoske, 2012, pp.1063). The
authors also concluded that, the cascade effect suggests that early spanking may be more
detriment than previously found in studies that failed to measure both externalizing and
internalizing behavior problems simultaneously (Maguire-Jack, Gromoske, 2012, pp. 1064).

Running head: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

This peer reviewed article related to my research question, as it discovers a correlation

between spanking young children and the externalization behaviors that the children exhibit. This
contributes to my understanding of how corporal punishment can impact young childrens
prosocial behaviors. Parental spanking is associated with child externalizing behaviors and
externalizing behaviors are associated with spanking. However, there was no correlation between
internalizing because the authors discovered that measuring internal behaviors is more
challenging with younger children.
The research has highlighted literature to explain what has been discovered in previous
studies and how it portrays to development and their question upon how corporal punishment
impacts childrens social and emotional development. The authors reflect upon previous study
and refines it separating external and internal behaviors among children. The article did however,
seem to follow what the authors were suggesting, that internal and external behaviors are
impacted by spanking. Although the authors did have two clear hypothesis that highlighted what
they believed they would find, while using their previous research as a foundation.
The components of the study were focused upon mothers. The mothers were from the
United States but were of white, black, and hispanic decent. The mothers were all families that
had children in Head Start programs. After reviewing the article I believe that the data collected
in the research study is accurate because the authors list their scientific findings along with the
limitations in which they discovered. The authors were also honest in that they were unable to
prove that internalizing behaviors could not be proven due to the lack of ability to understand
young childrens thinking. The conclusions are based upon the research findings and the authors
explain the ways in which externalizing behaviors have a correlation to spanking and
internalizing behaviors do not.

Running head: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

Does Warmth Moderate Longitudinal Associations between Maternal Spanking and Child
Aggression in Early Childhood?
Lee, S. J., Altschul, I., Gershoff, E. T.
This peer reviewed journal focuses upon maternal warmth and the use of spanking to
analyze childrens aggression. The study was conducted with 3,279 pairs of mothers and children
from the United States that participated in the FFCW. The children were assess in waves of three
based upon their age, the first wave was at age one, the second at age three, and the third and age
five. Within the study the authors acknowledged that 49% of mothers were Black, 26% were
Hispanic, and 22% were White. The mothers and children in the study were all considered to be
a low-income family. The authors measured the times that mothers spanked her children, the
observable amount of warmth that the mother exhibited during the Home Observation for
Measurement of the Environment (HOME) Inventory. The authors used the CBCL to assess the
childrens aggressive behaviors. The authors concluded that, no evidence that maternal warmth
transforms the experience of being spanked such that childrens behavior improves overtimeno
evidence that maternal warmth buffered against the tendency for increases in maternal spanking
to predict increases in child aggression (Lee, Altschul, Gershoff, 2013, pp.15).
While reading the article one understands that the authors are very opposed to spanking
and physical punishment being used to discipline children. However, the authors do incorporate
literature to support their argument that corporal punishment is not an effective strategy for
disciplining young children. The authors also include evidence from the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services to explain that maternal warmth may not moderate the affect of
spanking, There is competing evidence from a longitudinal study of preschoolers that the

Running head: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

association between parental spanking and childrens externalizing behaviors is not moderated
by maternal warmth (Lee, Altschul, Gershoff, 2013, pp. 5).
The authors message is relevant to the findings and are taken into perspective when
considering my research question on how corporal punishment impacts young childrens
prosocial behaviors. However, the authors message at parts of the journal are at times one sided
and does not strictly eliminate their own personal opinions. The lack of omitting the personal
opinions takes away from the authors credibility because it could give the reader the impression
that the research is bias and perhaps one sided. The authors do not argue the opposing
perspective throughout the journal. However, the authors do supply supporting literature and
evidence from their research findings to support their opinion that maternal warmth does not
over shadow the experience of being spanked.
This article is relevant to my question because it provides evidence that maternal warmth
cannot change the effect that spanking has on a child. This suggests that no matter the love or
attention that is given to the child, the act of corporal punishment to discipline does not change
the feelings and experience the child had while being spanked. The authors did highlight that the
childs aggression and externalization of behaviors are strengthened with the use of corporal
punishment for disciple. correlations between maternal spanking over time and child
aggression over timeA corresponding child effect on mothers use of spanking was also found;
higher child aggression when children were three predicted an increase in maternal spanking
between waves three and four (Lee, Altschul, Gershoff, 2013, pp. 13). This finding allows for
my research to understand that spanking increases childrens aggressive behavior and maternal
warmth cannot change these behaviors. Therefore the negative acts of spanking stay with the
child and can lead to externalizing behaviors.

Running head: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

The Predictors of Parental Use of Corporal Punishment

Grogan-Kaylor, A., Otis, M. D.
The authors of this peer reviewed article closely examine the many ways corporal
punishment is used by families of varying cultural backgrounds, while also asking the question
of if corporal punishment is hindering childrens development. The authors examined the social
context and cultural norms that occur within the families that choose to discipline their children
with corporal punishment. The authors are trying to distinguish what predictors of a family can
create parents to use corporal punishment to discipline their children. The authors used the
Tobins Tobit Regression model to evaluate the behaviors of children in the relevance of corporal
punishment. The authors researched the demographics characteristics of the children and their
families, along with using the Behavior Problem Index (BPI) to assess the childrens behavioral
problems. The findings were that mothers age and educational level were not associated with the
use of corporal punishment, nor was the childs gender, However, in comparison religious
affiliation was associated with the use of corporal punishment, as well as there was a tendency
for Black families to use caporal punishment more than white and hispanic families. Although,
hispanic and white families were using corporal punishment equally. Children who displayed
greater amounts of externalizing behavior problems were more likely to be the recipients of
corporal punishment, whereas children who displayed greater levels of internalizing behavior
problems were less likely to be the recipients of corporal punishment (Grogan-Kaylor, Otis,
2007, pp.86).
The article presents the information in a way that does not show the authors opinions and
perceptions on the issue of corporal punishment. Instead the authors identify the many
contributing factors that families face when making the decision to use spanking as a method for

Running head: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

10

discipline. The article clearly presents the ways that families are under a microscope by society,
while addressing socio economic status and religious affiliation to the parents who utilize
spanking. The authors present both perspectives upon discipline and how these two parental
expectations and styles differ from the other. The article provides literature reviews to support
their findings and to present the varying perspective around this hot topic.
This article is relevant to my research question because it explores a different perspective
upon corporal punishment and families. The article addresses the cultural contexts that different
families may or may not believe in and it brings together an educational understanding that
educators need to be sensitive to the families diverse backgrounds before judging a families for
their use of corporal punishment. The article also identifies that corporal punishment is linked to
the externalizing behaviors of young children and that these children tend to receive more
corporal punishment than those with internalizing behaviors. This article furthers my
understanding upon how families can be approached about their use of discipline, while being
aware of the cultural and the parents own child rearing experiences. However, the information
from this article still provides support that children can exhibit externalizing behaviors from
being physically punished.
Forms of Spanking and Childrens Externalizing Behaviors
Wager, L. B., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., Dodge, K. A.
The authors of this peer reviewed article, explore the idea of whether or not the severity
of spanking and corporal punishment impact the externalization behaviors that children
experience. For the study that the authors conduct, they use a sample of 585 United States
children ages six, seven, and eight, and their families. The children samples were recruited for
the Child Development Project (CDP) that examines children's development and behaviors over

Running head: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

11

a wide range of factors. However, the CDP focuses upon the externalizing behaviors that
children exhibit. The authors examines the spanking of the children by frequency, whether or not
it occurred with a hand or object, along with the severity of the spanking from no spanking, to
mild, moderate, and harsh. The authors then looked at the childrens externalization behaviors
when mildly or harshly being spanked. there were significant differences between the harsh
spanking group and the other two groups but no significant differences between the no spanking
and mild spanking only group (Wager, Bates, Pettit, Dodge, 2012, pp. 229). One risk of using
any form of corporal punishment is that it will escalate into harsher forms in coercive cycles
between parents and childrenIndeed, our analyses revealed that compared to no spanking, mild
spanking in a given year conferred a 50% increase in a risk of harsh spanking in the next year
(Wager, Bates, Pettit, Dodge, 2012, pp. 232).
The authors of this article presented the information from other literature articles to
support their discoveries, while also using the literature to educate readers upon the issues
surrounding corporal punishment. The authors identified the information clearly and concise
without the use of bias. The authors stuck to the research findings and then made analyses from
the research and supporting evidence. While reading this article it was helpful to read more about
the parents and their contribution to the externalizing behaviors of the children in regards to
spanking. It was also helpful top read the authors notes surrounding the idea of prevention and
intervention for families, and how this can be helpful for parents to stop the use of corporal
punishment with their children. The authors provide a detailed understanding of what
externalizing behaviors are for young children.
This article relates to my research question of how corporal punishment within families
impacts young childrens prosocial behaviors, as it provides more research-based evidence that

Running head: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

12

illustrates that corporal punishment can alter childrens social behaviors for the worse. This
contributes to my understanding of the subject because the authors provide more evidence that
the severity of spanking is related to childrens externalizing behaviors, and that although parents
may be spanking their child mildly, there is a 50% chance that this spanking will escalate and
become harsh which in return can cause children to develop externalizing behaviors.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this literature research review has allowed myself to answer my research
question upon what is the impact of corporal punishment within the family on young childrens
prosocial behavior? As I read the five articles, I found that each article built on each other and
furthered my understanding on how children exhibit externalizing behaviors after having
corporal punishment being the main use of discipline in their family. Although the articles shared
different perspectives and researched varying ways in which corporal punishment is used
(severity, frequency, demographics, cultures, ages) each article had a general consensus that
corporal punishment increases children to develop externalizing behavior problems. Meaning
that children have a tendency to lash out or handle situations negatively, and are limited in
showing others positive behaviors. This has enabled me to draw a conclusion that childrens
social behaviors and emotional development are negatively impacted through the use of corporal
punishment.
As I think about this topic and how it is an issue that we face in our country, it helps me
gain a better understanding of how I want to parent my children but also how I can help educate
parents upon effective discipline strategies that do not have negative effects upon children. The
research connects me to the theoretical perspectives of Vygotsky and Montessori. Through these
two philosophers I have identified that discussion between adult and child is extremely valuable

Running head: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

13

when establishing relationships and even disciplining. For instance, if a child acts in a way that is
not appropriate I believe that it is important for the teacher to sit with the child and explain why
their actions cannot be a choice. Through these experiences children get angry and upset, but also
telling children that expressing these emotions are important is helpful in the process of children
learning and understanding why something is allowed and not allowed.
Vygotsky outlined the theory that for young children self-guiding speech can assist
children in verbal and emotional self control and regulation. This idea of using speech to guide
self control and behaviors aligns with my current philosophy of explaining to children why such
behaviors or tasks cannot be a choice at a certain time. Through dialog adults are able to explain
to children in a developmental manner that allows them to gain a better understanding, which can
lead to self control. When we were young, adults frequently used signals to direct our
behaviorA little later, we began applying similar signals to ourselves, at first aloud and then
silently through inner speech (Crain, 2011, pp. 236). This allows myself to reflect upon my
teaching philosophy and realize that as adults model for children how to handle situations
through using their words, this then becomes a learned skill and strategy for children to use when
overcoming challenges.
When thinking about Montessori, I think about how she describes real disciple, real
discipline is not something imposed from without, from threats or rewards, but something that
comes from within, form the children themselves as they pass from their first disordered
movements to those that are spontaneously regulated (Crain, 2011, pp. 85). This perspective on
misbehavior is something that I believe in while working with children. It is not about
threatening that the children will lose their recess time, but more about why such behaviors are
not acceptable and it is the balance of explaining that to children. Another idea of punishment

Running head: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

14

that Montessori speaks of is this idea that the classroom environment needs to be a positive
learning space. Quite often, children become so concerned with external evaluations-so afraid
of getting wrong answers and looking stupid-that they cannot concentrate deeply on their work
(Crain, 2011, pp.80). This makes me think about how the greatest service I can provide for my
children is that of a classroom community that does not shun children or apply even more
pressure to them for getting the correct answer. This pressure can take the meaning out of the
childrens discoveries and create learning to be less meaningful and enjoyable. My emerging
theory is strengthen by my research because it has shown me that by communicating with
children it provides more opportunity for learning and growth, than striking a child does.
Through reading the five articles I have developed a sense of recommendations to alter
this perpetuating problem of corporal punishment upon childrens prosocial behaviors. The use
of educating parents and families through interventions and parenting courses, seem to be the
best solution to this dilemma. The reason being is that with education and viewing spanking from
a different perspective, other than one they have known all their lives, it could give families a
chance to see that corporal punishment can have negative affects upon children and is not the
best way for discipline. In the parenting courses and interventions there would be strategies and
practices upon how to help children when they are disobeying the rules that have been
established. Providing families with alternative discipline behaviors that do not include corporal
punishment, and provide families with effective solutions.

Running head: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

15

References
Crain, W. (2011). Theories of Development: Concepts and applications. Sixth edition.
Upper

Saddle River, NJ. Pearson

Grogan-Kaylor, A., Otis, M. D. (2007). The predictors of parental use of corporal punishment.
National Council on Family Relations. Family Relations Vol. 56, No. 1., 80-91
Lansford, J.E., Wager, L.B., Bates, J.E., Pettit, G.S., Dodge, K.A. (2012). Forms of spanking and
childrens externalizing behaviors. National Council on Family Relations, 224-236.
Lee, S.J., Altchul, I., Gershoff, E.T. (2013). Does warmth moderate longitudinal associations
between maternal spanking and child aggression in early childhood? U.S.
American
2028.

Psychology Association. Developmental Psychology, Vol. 49(11), 2017-

Running head: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

16

Maguire-Jack, K., Gromoske, A.N., Berger, L.M. (2012). Spanking and child development
during the first 5 years of life. Society for Research in Child Development Inc.
Child

Development Vol. 83, No. 6, 1960-1977.

Maguire-Jack, K., Gromoske, A.N. (2012). Transactional and cascading relations between early
spanking and childrens social-emotional development. Department of Social
Work,
Marriage and

Helen Bader School of Social Welfare, University of Wisconsin. Journal of

Family 74, 1054-1068.