530
The primary contribution of this book is that
Corporal Punishment of Children in Theoreti-
cal Perspective. Michael Donnelly & Murray
Straus (Eds.). New Haven, CT: Yale Univer-
sity Press. 2005. 352 pp. ISBN 0-300-08547-
8. $55.00 (cloth).
Journal of Marriage and Family
it accomplishes its stated intent to ‘‘focus con-
certed attention, from a variety of theoretical
perspectives, on corporal punishment, and thus
to help fill a significant lacuna in the research
literature’’ (p. 6). In doing this, Donnelly and
Straus have contributed a seminal and long-
overdue text that all researchers of corporal
punishment will want to read and reference to
maintain credibility in the field.
Scholars contributing to this book were charg-
ed to ‘‘define corporal punishment from the
perspective of a particular theory, identify those
aspects of corporal punishment that the theory is
most adequate to explain, and relate the theory
at hand to other theories’’ (p. 7). Most of the
authors ably fulfilled the first two components
of the assignment. Unfortunately, only a third
offered explicit comparisons of their theory with
other theories in the volume, and the editors
offered no concluding chapter to assist readers in
integrating the many approaches.
The book has 20 chapters, loosely organized
into comparative, psychological, and sociologi-
cal approaches. Major theories applied include
Ecological perspective, Evolutionary biology,
Grid-group, Ethology, Attachment, Behavioral,
Rational choice, Moral development (as out-
lined by Piaget and Kohlberg), Psychoanalytic,
Communication, Conflict, Control (as formu-
lated by Travis Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson),
Social bonds, Exchange, Stress, Social control
(as developed by Black), and Family Systems.
The second major contribution of this vol-
ume is that it legitimizes the examination of
corporal punishment as a parenting strategy
with both maladaptive and adaptive sequelae.
Although none of the authors characterize
themselves as pro–corporal punishment—and
many make a point to stand against it—others
are forthright in acknowledging that corporal
punishment may play an adaptive role in some
circumstances.
Central to this more comprehensive treatment
of corporal punishment is the inclusion of evo-
lutionary theorists in the debate. Lynn Fairbanks
and Michael McGuire (chap. 3) supply a provoc-
ative account of vervet monkeys’ use of cus-
tomary physical punishment to balance the
competing needs of parents and offspring and to
regulate sibling rivalry. This adaptive function
is extended to humans in a must-read contribu-
tion by Patricia Crittenden (chap. 6) who argues
that touch (both affectionate and disciplinary) is
Book Reviews
the ultimate communication in the attachment-
based, developmentally driven parent-child dia-
logue about dominance. Crittenden takes it as
given that when preschoolers (a) fail to under-
stand the logic behind parental prohibitions and
place themselves in danger or (b) direct aggres-
sion toward a parent, the parent must prevail on
the basis of dominance. Other chapters make
the complementary argument that it is not any
specific form of punishment but rather the over-
all quality of family relationships that is critical
in determining children’s adjustment. This posi-
tion is presented most explicitly by Travis
Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson (chap. 15).
A third contribution of this volume is that the
simultaneous presentation of the various per-
spectives helps reveal several ‘‘growth areas’’
for the field. Two of these are particularly
apparent.
First, punishment researchers need to do
a better job reckoning children as developing,
rational, moral agents. Paradoxically, some of
the authors of this book portray young children
as more rational than basic brain maturation
permits; others ascribe children no culpability
(and almost no role) in parent-child conflict.
The difficulty posed by these incompatible rep-
resentations of children is manifested in the
work of William Baum and Anne Kupfer (chap.
8) who encourage readers to view parental
aggression as a problem in self-control and
children’s behavior as being controlled by the
environment rather than any ‘‘internal agent.’’
Although I applaud these authors’ attempt to
integrate psychology’s more mechanistic theo-
ries with its counteremphasis on agentic person-
hood, I found myself wondering when a child
becomes a moral agent for Baum and Kupfer. I
was similarly disturbed by Dominic Infante’s
proposal (Communication theory, chap. 13) that
the responsibility for ‘‘failed parenting messag-
es’’ rests entirely on the parent. Punishment re-
searchers’ failure to adequately regard
children’s developing agency will hamper the
continued refinement of our understanding of
the impact of punishment on children.
Second, most of the theories presented in the
volume need to be expanded to include more
than one child and competing ‘‘goods.’’ Despite
the fact that sibling aggression is a prime elici-
tor of parents’ physical punishment of children,
siblings were rarely mentioned in this volume.
Similarly, only a handful of chapters acknowl-
edged that most parents need to weigh the inter-
531
ests of a particular child against that child’s
own competing interests and against the good
of the broader family and community.
In another well-written chapter, Carlfred
Broderick (Family systems, chap. 20) raises
the issue of the general good. Whereas many
chapters were of interest to me professionally,
Broderick’s chapter also prompted personal
evaluation. I have recently adopted a preschooler
from a Russian orphanage. She bites. Disci-
plinary tactics that worked well with our sons
have been counterproductive with our daughter
(time-outs prompt disassociative rocking). Would
systematic physical punishment to extinguish
her biting ultimately facilitate good by fostering
the family’s emotional embrace? Is the psycho-
social risk of spanking one child trumped by the
public health risk inherent in letting a child of
unknown medical history draw others’ blood
with her teeth? Although it is unclear whether
Broderick’s general good can ever include
physical discipline, he at least provides a frame-
work for considering complex family situations,
something many of the other theories fail to do.
Until these ‘‘one-child’’ theories are expanded
to address the competing interests real families
face, they are likely to have little impact on pub-
lic behavior.
As these growth areas exemplify, there is still
a lot of work to be done on the third portion of
the authors’ assignment: relating the theory at
hand to other theories. Despite this, Donnelly
and Straus’s volume is one of the most thought-
provoking books I have read in some time.
MARJORIE LINDNER GUNNOE
Calvin College