Corporal Punishment of Preschoolers Research Paper

Introduction

Corporal punishment of preschoolers carries a high risk of teaching the children to use violence to resolve the crisis and it results in lasting damage to their physical and emotional development, therefore parents must seek alternate forms of disciplining their children.

Despite the adoption of policies that prevent disciplining of children through corporal punishment in a number of countries like Norway, Sweden, Italy, Croatia, and Finland among others, there are indications that many children in the USA are spanked by their parents (94% of the parents) according to Straus and Stewart (1999), by the time they reach 3-4 years old. The debate has attracted controversy with some people showing its advantages and disadvantages. Whereas some professionals and psychologists argue that corporal punishment is effective, some differ from this view. Some of the indications that the activity is not effective and is harmful are according to the American Academy of Pediatrics (1998), and Straus (1994).

Corporal punishment is defined by states such as Alaska, and Arizona as using reasonable force which should also be appropriate, moderate, necessary, and others such as New York and Texas view it as the use of force that is not deadly (Davidson, 1997). According to Straus (1994), it is the correcting or controlling of a child’s behavior through the use of physical force to inflict pain on the child. The differing definition may also be used to show the different conception and focus by different people for different types of analysis.

According to Gershoff, laboratory research has shown positive results in making children comply immediately and on a short-term basis (Newsom, Flavell, & Rincover, 1983). The author views that most of the research in the area of immediate compliance and corporal punishment is not based on observations but on inquiry from the parents of what type of punishments used and the parents’ description on the children’s response as concerns immediate response, and then they relate the frequency of punishment to the told story (e.g., Lytton, 1977; Minton, Kagan, & Levine, 1971; Power & Chapieski, 1986). According to this author, corporal punishment that yields positive compliance in a time far from the time of punishment indicates internalization. The writer views that moral internalization can not result from corporal punishment since it does not involve communicating the effects of a child’s behavior on others, may make the child develop the disability of avoiding being caught, and doesn’t teach good-behaving in children (Hoffman, 1983; Grusec, 1983; Smetana, 1997). The writer is of the view that public policy and research be used to consider the possibility of corporal punishment resulting in physical abuse. He shows data indicating that of every 1000 children who are below 18 years of age, 13 have been in one way or the other abused or neglected, and 21 % of them suffered physical abuse. The author indicates that meta-analysis cannot resist future studies on corporal punishment.

According to the authors, 59% of the Manitoba mothers of preschoolers used physical punishment in the previous 2 weeks (Ateah & Durrant, 2005). Controversy in the research carried out on parents’ use of physical force and spanking is further indicated in this research that indicates that disciplining a child through force such as spanking was supported by 64% of the surveyed 1000 people in an SES/Sun Media poll in January 2004, yet the research indicates that use of physical force was a major opposition. The author indicated that 50% of the parents surveyed in 2002 used (them or their spouses) inflicted light corporal punishment on children whereas only 6% inflicted painful ones. More reports which may indicate the need for people to take concern for the cases of corporal punishment possible to resulting in physical abuse are the reports of federal statistics that corporal punishment involving the use of blows with wooden paddles, time holes being cut in the paddle to inflict pain. Whether or not there are conflicting views on the issue of corporal punishment, the reality is that there is enough data to reveal the usage of force to inflict pain on children, including preschoolers.

This is one of the studies that can be used to test the claims that spanking and other means of imparting corporal punishment to children can result in positive total change in children as projected by some authors or as may be believed by many parents. The authors carried out research to determine the effects of corporal punishment on antisocial behavior among children and found evidence that spanking and other methods used by parents to impart corporal punishment on children do result in substantial negative effects. The author reports the views of other research work like Eamon (2001) that antisocial behavior of children may be affected to increasing in latter years by corporal punishment. Other people the author quotes as having found that increased antisocial behavior resulted in children due to imparting corporal punishment is Straus and colleagues (1997).

The author found in their study that no evidence of differences of corporal punishment effects on antisocial behavior across racial and ethnic lines. Corporal punishment was found to affect latter antisocial behavior among children in a non-trivial manner.

The author is of the view that beginning with tactics of disciplining that are less severe for example use of reasoning and proceeding with stricter tactics if initial tactics do not effectively produce acceptable compromise or compliance. Whereas many researchers have divided themselves in either line of criticism or support to the corporal punishment, the author seems to offer a strategy to solving the real problem at hand (“Corporal Punishment of Children (Spanking)”). Researchers should therefore embark on the criteria to researching on best ways of disciplining children, which is the problem at hand.

Psychiatric and addiction

In another study, Harriet MacMillan together with other teammates investigated the association existing between problems in adult behavior and spanking of children at childhood in Canada and found a linear association between lifetime prevalence of behaviors alcohol abuse, dependency, and externalizing problems, and anxiety disorders with slapping and spanking at childhood. Their analysis was based on the data of the 1990 population health survey by the Ontario Ministry of Health and involved 10000 adults. 13.2% of those who were sometimes or often spanked showed the behavior of abusing alcohol or addiction as compares to 5.8% who were never spanked and 10.2% of those who were rarely spanked (“Psychiatric and addiction”. More than one disorder involving addiction, antisocial behavior, and illicit drug abuse was found to be more among those who were sometimes spanked or those spanked more often (16.7%), compared to those that were never spanked (7.5%) and those that rarely were spanked (12.6%). Moreover, those tied with alcohol abuse as a result of being spanked were more (those that were often or at times spanked (13.2%)), compared to 10.2% of those that were rarely spanked and 5.8%-those that were never spanked. A larger percentage than was often or sometimes spanked (21.3%) was associated with anxiety disorder as compared to 16.3 % that was never spanked and 18.8% that was rarely spanked (“Psychiatric and addiction”).

Results that were linked to physical punishment of individuals include violence of prison inmates, High School Dropouts, and professionalism. In a study involving 52 slow achievers at Richmond High School, Delinquents, 372 college students, and 200 psychologists, a survey linked these and other results to individual physical punishment. Among the violent inmates at San Quentin, 100% of them were physically punished in an extreme manner as compared to zero percent of those never, rarely, moderately, or severely punished. 69% of High School dropouts were severely punished as compared to zero percent of those that were never punished. Yet an indicator that does not trash the benefits of physical punishment-joining college and becoming a professional indicated some presence of positive influence of it, but a tendency is present that it was carried out in a more moderate and rare manner in the latter case and rare to the severe manner in the first case. Only 2% of the college freshmen were never punished as compared to 40 % who were moderately punished, 33% that were severely punished, and 23% who were rarely punished. Amongst the professionals who were involved in this study, the highest percentage 40% was rarely punished as compared to only 5 % of those that were never punished, 36% that were moderately punished, 17 % that were severely punished, and 0% that were extremely punished (“Psychiatric and addiction”).

Conclusion

There is data evidence that punishing a child may through corporal means not lead to the realization of benefits as is widely believed by many and argued by some. Professionals have linked increased antisocial behavior to corporal punishment through spanking. There is an indication that better results may be achieved through controlled means of punishing a child such as incorporating love and using reasoning initially and progressing to stricter means of punishing the child if no benefits are realized.

References

1. Ateah, C. & Durrant, J. E. (2005). “Maternal use of physical punishment in response to child misbehavior: Implications for child abuse prevention”, Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, pp.177-193
2. Canadian Press and Leger Marketing. Child Abuse Report, 2002. Montreal, PQ: Canadian Press and Leger Marketing
3. “Corporal Punishment of Children (Spanking)”. 2007. Web.
4. Gershoff Elizabeth. “Corporal Punishment by Parents and Associated Child Behaviors and Experiences: A Meta-Analytic and Theoritical Review”.
5. Grusec, J. E. (1983). The internalization of altruistic dispositions: A cognitive analysis. In E. T. Higgins, D. N. Ruble, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Social cognition and social development (pp. 275–293). New York: Cambridge University Press
6. Hoffman, M. L. (1983). Affective and cognitive processes in moral inter-internalization. In E. T. Higgins, D. N. Ruble, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Social cognition and social development (pp. 236–274). New York: Cambridge University Press
7. Lytton, H. (1977). Correlates of compliance and the rudiments of con-science in two-year-old boys. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Sci-ence, 9, 242–251
8. Minton, C., Kagan, J., & Levine, J. A. (1971). Maternal control and obedience in the two-year-old. Child Development, 42, 1873–1894
9. Newsom, C., Flavell, J. E., & Rincover, A. (1983). The side effects of punishment. In S. Axelrod & J. Apsche (Eds.), The effects of punishment on human behavior (pp. 285–316). New York: Academic Press
10. Power, T. G., & Chapieski, M. L. (1986). Childrearing and impulse control in toddlers: A naturalistic observation. Developmental Psychol-ogy, 22, 271–275
11. “Psychiatric and addiction”.
12. Adah Maurer, Ph.D. and James S. Wallerstein(1987). The Influence of Corporal Punishment on Crime. Web.
13. Smetana, J. G. (1997). Parenting and the development of social knowledge reconceptualized: A social domain analysis. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children’s internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 162–192). New York: Wiley
14. Straus, M. A. (1994a). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in American families. New York: Lexington Books
15. Straus, M. A., & Stewart, J. H. (1999). Corporal punishment by American parents: National data on prevalence, chronicity, severity, and duration, in relation to child and family characteristics. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2, 55–70
16. “The nature and extent of Corporal punishment –Prevalence and attitudinal Research in north America. Summaries prepared by the global initiative to end All corporal punishment of children”.