PERSONAL STATEMENTS

Abstract

Scientific data do not support a blanket injunction against the use of corporal punishment. The shortand long-term consequences of corporal punishment, or any other disciplinary practice within the normative range, depend for their effects on the cultural and child rearing contexts in which the practice is embedded. Spanking is but one means that can be used by a care giver in a disciplinary encounter, the disciplinary encounter is but one socialization strategy; and socialization is but one dimension of optimal care giving. The disciplinary encounter is intended to control the child's short-term behavior: It should be understood that such encounters do not extinguish children's motivated behavior once and for all, but need to be reinforced periodically. The long-term consequences to the child of nonabusive aversive discipline is mediated by its meaning to the child. The meaning to the child, in turn, depends upon the normative standards of the community and the extent to which the child believes that the parent is generally responsive to his or her desires and needs. A focus on spanking as a major cause of violence is not only scientifically misleading, but also diverts attention from the systemic causes of violence associated with persistent poverty. Spanking, as defined for this conference, is not abusive or violent, although the practice is intentionally aversive. Under most circumstances, spanking a child younger than 18 months or past puberty is counterproductive: the infant lacks sufficient capacity to regulate his/her own behavior or to process the care giver's rationale for spanking, whereas the adolescent (in most cultures, although not all) is likely to reject the care giver's use of physical punishment, which the adolescent views as illegitimate and invasive.