M"Physical Punishmentand Physical AbuseAssociate Professor Joan E. Durrant, Department of Family Social ScrencesUniversity of Manitoba

As many of us wi l l remember; for tyyears ago most chi ldren were spankedat one t ime or another for theirbehavioural t ransgressions. A straphung in most school pr incipals ' of f icesand, as chi ldren, we l ived with theconstant threat of i ts use should westep out of l ine. In fact , most of thosewho are reading this art ic le werephysical ly punished at some t ime intheir l ives - some more frequent lythan others, some more severely thanothers, but a lmost al l have had theexper ience of being punished throughthe use of physical force.

The learning environment of manyof today's chi ldren is di f ferent f romthe one we knew. Many schools haveabol ished the strap, al though notal l . Many parents have commit tedthemselves to f inding ways ofteaching their chi ldren to fo l low therules other than through physicalpain, a l though others st i l l bel ieve ini ts necessi ty. Many more chi ldren arenow growing up without having hadthe exper ience of being struck by theiroarents or teachers than was the caseone generat ion ago.

Canadian society has begun toredef ine physical punishment as anact of violence and its rejection isbecoming increasingly normat ive.This social change may const i tute oneof the most lmoortant contr ibut ionsthat could be made to the pr imaryorevent ion of chi ld abuse.

In th is art ic le, I wi l l summarize theresearch that demonstrates how thesocial approval of physical punishmentcontr ibutes to the physical abuseof chi ldren. There are two pr imarymechanisms by which i t perpetuatesabuse: 1) as a bel ief system thatincreases the l ikel ihood of abuse

in f rustrat ing s i tuat ions; and 2) as areference point that ra ises thresholdsof to lerance for v io lence in the nextgenerat ion. Each of these mechanismswi l l be descr ibed in the fo l lowingsect ions.

1. Approval of Physical

Punishment as a Precipi tant

of Physical Abuse

When physical chi ld abuse wasf i rst ident i f ied in the 1960's, i t wasbelieved to be the result of psychiatricdisturbance. Today, we know thatmost oarents who harm their chi ldrendo not demonstrate psychopathology,but have chosen to use physical forceas a means of control l ing or correct inga chi ld 's behaviour. When we considerthe incidence of chi ld physical abusein Canada - 15,553 substant iatedinvest igat ions in 1998 alone (Trocm6,

2001) - we no longer can view i t asan aberrat ion. Rather, i t is of ten thelogical end-point of a predictablepattern of parent-chi ld interact ionthat includes the use of physicalpunishment.

In 1981, Kadushin and Mart inpubl ished a study of substant iatedcases of nonsexual abuse by parentsin the United States. They foundthat the abuse "almost invar iably" (p.

249) occurred within the context of adiscipl inary interact ion.

"ln most instances, parents hada deliberate, explicit disciplinaryobjective in mind in involvingthemselves in the interactionculminating in abuse. Theirinstrumental intent was to obtain amodification of the child's behaviorwhich they perceived as needingchanging" (pp.250).

c i l (1970) conducted a nat ional studyof al l cases of chi ld physical abusereported dur ing a two-year per iod inthe United States. He found that themost common type of abuse (630/o ofcases) involved " incidents developingout of d iscipl inary act ion taken bycaretakers" (pp. 126).

Findings of the recent CanadianIncidence Study of Reported Chi ldAbuse and Neglect (ClS: Trocm6et a1,2001) revealed that 69% ofsubstant iated cases of chi ld physical

abuse "occurred as a resul t ofinappropr iate punishment (e.g. ,

hitt ing with hand or object) that ledto physical harm, or put the chi ld atsubstant ia l r isk of harm" (pp. 30-31).ln contrast, only 1% of substantiatedphysical abuse cases were attributableto Shaken Baby Syndrome, a socialproblem that has been the subject ofextensive publ ic educat ion campaigns.

How does intended discipl ine becomean in jur ious act? This t ransformat ioqtakes place through a process thatis al l - too-fami l iar to most parents.

Typical ly. indiv iduals become parentswith minimal levels of educat ionabout chi ld development, l i t t leknowledge of normat ive behaviourat var ious developmental stages, andinappropr iate expectat ions regardingchi ldren's capaci t ies for sel f -control .When a chi ld demonstrates a desirefor autonomy (e.9. , "Nol") , a dr ivefor explorat ion and exper imentat ion(e.9. , touching Grandma's vase), anddiff iculty in exerting self-control(e.9. , tantrums), such a parent is l ikelyto become frustrated and angrY,at t r ibut ing the chl ld 's behaviour todef iance or mal ic ious intent (Bugental ,

Mantyla, & Lewis, 1989; Dix & Grusec,1985). l f that parent bel ieves thatphysical punishment is an appropr iate

4 uaA' A newsletter from the Office of the Children's Commissioner

rebeccaTypewritten TextChildren. Issue 50, June 2004

?

discipl inary response (Holden et a l ' ,

1993; Moore & Straus, 1987), sPankingis a l ikely outcome.

The chi ld, now physical ly hurt and

distressed, wil l stop performing the

behaviour; thereby reinforcing theparent for using physical punishment(Walters, 1991). However. the chi ld 'smastery motivation and limited

understanding of the wor ld are l ikely

to resul t in another act object ionableto the parent. The Parent, now

bel ieving that physical punishment

was effective in the past, spanks again.And, again, the chi ld 's behaviourceases, further reinforcing the parent's

belief about the effectiveness of thepunishment.

As the spanking increases in f requency,the chi ld 's behaviour worsens.Numerous studies (Gershoff , 2001, inpress) have demonstrated that thefrequency of spanking is positively

related to deviant chi ld behaviouLsuch as aggression (27 studies) andant isocial behaviour (12 studies) (e.g. ,

Straus, Sugarman, & Gi les-Sims, 1999;Travil l ion & Snyder, 1993). Therefore,as the parent becomes increasinglyrel iant on physical punishment, the

chi ld becomes increasingly aggressiveand def iant . The parent, in turn,becomes increasingly angry (Reid,

Patterson, & Lorber, 1981) and,bel ieving that physical punishment iseffective and appropriate, increasesthe intensi ty of the punishment unt i lin jury is sustained by the chi ld (Burgess

& Drapel 1989).

Ross Vasta ('1982) reviewed thel i teratures on instrumental aggressionand chi ld abuse and developed an

empir ical ly based model of abuse. He

argues that whi le parents maY havean instrumental goal ( learned throughprevious patterns of reinforcement,not intended to be harmful, expectedto produce positive results) when theydecide to use physical punishment,

their heightened arousal levels (due

to their frustration, anger, stress,i r r i tabi l i ty) " independent ly act onthe intended degree of PhYsicalpunishment to produce resPonsesinvolv ing a dangerous or in jur ious

level of force. What begins as an actof physical d iscipl ine, thus, becomesan act of interpersonal v io lence" (p.

1 3s).

The social acceptance of physicalpunishment plays an important rolein th is escalat ion process. Moore andStraus (1987) demonstrated that themore strongly Parents aPProve ofcorporal punishment, the more l ikelythey are to use i t and the more harshlythey administer i t ; Parents who

approve of physical punishment havea chi ld abuse rate 4 t imes higher thanthat of parents who do not approve of

it (Moore & Straus, '1987). Indeed, thel ikel ihood of maternal use of v io lentdiscipl ine increases with a bel ief in the"necessity, normalcy and goodness ofphysical punishment" (Lenton, 1990,pp. 173). Therefore, societal messagesthat convey the appropriateness ofphysical punishment increase thelikelihood of its use and, thereby, setthe stage for physical abuse.

2. Physical Punishment and

Thresholds for Tolerance of

Violence

One of the di f f icul t ies we may havein confronting the issue of physicalpunishment is the absence of a c leardist inct ion between punishment andabuse. Some would argue that nosuch dist inct ion can be made; anYuse of physical force against a chi ld isabusive by def in i t ion. Others wouldargue that label ing a tap on a toddler 'shand an abusive act inf lames thedebate and tr iv ia l izes in jur ious abuse.I would argue that our Posi t ions onthis quest ion are largely informed byour own personal exper ience, whichhas establ ished our thresholds fortolerance of violence.

The strongest predictor of one's levelof approval of physical punishment isthe degree to which one was physical lypunished as a chi ld even when age,gende4 race, educat ion, and incomeare control led (Buntain-Ricklefs,

Kemper; Bell, & Babonis, 1994).The rate of approval of commonpunishments (e.9. , h i t t ing wi th a bel t ,pul l ing hair) is 2 to 3 t imes greater

among those who have exper iencedsuch punishments than among thosewho have not. The rate of approvalof severe physical punishments(e.9. , being burned, having teethknocked out) is 2.5 t imes greater forthose who have experienced suchpunishments than among those whohave not (Buntain-Ricklefs et a l . ,' t 994). Therefore, the acts of violencethat we exper ienced as chi ldren maybecome our cutof f points for def in ing"discipl ine" versus "abuse."

This phenomenon was demonstrateddramat ical ly in a 1 0-yearstudyof 1 1,660adul ts in the Uni ted States who wereasked about the k inds of punishments

they received as chi ldren, and whetherthey considered themselves to havebeen physical ly abused (Knutson &Selnet 1994). Of those part ic ipants

who reported having received severephysical punishment (e.9. , punching,

kicking, choking), 74% did not labelthemselves as having been abused.Of those who had been hit with morethan 5 different types of objects,49o/o did not label themselves ashaving been abused. Of those whohad received more than 2 differenttypes of disciplinary injuries, 44o/odid not label themselves as havingbeen abused. And of those who hadrequired 2 different types of medicalservices for their in jur ies,33% didnot label themselves as having beenabused. Therefore, even seriouslyabusive behaviour can be def ined asnormative if i t is part of one's personal

exoerience.

We carry our def in i t ions of d iscipl ineand violence into the parent ing

situation, where they influence thel ikel ihood that abuse wi l l occur. l thas been demonstrated that abusiveparents are more l ikely to havereceived physical punishment aschi ldren than are non-abusive parents(Straus & Smith, 1992) and mothersraised in abusive circumstances arethree t imes more l ikely to use physicalpunishment than mothers who werenot abused (Berger; 2001). Therefore,childhood experience of physical forceas a means of d iscipl ine can raise one'sthreshold for to lerance of v io lence such

A newsletter from the Office of the Children's Commissioner.1" r

P : , rfl

that behaviour viewed by one parentas seriously abusive may constitute"normat ive discipl ine" to another. Byredef in ing physical punishment c lear lyas an act of violence, we may shift thereference points of indiv iduals whoare at r isk of abusing their chi ldrenby virtue of the thresholds that wereestabl ished in their chi ldhoods.

Re-Def in ing Physical Punishment

Over the past twenty years, anhistor ical shi f t has begun to takeplace in the def in i t ion of physicalpunishment. Whi le even onegenerat ion ago, i t was consideredto be an expected - even necessary -item in the parental toolkit, today it isbecoming a social ly undesirable act . Ina recent Canadian study of mothers ofpreschoolers (Durrant, Rose-Krasnol& Broberg, under review), a majorityreported a belief that it is ineffective,unnecessary, and harmful.

In an increasing number of nat ions,this shift has been even more dramatic.Since 1979, ten nations have redefinedphysical punishment as an act ofv io lence that is no longer permit tedby law. These nat ions are: lceland(2003), lsrael (2000), Germany (2000),croatia (1999), Latvia (1998), Cyprus(1994), Austria (1989), Norway (1987),Denmark (1986), Finland (1984), andSweden (1979). These laws serve asimportant symbols that set a standardfor non-violent chi ldrear ing andrender moot the question of whetherstr ik ing a chi ld is an act of d iscipl ine orabuse. Their purpose is not to wieldthe mighty power of the State againsta frustrated, well-intentioned parent.Rather; their purpose is to make itc lear that parental use of v io lenceof any kind against a chi ld is notcondoned by the State.

These legal reforms are of an histor icaland internat ional s igni f icance on a parwith those that redefined husbands'use of physical punishment wi th theirwives as v io lence, rather than as amarital right. Today, that process ofredef in i t ion is so complete that anyexpression of support for the use ofphysical force between partners is a

shocking rar i ty. In nat ions l ike Sweden,the same process has occurred withrespect to parental use of physicaldiscipl ine wi th chi ldren. Whereas, in'1965, hal f of the Swedish populat ionbel ieved that physical punishment isnecessary in chi ldrear ing, only 60/o ofSwedes born since that t ime supporti ts use today (SIFO, 1981; SCB, 1996).The impl icat ions of such a societal shi f tfor reducing chi ld physical abuse maybe revealed in the following statistic:between ' l 975 and 1996, only fourchi ldren died in Sweden from theeffects of physical abuse (see Durrant,2000).

Conclusion

It has been demonstrated in anumber of large studies across t imeand samples that a majority ofcases of child physical abuse occurwithin the context of a discipl inaryincident. Societal acceptance, evenif not support, of parental use ofphysical punishment contr ibutes tothis problem. Clear societal messagesthat reject the use of violence as ameans of conf l ic t resolut ion helpto put into place inhibitory controlsthat are necessary in the face offrustration, and set a behaviouralstandard. In Canada, we have madethis message clear wi th regard topartners, peers, and strangers. lfa clear message rejecting the useof physical punishment of chi ldrenprevented even ' l 0% of physical childabuse cases, we would see 1,555 fewerincidents of chi ld physical abuse eachyear (estimated on the basis of Trocm6et al 's (2001) f indings regarding theincidence of chi ld physical abuse inCanada). ls th is not reason enough tomake the message clear?

References

Berger, E. (2001).Generat ion AbuseHealth Monitor.

Nat ional Report on Inter-Toronto: Berger Populat ion

Bugental , D.8. , Mantyla, S.M., & Lewis, J. (1989).Parental attributions as moderators of affectivecommunicat ion to chi ldren at r isk for physicalabuse. ln D. Cicchetti & V Carlson (Eds.), ChildMaltreatment: Theory and Research on theCauses and Consequences of Child Abuse andNeo/ect (pp. 254-279). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversitv Press.

Buntain-Ricklefs, J. i . , Kemper, K.J. , Bel l , M., &Babonis, T. (1994). Punishments: What predictsadult approval. Child Abuse and Neolect, 18,945-955.

Dix, T.H., & Grusec, J.E. (1985). Parent at t r ibut ionorocesses in the social izat ion of chi ldren" Inl.E. Sigel (Ed.), Parental belief systems: Thepsychological conseouences for children (pp. 201 -233). Hi l lsdale, NJ: Er lbaum.

Durrant, J.E. (2000). A generation withoutsmackinq: The impact of Sweden's ban on physicalpunishment. London, UK: Save the Chi ldren.

Durrant, J.E., Rose-Krasnor, L., & Broberg,A.G. (2003). Maternal bel iefs about physicalpunishment in Sweden and Canada. Journal ofComparative Familv Studies, 34, 586-604.

Gershoff, E.T. (2001). Parental corporalpunishment and associated chi ld behaviors andexper iences: A meta-analyt ic and theoret icalr eview. Psvch o I og i ca I Bu I I eti n, 1 28, 539-57 9.

G il, D.G. (1 97 O). Vi o I e nce a g a i nst ch i I d re n : Physi ca Ichild abuse in the United States. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Holden, G.W., Coleman, S.D., Schmidt, K.1. ,& O'Dell, PC. (1993, March). Maternal use ofphysical punishment: Instrumental practicesin the home. Paper presented at the BiennialMeetings of the Society for Research in ChildDevelopment, New Orleans, LA.

Kadushin, A. , & Mart in, J.A. (1981). Chi ld abuse:An international event New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

Knutson, J.F. , & Selner M.B. (1994). Puni t ivechi ldhood exper iences reported by young adul tsover a 10-year period. ChlldAbuse & Neo/ect, 18,I f f - | oo.

Lenton, R.L. (1990). Techniques of chi ld discipl ineand abuse by parents. Canadian Review ofSociology and Anthropolooy, 2T, 157 -184.

Moore, D.W., & Straus, M.A. (1987). Violence ofparents toward their chi ldren: New Hampshire.Durham, NH: Family Research Laboratory,Universi ty of New Hampshire.

SCB (1996). Spanking and other forms of physicalpunishment: A study of adul ts ' and middle schoolstudents ' opinions, exper ience, and knowledge.Demoqafska-Bappodel 1.2. Stockholm: Author.

SIFO (1981). Aaa och barnmisshandel.Unpubl ished report .

Straus, M.A., & 5mith, C. (1992). Family patternsand chi ld abuse. In M.A. Straus & R.J. Gel les (Eds.) ,Phvsical violence in American families: Risk factorsand adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (22.245-261). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Straus, M.A., Sugarman, D.B., & Gi les-Sims, J.(1997). Spanking by parents and subsequentantisocial behavior of children- Archives ofPediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 151, 761-767 .

Trocm6, N., Maclaur in, 8. , Fal lon, B. , Daciuk, J. ,Bi l l ingsley, D., Tour igny, M., Mayen M., Wright,J. , Barter, K. , Burford, G., Hornick, J- , Sul l ivan, R",McKenzie, B. (2001). Canadian lncidence Studyof Reported Child Abuse and Neglect: FinalReport. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works andGovernment Services Canada, 2001.

Walters, G.C. (1991, October). Psvcholoqicaldeterminants of corporal ounishment Paperpresented at the Annual Conference of theinst i tute for the'Prevent ion of Chi ld Abuse,Toronto, ON.

6 il&* A newsletter from the Office of the Children's Commissioner