Hubbry Logo
SpankingSpankingMain
Open search
Spanking
Community hub
Spanking
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Spanking
Spanking
Spanking
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Cropped portrait of a mother spanking her child from a 1937 parenting book

Spanking is a form of corporal punishment involving the act of striking, with either the palm of the hand or an implement, the buttocks of a person to cause physical pain. The term spanking broadly encompasses the use of either the hand or implement, though the use of certain implements can also be characterized as other, more specific types of corporal punishment such as belting, caning, paddling, and slippering.

Some parents spank children in response to undesired behavior.[1][2] Adults more commonly spank boys than girls both at home and in school.[3] Some countries have outlawed the spanking of children in every setting, including homes, schools, and penal institutions,[4] while others permit it when done by a parent or guardian.

Medical organizations discourage its use in favor of healthier discipline strategies.[5][6][7] Some research has found correlations between spanking and increased aggression, mental health issues, and decreased obedience in children,[1][8] however findings have been inconsistent,[9] and correlational research suffers from confounding explanations.[10] A 2024 analysis of previous studies found that spanking accounted for less than 1% of changes in child outcomes, concluding that harm caused by spanking had been overstated.[9]

Terminology

[edit]
Part of a series on
Corporal punishment
By place
By implementation
By country
Court cases
Politics
Campaigns against corporal punishment

In American English, dictionaries define spanking as being administered with either the open hand or an implement such as a paddle.[11] Thus, the standard form of corporal punishment in US schools (use of a paddle) is often referred to as a spanking. In North America, the word "spanking" has often been used as a synonym for an official paddling in school,[12] and sometimes even as a euphemism for the formal corporal punishment of adults in an institution.[13]

In British English, most dictionaries define "spanking" as being given only with the open hand.[14] In the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand, the word "smacking" is generally used in preference to "spanking" when describing striking with an open hand, rather than with an implement. Whereas a spanking is invariably administered to the bottom, a "smacking" is less specific and may refer to slapping the child's hands, arms, or legs as well as its bottom.[15]

Effect on children

[edit]

The main reasons parents give for spanking their children are to make children more compliant and to promote better behavior, especially to put a stop to their children's apparent aggressive behaviors. [citation needed] However, research has shown that spanking (or any other form of corporal punishment) is associated with the opposite effect.[1][5] When adults physically punish children, the children tend to obey parents less with time and develop more aggressive behaviors, including toward other children.[1] This increase in aggressive behavior appears to reflect the child's perception that hitting is the way to deal with anger and frustration.[1]

There are also many adverse physical, mental, and emotional effects correlated with spanking and other forms of corporal punishment, including various physical injuries, increased anxiety, depression, and antisocial behavior.[1][16][17] Adults who were spanked during their childhood are more likely to abuse their children and spouse.[1]

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH), and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) all recommend that no child should be spanked and instead favor the use of effective, healthy forms of discipline.[1][5][6][7] Additionally, the AAP recommends that primary care providers (e.g., pediatricians and family medicine physicians) begin to discuss parents' discipline methods no later than nine months of age and consider initiating such discussions by age 3–4 months.[1] By eight months of age, 5% of parents report spanking and 5% report starting to spank by age three months.[1] The AAP also recommends that pediatricians discuss effective discipline strategies and counsel parents about the ineffectiveness of spanking and the risks of harmful effects associated with the practice to minimize harm to children and guide parents.[5][18]

Although parents and other advocates of spanking often claim that spanking is necessary to promote child discipline, studies have shown that parents tend to apply physical punishment inconsistently and tend to spank more often when they are angry or under stress.[19] The use of corporal punishment by parents increases the likelihood that children will suffer physical abuse,[1] and most documented cases of physical abuse in Canada and the United States begin as disciplinary spankings.[20] If a child is frequently spanked, this form of corporal punishment tends to become less effective at modifying behavior over time (also known as extinction).[1] In response to the decreased effectiveness of spanking, some parents increase the frequency or severity of spanking or use an object.[1]

A 2024 scientific analysis of previous studies found that spanking accounted for less than 1% of changes in child outcomes, concluding that "blanket anti-spanking injunctions" were unsupported.[9]

Alternatives to spanking

[edit]
National and subnational laws limiting spanking[21]
  States where it is illegal for parents to spank a child at home
  States where it is illegal for children to be spanked at school
[stripes – the law varies by region or by the type of school]

Parents may spank less – or not at all – if they have learned effective discipline techniques, as many view spanking as a last resort for disciplining their children.[5] There are many alternatives to spanking and other forms of corporal punishment:

  • Time-in, increasing praise, and special time to promote desired behaviors
  • Time-outs to take a break from escalating misbehavior
  • Positive reinforcement of rewarding desirable behavior with a star, sticker, or treat
  • Implementing non-physical punishment (psychology) in which an unpleasant consequence follows misbehavior, such as taking away a privilege
  • Ignoring low-level misbehaviors and prioritizing attention on more significant forms of misbehavior
  • Avoiding the opportunity for misbehavior and thus the need for corrective discipline.[1]

In the home

[edit]
Main article: Corporal punishment in the home
Representation from 1895 of a mother spanking her child on the bare bottom with a hairbrush for breaking the vase
Portrait of mother spanking her child from the 1925 parenting book Correction that Corrects

Parents commonly spank their children as a form of corporal punishment in the United States; however, support for this practice appears to be declining amongst U.S. parents.[1][5] Spanking is typically done with one or more slaps on the child's buttocks with a bare hand, although, not uncommonly, various objects are used to spank children, such as a hairbrush or wooden spoon.[1] Historically, adults have spanked boys more than girls.[3][22] In the United States, adults commonly spank toddlers the most.[23]

In schools

[edit]
Main article: School corporal punishment
Medieval representation of a schoolboy being birched
Drawing from 1821 showing a school teacher from Rome spanking a student on the bare bottom

Corporal punishment, usually delivered with an implement (such as a paddle or cane) rather than with the open hand, used to be a common form of school discipline in many countries, but it is now banned in most of the Western World.

Corporal punishment, such as caning, remains a common form of discipline in schools in several Asian and African countries, even in countries in which this practice has been deemed illegal such as India and South Africa.[24][25][26] In these cultures it is referred to as "caning" and not "spanking." The Supreme Court of the United States in 1977 held that the paddling of school students was not per se unlawful.[27] However, 33 states have now banned paddling in public schools. It is still common in some schools in the South, and more than 167,000 students were paddled in the 2011–2012 school year in American public schools.[28] Students can be physically punished from kindergarten to the end of high school, meaning that even adults who have reached the age of majority are sometimes spanked by school officials.[29]

Several medical, pediatric, or psychological societies have issued statements opposing all forms of corporal punishment in schools, citing such outcomes as poorer academic achievements, increases in antisocial behaviors, injuries to students, and an unwelcoming learning environment. They include the American Medical Association,[30] the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,[31] the American Psychoanalytic Association,[32] the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP),[33][34] the Society for Adolescent Medicine,[35][36] the American Psychological Association,[37] the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health,[38][39] the Royal College of Psychiatrists,[40] the Canadian Paediatric Society[41] and the Australian Psychological Society,[42] as well as the United States' National Association of School Psychologists and National Association of Secondary School Principals.[43][44]

Adult spanking

[edit]
Illustration of a grinning man with upraised hand about to spank a woman in a long skirt, who is lying prone and mock-helpless across his lap, smiling coyly; copy reads: 'Famed stage hit now big color musical! Starring: Kathryn Grayson; Howard Keel; Ann Miller
Theatrical release poster for Kiss Me Kate, 1953

Most spanking performed between adults in the 21st century within the Western world is erotic spanking.[citation needed]

Within the early 20th century, American men spanking their wives and girlfriends was often seen as an acceptable form of discipline. It was a common trope in American films, from the earliest days up through the 1960s, and was often used to allude to romance between the man and woman.[45]

In the early 21st century, adherents of a subculture known as Christian domestic discipline have, on a literalist interpretation of the Bible, justified spanking as a form of acceptable punishment of women by their husbands,[46] even though there are no direct teachings or examples in the Bible of husbands spanking their wives. Critics describe such practices as a form of domestic abuse.[47]

A few countries have a judicial corporal punishment for adults.

Ritual spanking traditions

[edit]
An Easter whip (Czech: pomlázka; Slovak: korbáč)

Asia

[edit]

On the first day of the lunar Chinese New Year holidays, a week-long 'Spring Festival', the most important festival for Chinese people all over the world, thousands of Chinese visit the Taoist Dong Lung Gong temple in Tungkang to go through the century-old ritual to get rid of bad luck. Men traditionally receive spankings and women get whipped, with the number of strokes to be administered (always lightly) by the temple staff being decided in either case by the god Wang Ye and by burning incense and tossing two pieces of wood, after which all go home happily, believing their luck will improve.[48]

Europe

[edit]

On Easter Monday, there is a Slavic tradition of spanking girls and young ladies with woven willow switches (Czech: pomlázka; Slovak: korbáč) and dousing them with water.[49][50][51]

In Slovenia, there is a jocular tradition that anyone who succeeds in climbing to the top of Mount Triglav receives a spanking or birching.[52]

In Poland, there is a tradition named Pasowanie, which is celebrated on the 18th birthday. The birthday person receives eighteen smacks with the belt from the guests at the birthday party.[53]

North America

[edit]

Birthday spanking is a tradition within some parts of the United States. Within the tradition, an individual (commonly, though not exclusively, a child) upon their birthday receives, typically corresponding to their age, several spanks. Characteristically, these spankings are playful and are administered in such a fashion that the recipient receives no or only minor discomfort.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Spanking

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Spanking is a common method of involving the deliberate infliction of physical pain on the , typically with an , intended to cause discomfort but not for the correction or control of , particularly in children. Historically rooted in ancient disciplinary practices documented in religious texts and cultural traditions, spanking has been employed worldwide as a parental tool to enforce obedience and moral development, evolving from more severe forms like whipping to milder hand-administered strikes by the 19th century. Despite declining approval in high-income countries, empirical surveys reveal its continued prevalence, with approximately 35-45% of U.S. parents endorsing occasional spanking as necessary discipline, and higher rates reported in low- and middle-income regions where past-year exposure exceeds 70% in some areas. Research on outcomes remains contentious, with multiple meta-analyses linking spanking to elevated risks of child aggression, antisocial conduct, and later challenges, yet these associations often fail to establish causation amid evidence of bidirectional influences—such as noncompliant children prompting more spanking—and minimal for variance in (less than 1% in some models). Legally, spanking by parents is permitted in all 50 U.S. states absent , reflecting a tolerance for moderate physical , whereas more than 65 nations have prohibited all forms of against children in homes and institutions, prioritizing non-violent alternatives amid international advocacy.

Definition and Terminology

Etymology and Usage

The term "spank" emerged in English around 1727 as a denoting a forceful strike with the open hand, particularly on the , likely imitative of the sharp slapping sound produced by such an action. Its precise origins remain uncertain, with possible influences from Scandinavian languages, such as Danish or Swedish terms evoking strutting or stamping motions, though the punitive connotation aligns more closely with onomatopoeic formation. Early attestations, including in Nathan Bailey's 1727 dictionary, emphasize the act's association with correction rather than mere impact, distinguishing it from broader striking verbs like "smack" or "slap." As a noun, "spanking" referring to the act itself first appears in the mid-19th century, with the citing 1854 usage in Anne Baker's Northamptonshire Glossary, where it describes the explicitly as blows to the . This nominal form derives directly from the , solidifying its specialized role in denoting non-injurious, hand-administered , often in parental or educational settings, as opposed to implement-based like . Historical texts from the 18th and 19th centuries, such as conduct manuals, increasingly employed "spanking" to advocate measured physical correction for child misbehavior, reflecting a cultural norm of swift, localized chastisement intended to instill obedience without lasting harm. In contemporary English, "spanking" retains its core meaning of open-handed buttock striking for disciplinary purposes, though usage has expanded to include consensual contexts, such as in erotic play, where it connotes rhythmic, controlled slaps for sensory stimulation rather than correction. Dictionaries like define it primarily as punitive, with the verb form dated to circa 1712 in imitative origins, underscoring its auditory roots over etymological ties to unrelated adjectives like "spanking" (meaning brisk or fine, from the 1660s). The term's prevalence in American and correlates with surveys showing 70-80% retrospective parental endorsement of its use in the , though modern legal and psychological discourse often qualifies it against thresholds based on intent, force, and outcomes.

Distinction from Corporal Punishment and Abuse

Spanking specifically denotes striking the buttocks, usually with an and often over , as a form of parental discipline aimed at correcting misbehavior without causing . This practice forms a mild subset of , a broader category encompassing any deliberate application of physical force to induce pain for disciplinary ends, such as slapping extremities, using implements like belts or paddles, or more severe methods including whipping. While spanking is typically limited in force and duration to avoid harm, lacks such inherent constraints and may involve greater intensity depending on cultural or individual norms. The line separating legitimate from hinges primarily on outcomes like , excessiveness, and proportionality to the child's age and offense, rather than solely on intent. In the United States, all 50 states permit reasonable , including spanking, in the home by parents or guardians, provided it remains non-injurious and aligns with community standards of moderation—factors courts evaluate include the child's size, the instrument used (favoring hands over objects), absence of anger-driven repetition, and lack of lasting marks such as bruises or welts. statutes, varying by state, classify actions as abusive when they inflict "cruel or inhuman" harm or traumatic condition, such as substantial , swelling, or impairment, even if originating from disciplinary motives. For instance, Section 273d defines as willfully causing unjustifiable resulting in , distinguishing it from non-harmful spanking upheld in absent evidence of damage. Internationally, distinctions often mirror this injury-based threshold where spanking remains legal; many jurisdictions differentiate physical from by requiring demonstrable physical or excessive for the latter . Critics, including some child welfare advocates, contend the boundary is subjective and prone to escalation, with studies indicating that spanking correlates with elevated risks of subsequent abusive incidents due to blurred gradations in application. However, legal frameworks prioritize verifiable over predictive associations, emphasizing that non-injurious spanking does not equate to , though empirical reviews highlight potential long-term behavioral parallels between mild and harsher forms when outcomes like emerge. This delineation underscores a causal emphasis on immediate physical effects and contextual reasonableness over presumptive equivalence.

Historical Development

Ancient Origins and Early Civilizations

, encompassing physical beatings intended for correction, has roots in the earliest recorded civilizations, where it served judicial, educational, and familial roles. In and , texts and legal codes from the third millennium BCE reference flogging and other bodily penalties for offenses, though distinctions between punitive whipping and targeted like spanking remain unclear due to sparse archaeological specificity. Skeletal evidence from New Kingdom Egypt (circa 1550–1070 BCE) at sites like reveals trauma consistent with corporal enforcement, including beatings for maintaining social order, indicating physical was institutionalized beyond mere . Classical Greece provides some of the earliest cultural depictions of spanking as parental correction, notably in mythology where is shown threatening or administering a spanking to her son Eros for disobedience, reflecting a normalized view of maternal physical intervention around the BCE. Spartan training from the Archaic period (circa 800–500 BCE) incorporated rigorous physical penalties, including lashes, to instill in boys from age seven, prioritizing over leniency. Athenian educational practices similarly involved teachers using or straps on students for infractions, as described in surviving philosophical and rhetorical texts, though elite views debated excess, with some like advocating moderation to avoid stifling intellect. In ancient Rome, family discipline under patria potestas granted the paterfamilias unchecked authority to inflict corporal punishment on children and dependents, including spanking, whipping, or caning for moral correction, extending into young adulthood as a means of enforcing obedience and virtue. Legal and literary sources from the Republic (509–27 BCE) onward affirm this, with Quintilian (1st century CE) endorsing measured physical correction in education while warning against brutality, evidencing its routine integration into household and schooling norms. Such practices underscored a paternalistic causality: immediate pain as deterrent to vice, rooted in empirical observation of behavioral compliance rather than abstract rights.

Biblical and Medieval Influences

In the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Proverbs contains several passages that advocate for the use of a rod in disciplining children as an expression of parental love and wisdom. Proverbs 13:24 states, "Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them," framing the withholding of physical correction as neglectful indifference rather than mercy. Similarly, Proverbs 22:15 asserts, "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; the rod of discipline drives it far from him," portraying the rod as a necessary tool to excise innate folly. Proverbs 23:13-14 further instructs, "Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with the rod, he will not die. If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol," linking corporal punishment directly to spiritual preservation. These proverbs, attributed to King Solomon around the 10th century BCE, reflect ancient Near Eastern wisdom traditions where physical discipline was commonplace, but they emphasize measured application to instill moral order rather than mere retribution. Interpretations of these verses historically favored a literal understanding of the "rod" as an implement for striking, such as a switch or staff, rather than purely metaphorical references to or verbal guidance. Evangelical scholars argue that the Hebrew term shebet (rod) consistently denotes a in disciplinary contexts across Proverbs, countering modern claims of symbolism like a or divine word alone. This literal reading influenced Jewish rabbinic traditions and early Christian , positioning as a divine mandate for child-rearing to curb sinfulness and promote righteousness, as echoed in affirmations of parental in Ephesians 6:4. During the medieval period in (circa 500–1500 CE), these Biblical injunctions intertwined with ecclesiastical doctrines to normalize in both familial and institutional settings, particularly under Christian monastic and feudal influences. The , drawing on Proverbs, promoted physical discipline as a means of mortifying the flesh and combating , with serving as a penitential practice extended to children for moral formation. In monasteries, child oblates—youth dedicated to religious life from as young as age 7—faced routine beatings with rods or birches as prescribed in rules like those of St. Benedict (), where abbots were directed to correct faults "with rods and admonitions" to foster obedience and . Secular households mirrored this, with noble and peasant families alike employing switches or belts for infractions, viewing it as aligning with Proverbs' call to diligent chastisement; historical records from 12th-century , for instance, describe parents and masters using the rod to enforce labor and , often justified by clerical sermons. This synthesis of and Church authority entrenched spanking as a corrective mechanism, distinguishing it from excessive by intent to instruct rather than harm, though practices varied by region and class.

Enlightenment to 20th Century Shifts

During the Enlightenment, philosophers began challenging the traditional reliance on for child discipline, advocating instead for methods rooted in reason and natural development. , in his 1693 treatise , argued that children possess innate rationality from an early age and respond better to praise, examples, and gentle correction than to physical force, warning that beating could instill fear rather than understanding. Similarly, Jean-Jacques Rousseau's 1762 promoted a naturalistic approach, urging parents to avoid physical punishments and allow children to learn through self-directed consequences and environmental guidance, viewing such interventions as contrary to the child's inherent goodness. These ideas marked an initial philosophical pivot from medieval notions of breaking a child's will toward fostering , though corporal methods like spanking persisted in practice among families and schools. In the , while remained prevalent in educational settings—often involving paddling or for infractions—growing debates among educators and reformers highlighted its limitations, with some advocating psychological incentives over physical coercion. Usage in U.S. and peaked in the late 1800s, yet progressive voices, influenced by Enlightenment legacies, pushed for alternatives like and graded consequences, contributing to localized declines in major cities by the early . Spanking in the home, typically administered by hand for minor misbehavior, continued as a normative parental tool, reflecting slower cultural absorption of reformist ideas amid industrialization and expanding child labor concerns. The 20th century accelerated shifts through psychological research and child welfare movements, framing physical discipline as potentially harmful to development. Early behaviorists like , in his 1928 Psychological Care of Infant and Child, emphasized strict conditioning to avoid "spoiling" but cautioned against excessive emotion, indirectly supporting measured physical corrections while prioritizing habit formation over affection. By mid-century, Freudian insights into unconscious trauma and rising child psychology studies—coupled with recognition of abuse patterns—fueled anti-corporal campaigns, leading to school bans in places like New York and by 1905 and broader U.S. state prohibitions starting in the 1970s. Parental spanking rates began declining from , dropping from near-universal acceptance to about 50% by the , as empirical surveys linked it to risks, though proponents cited short-term compliance benefits. These changes reflected causal pressures from evidence-based critique rather than mere sentiment, yet spanking endured in many households as a last-resort deterrent.

Cultural and Religious Perspectives

Abrahamic Traditions and Scriptural Justifications

In the , shared by and , the explicitly endorses the use of a rod for disciplining children as an act of love and correction to remove folly and avert spiritual peril. Proverbs 13:24 declares, "Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him," portraying withholding physical correction as neglectful. Similarly, Proverbs 23:13-14 instructs, "Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with the rod, he will not die. If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from ," emphasizing that such measures prevent eternal harm without causing death. Proverbs 22:15 further states, "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him," framing the rod as a tool to expel inherent childish imprudence. These passages, attributed to King Solomon around the 10th century BCE, form the core scriptural basis for in these traditions, with the Hebrew term shevet (rod) denoting a literal implement of authority and chastisement rather than mere . Jewish interpretations historically align with these texts as mandating timely discipline, though rabbinic sources like the (e.g., 71a) qualify its application to avoid excess, viewing it as parental duty to instill moral order. In Christianity, the proverbs retain authority, supplemented by calls for paternal discipline without provocation, as in Ephesians 6:4: "Fathers, do not provoke your children to , but bring them up in the discipline () and instruction of the Lord." 12:5-11 analogizes God's fatherly correction to human , urging of chastening as evidence of sonship, which some exegetes extend to physical means justified by Proverbs to cultivate righteousness. Evangelical scholars, drawing on these, argue that sparing the rod equates to hatred, as physical discipline—when measured—aligns with divine parental love modeled in Scripture. In , the lacks direct verses prescribing physical for children, prioritizing verbal admonition, exemplary modeling, and gentle guidance (e.g., Quran 16:125 urges inviting to "with and good instruction"). Justification derives primarily from , where the Prophet Muhammad instructed, "Command your children to pray when they are seven years old, and beat them for it when they are ten years old, and separate their beds," permitting light smacking (ghadab) on non-vital areas to enforce religious duties without injury or facial blows. Another narration states, "Hang your whip where the children can see it, for that will restrain them," underscoring visible deterrence as part of tarbiyah (upbringing). Classical jurists like those in the limit such beating to post-age-of-discernment children (around 7-10 years) for grave disobedience, deeming it educational rather than punitive, with excess forbidden as harm (Quran 2:195). These traditions collectively frame scriptural corporal as causal intervention to instill and , rooted in the that unchecked youthful impulses lead to moral ruin.

Variations Across Non-Western Cultures

In many non-Western societies, , including spanking, remains a prevalent and culturally endorsed form of , often justified by traditional values emphasizing obedience, hierarchy, and communal harmony over individual autonomy. Surveys indicate that in , approximately 70.6% of children experience violent discipline at home, with parental spanking or beating viewed as essential for instilling respect and . In the , over 90% of children face , frequently incorporating slaps or strikes with implements like belts, aligned with interpretations of Islamic teachings that permit measured physical correction for behavioral rectification. These practices contrast with declining acceptance in Western contexts, reflecting deeper cultural priors where physical discipline reinforces amid resource scarcity and structures. Across Asian cultures, variations include normative use of spanking in family settings, as seen in where physical discipline constitutes a common childhood experience, with longitudinal data showing persistence despite legal reforms. In , among middle-class professionals, 57% report spanking or slapping children, while 42% employ severer methods like , tied to Confucian-influenced or Hindu emphases on and guru-shishya authority. Historical Japanese taibatsu involved coercive physical measures in education, evolving from samurai-era rigor but waning post-World War II amid modernization, though parental spanking persists in immigrant communities valuing cultural continuity. These approaches often prioritize collective discipline over psychological reasoning, differing from Western shifts toward non-violent alternatives. In Latin American cultures, spanking with household items like flip-flops—known as "la chancla" in Mexican-origin families—serves as a culturally specific tool for enforcing boundaries and transmitting values of respect and resilience, with 73% of Latino parents reporting its occasional use. African societies exhibit similar implement-based variations, such as whipping or , with Afrobarometer surveys from 2021-2022 revealing majority support (up to 90% in some nations) for as a deterrent to deviance, rooted in communal child-rearing norms where elders collectively enforce physical correction. Despite recent prohibitions in countries like (2019) and (2021), empirical data highlight entrenched acceptance, with boys punished more frequently than girls across these regions, underscoring gender-differentiated expectations in discipline.

Influence of Colonialism and Modernization

Colonial administrations in and often institutionalized in educational and judicial systems, adapting European disciplinary methods to maintain order among colonized populations. In British-controlled , for instance, and flogging were formalized in schools and courts from the late 19th century, influenced by missionary emphasis on biblical injunctions like Proverbs 13:24, which colonial educators invoked to justify physical correction as a tool for moral formation. Similarly, in , was reintroduced via the amendments of 1864, allowing whipping for juvenile offenders as a deterrent, reflecting Victorian-era views on amid rising concerns over "" in urbanizing colonial settings. These practices diverged from some indigenous methods, which in parts of pre-colonial emphasized communal shaming or verbal rebuke over ritualized beating, though systematic historical records are sparse and claims of total absence remain contested by anthropologists noting informal physical corrections in various tribal contexts. In contrast, many Asian societies, such as ancient and , maintained pre-colonial traditions of corporal discipline rooted in Confucian hierarchies and familial authority, where tools like the bamboo cane were used for child rearing to instill obedience, independent of European influence. in these regions amplified rather than originated such practices; for example, British and Dutch administrators in incorporated local customs into hybrid systems, permitting parental and school-based spanking while imposing limits on excess to align with imperial humanitarian rhetoric post-1830s. Missionaries, however, sometimes critiqued indigenous severity—labeling it "barbaric"—while promoting moderated forms aligned with Protestant child-rearing manuals, thus blending influences and perpetuating spanking as a norm under colonial oversight. Post-colonial modernization, accelerated by urbanization, mass education, and exposure to international frameworks, prompted shifts toward restricting corporal punishment in former colonies. The Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by most nations from 1990 onward, catalyzed legal reforms; for example, banned school in 2001 and expanded prohibitions in 2010, reflecting elite-driven campaigns against "colonial legacies" amid growing middle-class for psychological approaches to . In , prohibited it in homes and schools by 2020, driven by , feminist movements, and media scrutiny of cases, which highlighted empirical links between physical punishment and long-term behavioral issues like aggression. Similar patterns emerged in sub-Saharan Africa, where countries like (1997 for schools, 2019 for homes) and (2016 comprehensively) enacted bans, influenced by global NGOs and research emphasizing non-violent alternatives, though enforcement lags in rural areas where traditional views persist. These changes often faced resistance from conservatives arguing cultural erosion, yet data from longitudinal studies in low-income settings indicate declining approval rates—from over 80% in 1990s surveys to below 50% in urban cohorts by 2020—correlating with higher literacy and GDP per capita.

Contemporary Practices

Parental Discipline in the Home

Parental , including spanking, remains a common disciplinary practice in many households worldwide, though its prevalence has declined in some regions. , surveys indicate that approximately 35% of parents reported spanking their children in , down from 50% in 1993, with about 54% of children experiencing it by certain ages. Globally, an estimated 1.2 billion children aged 0-18 years are subjected to at annually, affecting around two-thirds of children in surveyed countries. Legally, parental spanking is permitted in all U.S. states as long as it does not cause , but it is prohibited in the home in 67 countries as of August 2024, representing progress toward universal bans advocated by organizations like , though 134 countries still lack such protections. Practices typically involve open-handed swats to the buttocks or extremities, often for children aged 2-12, as a response to defiance or aggression, with parents citing immediate cessation of misbehavior as the goal. Empirical laboratory studies confirm that mild spanking produces short-term compliance more effectively than verbal reprimands alone, with effect sizes indicating rapid behavioral suppression in controlled settings. For instance, noncompliant children showed higher immediate obedience rates following a single swat compared to timeout or reasoning, though these gains often dissipate without reinforcement. Proponents, including researchers like Robert Larzelere, argue that "conditional" spanking—used as a backup to other methods after age 2—yields better outcomes than non-physical alternatives in longitudinal data, particularly for defiant behaviors, with meta-analyses showing no increased risk of aggression when distinguished from harsher punishment. Long-term effects remain contested, with meta-analyses like Elizabeth Gershoff's 2016 review linking spanking to increased risks of , antisocial , and issues (effect sizes d ≈ 0.10-0.30), based on over 160,000 children across studies. However, these associations are correlational, often failing to isolate spanking from factors such as preexisting child , family stress, or inconsistent , and include severe punishments alongside mild ones, inflating apparent harms. Criticisms highlight methodological flaws, including reverse causation—where aggressive children elicit more spanking—and small variance explained (less than 1% in recent analyses), suggesting cultural normativeness and parental warmth mitigate risks more than spanking itself. Larzelere's reanalyses of longitudinal data indicate that low-frequency spanking (1-2 times per year) post-toddlerhood correlates with outcomes equal to or better than non-spanking in normative families, challenging blanket prohibitions. Academic consensus against spanking, reflected in APA policy, may reflect in researcher samples favoring non-corporal methods, overlooking evidence from diverse cultural contexts where it aligns with positive child adjustment.

Institutional Applications in Schools

Corporal punishment in schools, encompassing practices such as spanking or paddling, has historically served as a tool for enforcing discipline under the legal principle of , allowing educators to act in place of parents. In the United States, such measures were commonplace from the mid-19th century through the early 20th century, with widespread acceptance until gradual reforms began; enacted the first state ban in 1867. Globally, ancient precedents trace to early civilizations, but systematic school applications intensified in and colonial systems, often involving or strapping for infractions like or disobedience. By the late 20th century, bans proliferated due to campaigns and psychological research emphasizing alternatives; as of 2023, is prohibited in schools across 128 countries, though permitted in 69 others, predominantly in parts of , , and the . In the United States, it remains legal in public schools in 17 states as of 2024, primarily in the , where over 110,000 students—disproportionately and disabled—were subjected to it in the 2017-2018 school year alone, with practices like wooden paddle swats administered by administrators. Recent federal efforts, including a 2025 under President Trump, have sought to preserve local in amid concerns over rising disorder post-2020 policy shifts favoring . Empirical studies on school-specific outcomes indicate short-term deterrence for minor behaviors but limited long-term efficacy, with one of 53 global studies finding associations with reduced academic performance and increased , though causal links are confounded by factors like and alternative discipline availability. A U.S.-focused analysis reported no of improved compliance or reduced from paddling, alongside risks of physical and resentment toward . Counterarguments highlight methodological biases in anti-corporal research, such as reliance on self-reports or failure to isolate moderate applications; a 2024 meta- of longitudinal data suggested spanking's variance in behavioral outcomes explains under 1% of changes, implying overstated harms relative to family or peer influences. In contexts where culturally normative, such as certain U.S. regions, proponents cite anecdotal persistence for immediate order restoration absent viable substitutes. Disparities persist, with Black students receiving at rates three times higher than white peers in permissive states, raising equity concerns independent of debates. International data from banning nations show no clear spike in indiscipline post-prohibition, but U.S. districts retaining the practice report stable or improved metrics in high-poverty schools, per administrative logs, though peer-reviewed validation remains sparse. Ongoing policy tensions reflect causal realism: while physiological stress responses from may yield compliance, repeated exposure risks desensitization or escalation, yet blanket bans overlook contexts where non-physical methods fail due to constraints.

Adult and Consensual Contexts

Spanking in adult consensual contexts involves the deliberate striking of the , typically with the hand or a paddle, for mutual or gratification between partners. This practice often occurs within broader (bondage, discipline, dominance, submission, sadism, masochism) dynamics, emphasizing negotiated boundaries, explicit , and safe words to halt activities. Participants report deriving pleasure from the sensory contrast of and endorphin release, which can enhance intimacy through vulnerability and trust. Prevalence data from nationally representative surveys indicate that spanking is a common erotic activity. In a 2017 U.S. study, 32% of adults reported having engaged in spanking as part of sexual encounters, with 15% specifying a dominant role in such acts. Similarly, a 2016 Canadian survey found that 36% of sexually active adults had participated in spanking at least once, positioning it among moderately prevalent sexual practices. These figures suggest erotic spanking transcends niche subcultures, integrating into mainstream sexual repertoires for many. Psychological research on consensual , including spanking, reveals no elevated rates of among practitioners compared to the general population. A review noted that individuals engaging in such activities often experience of consciousness promoting relaxation and emotional , with self-reported benefits like reduced stress and heightened focus. Studies emphasize that appeal stems from power exchange and sensory stimulation rather than underlying trauma, though individual motivations vary. Safety protocols prioritize (RACK), involving pre-scene negotiations, anatomical knowledge to avoid vital areas, and post-activity aftercare to monitor for bruising or emotional subspace. Peer-reviewed analyses report fatal outcomes in play, including spanking, as exceedingly rare—far less common than in autoerotic asphyxiation or routine sexual activities—provided guidelines are followed. Clinical reviews distinguish consensual practices from via markers like revocable and mutual satisfaction, underscoring the importance of education to mitigate minor risks such as temporary welts. In jurisdictions recognizing adult autonomy, such activities remain legally permissible absent coercion or injury exceeding reasonable bounds.

Ritual and Ceremonial Uses

Asian and Middle Eastern Traditions

In Taiwanese Taoist traditions, a ceremonial spanking ritual occurs annually during the Lunar New Year at the Donglong Temple in Donggang Township, Pingtung County, to invoke good fortune and dispel misfortune. Participants seek divine permission through divination blocks thrown before a deity; approval leads to ritual spanking with selected implements—such as paddles or whips—determined by a drawn flag symbolizing the type and intensity of strikes, often administered over clothing on the buttocks. This "change of luck" ceremony, documented as drawing thousands since at least 2004, is performed to symbolically transfer bad luck to the implements, with participants reporting improved health and prosperity afterward. The practice traces to over a century of folk Taoist customs in southern , blending animistic beliefs in manipulation with temple mediation, where the physical act serves as a offering to gods like or local deities for . While not universally observed across festivities, it persists as a localized expression of ceremonial corporal intervention for existential renewal, distinct from everyday discipline. No peer-reviewed anthropological studies quantify its efficacy, but participant testimonies and temple records affirm its cultural endurance amid modernization. In broader Asian contexts, such as historical Chinese imperial or scholarly traditions, methods like stick-beating (zhang) featured in penal rituals but lacked the luck-altering ceremonial focus seen in ; these were punitive rather than auspicious. Middle Eastern traditions, influenced by Islamic prescriptions, emphasize flogging (jald) in judicial or penitential rites—typically on the back for offenses like —but documentation of buttocks-specific spanking in ceremonial luck or purification contexts remains absent, with practices aligning more toward disciplinary enforcement than festive symbolism.

European and Folk Customs

In Central European folk traditions, particularly in the , , and parts of , features the pomlázka , where males wield braided switches to lightly strike females on the legs or posterior. This practice, rooted in pre-Christian pagan customs symbolizing spring renewal and , is intended to impart vitality and health, with the willow's association with flexibility and life believed to transfer youthfulness. Participants decorate the switches with ribbons, and in exchange for the symbolic whipping, women traditionally offer painted eggs, sweets, or small monetary gifts, reinforcing communal bonds during the holiday. A related custom, known as or wet Monday, prevails in and extends to some Ukrainian and Lithuanian communities, combining the switching with dousing women with or to invoke purification and blessings. Originating from tied to seasonal rebirth, the persists predominantly in rural areas, though urban observance has waned amid modern sensitivities. Historical accounts trace these practices to , with documentation in 15th-century Polish chronicles describing similar switchings as communal rites. In , the island of maintained the Klaasohm until , involving young men striking women's with inflated cow horns during a honoring a , a custom dating back centuries but discontinued following complaints of discomfort and evolving social norms. Such ceremonial uses of light corporal contact underscore a broader European folk motif of switching for warding off misfortune or ensuring prosperity, distinct from disciplinary spanking, though both draw from shared cultural reservoirs of physical symbolism in rites of passage.

Indigenous North American Practices

In traditional Indigenous North American societies, typically eschewed such as spanking, favoring methods that preserved relational bonds and encouraged self-regulation through observation, , and natural consequences. Anthropological accounts indicate that parents and extended kin modeled desired behaviors, allowing children to learn via imitation and community feedback rather than physical correction, as physical force was believed to foster rebellion or disrupt harmony. Extended family members often handled to avoid straining parent-child attachments, employing verbal guidance, shaming within the group, or withdrawal of privileges instead of hitting. For instance, among many tribes, oral traditions and narratives served as primary tools for imparting moral lessons, reinforcing values like interdependence and without resort to pain infliction. Ritual contexts, such as vision quests or initiation rites, occasionally involved physical endurance tests for adolescents—enduring , isolation, or communal challenges—but these were not punitive spankings aimed at correction and lacked the domestic, parental character of spanking. No ethnographic evidence supports spanking as a ceremonial practice; pre-colonial sources describe as holistic and non-violent, contrasting sharply with European-introduced corporal methods in boarding schools post-1879. Variations existed across tribes; while some Plains or groups reportedly tolerated mild physical redirection in extreme cases, the predominant pattern across North American Indigenous cultures prioritized non-physical approaches, viewing physical punishment as counterproductive to communal resilience and individual agency.

Empirical Effects on Children

Evidence Supporting Short-Term Compliance and Behavioral Correction

experiments and randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that spanking, when used as a disciplinary tactic for defiance in children aged 2 to , significantly increases immediate compliance rates. In studies by Roberts, spanking raised compliance from 23% to 70%, comparable to room isolation (21% to 72%) and superior to restraint (18% to 52%) or child-release techniques (24% to 57%), with effect sizes of d = 1.73 against no backup and d = 3.39 against no-treatment controls. Meta-analyses of disciplinary outcomes further support spanking's short-term efficacy for behavioral correction, particularly when applied conditionally as a backup after milder tactics like reasoning or time-out fail. Larzelere's review of 38 studies found that nonabusive led to immediate desistance of punished behaviors in all 10 relevant experiments, with better outcomes than 10 of 13 alternative tactics for reducing noncompliance and antisocial behavior in defiant toddlers and preschoolers. A 2005 by Larzelere comparing physical to alternatives across 26 studies confirmed equivalent or superior short-term effects on compliance for this age group, though benefits diminish with predominant or severe use. Even reviews emphasizing long-term risks acknowledge spanking's capacity for prompt behavioral suppression. Gershoff's 2002 meta-analysis of 88 studies reported a large effect size (ES = 1.13) for immediate compliance following corporal punishment, based on consistent findings of children desisting from misbehavior in the moment, though three studies noted subsequent increases and two decreases in compliance. Parent-training research, such as Day and Roberts (1983), similarly showed physical punishment effective for instant obedience in oppositional children when integrated into broader programs. These effects align with principles, where the aversive stimulus of spanking rapidly suppresses targeted defiance, especially in high-distress scenarios like safety violations, outperforming verbal methods alone for short-term correction. Optimal results occur with limited swats on clothed buttocks, avoiding or escalation, and prioritizing verbal of rules. Such targeted application minimizes risks while leveraging spanking's immediacy for scenarios where delay could reinforce misbehavior.

Longitudinal Studies on Potential Harms and Their Limitations

A 2016 meta-analysis by Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor, synthesizing data from over 160,000 children across 75 studies including multiple longitudinal designs, reported small but consistent associations between spanking and 13 adverse outcomes, such as increased aggression, antisocial behavior, mental health issues, and lower cognitive ability in later years, with no positive effects identified. Similarly, a 2022 longitudinal analysis using data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, tracking over 3,000 U.S. children from birth to age 9, found that spanking at ages 3 and 5 predicted poorer social competence at age 9, even after adjusting for some covariates like maternal education and prior child behavior. A 2024 longitudinal study of kindergarteners, following 1,068 children from ages 5-6 to 7-8 using Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten data, linked spanking to declines in approaches to learning, including attentiveness and task persistence, attributing this to potential modeling of aggression. These studies often rely on parent or teacher reports of spanking frequency and outcomes, with effect sizes typically small (e.g., odds ratios around 1.1-1.5 for behavioral risks), and they frequently aggregate mild spanking with harsher without distinguishing severity or context. Critics, including Larzelere and colleagues, contend that such designs suffer from endogeneity , where defiant or aggressive children elicit more spanking, inflating apparent causal links without proper controls for bidirectional influences or child-specific traits. Reanalyses using fixed-effects models on longitudinal datasets, which account for unobserved child and family heterogeneity, show that spanking's associations with externalizing problems (e.g., from age to 11 years) largely attenuate or reverse when conditioning on prior behaviors, suggesting no net harm—and potential benefits in normative, conditional use—compared to alternatives like non-physical alone. Methodological limitations extend to reliance on retrospective self-reports prone to , especially post-anti-spanking policy shifts, and failure to parse spanking from abusive physical , which conflates distinct practices. A 2024 review reconciling contradictory meta-analyses of controlled longitudinal studies emphasized that while some early reviews claimed universal harms, refined methods reveal spanking's effects explain minimal outcome variance (often under 1%), overshadowed by confounders like and warmth. Larzelere and Baumrind further argue that injunctions against all spanking lack support from evidence isolating customary, non-abusive applications, where outcomes align with or exceed those of spanking-avoidant groups when integrated with reasoning. These critiques underscore the need for culturally sensitive, context-specific analyses, as cross-national longitudinal data (e.g., from post-1979 ban) show no clear reductions in youth violence attributable to bans alone.

Role of Cultural Normativeness and Confounding Factors

Cultural normativeness refers to the that the effects of spanking depend on its prevalence and acceptance within a given or subgroup, such that children in normative contexts may interpret parental physical as corrective rather than indicative of rejection or hostility, potentially mitigating adverse outcomes. Early studies, including those examining differences between European American and African American families , provided some support for this idea, finding weaker associations between spanking and externalizing behaviors among Black children, where spanking rates were higher (e.g., 85% vs. 50% in families). Similarly, cross-national research in countries like , , , , the , and indicated that perceived normativeness moderated links between physical and child adjustment, with fewer negative effects in higher-prevalence settings. However, subsequent and more comprehensive analyses have challenged the robustness of the cultural normativeness . A 2025 meta-analysis of 69 studies across 92 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), encompassing over 180,000 children, found that spanking was linked to exclusively negative outcomes—such as increased , antisocial , and issues—regardless of cultural , contradicting predictions of in normative contexts. Longitudinal data from diverse samples, including U.S. cohorts, similarly showed consistent associations between spanking and poorer executive functioning or behavioral problems across racial groups, with effect sizes unaffected by ethnic normativeness (e.g., odds ratios for around 1.2-1.5 in both Black and White children). Critics of the hypothesis argue that apparent moderation often stems from unmeasured confounders rather than true cultural buffering, and that anti-spanking biases in Western academia may undervalue evidence from non-Western contexts where physical aligns with communal child-rearing norms. Confounding factors further complicate causal inferences in spanking research, as studies frequently fail to fully disentangle spanking from co-occurring variables like socioeconomic , parental stress, preexisting temperament, or overall harsh . For instance, families using spanking often exhibit lower maternal (e.g., <20% college-educated in high-spanking U.S. subgroups) and higher rates of domestic conflict, which independently predict aggression and cognitive delays. Analyses controlling for these—via or fixed-effects models—often reduce or eliminate spanking's apparent effects; a 2024 highlighted residual in standard ANCOVA approaches, where unadjusted odds ratios for behavioral problems (e.g., 1.5-2.0) shrink to near-null after for baseline conduct issues. Additional confounders include parental warmth and consistency, which meta-analyses show interact with spanking: isolated, mild instances in otherwise supportive homes (prevalent in 70-80% of normative U.S. spanking cases) correlate with short-term compliance without long-term harm, whereas frequent or angry applications—often conflated in aggregate data—amplify risks. underscore this, noting that in , where 80% of parents report normative physical discipline, associations with adjustment problems weaken when controlling for family cohesion and child age at first exposure (typically under 5 years). Failure to stratify by these factors, as seen in many longitudinal designs, likely overestimates , with simulations indicating up to 50% of observed links attributable to omitted variables like genetic of (estimated at 40-60%). Rigorous designs emphasizing instrumental variable approaches or twin studies are needed to isolate spanking's independent role amid these confounds.

Global Bans and Reform Movements Since 1979

Sweden became the first country to explicitly prohibit all of children, including by parents in the home, on July 1, 1979, through an amendment to its Children and Parents Code stating that "children are entitled to care, security and a good upbringing" and "children may not be subjected to or any other humiliating treatment." The legislation was accompanied by public information campaigns and brochures aimed at shifting parental attitudes toward non-violent discipline. Following Sweden's lead, other enacted similar prohibitions: in 1983, in 1987 (building on earlier implicit restrictions), and in 1997. By the 1990s, bans spread across , with in 1989, in 1996, and in 2000, often influenced by recommendations from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which interpreted the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as requiring the elimination of all . As of April 2025, 68 states worldwide had achieved full prohibition of in all settings, including the home, with leading at nearly universal coverage among members. Reform movements gained momentum through international advocacy, including the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children launched in 2001, which coordinates NGOs, UN agencies, and governments to promote legal bans and positive parenting alternatives. In , countries like (2007) and (2016) adopted prohibitions amid regional human rights commitments, while African nations such as (2019) and recent adopters like (2022) and (2022) reflect growing momentum, though progress remains uneven with only sporadic bans in until Thailand's full prohibition in 2025. In November 2024, eight countries including , , and pledged to enact total bans, signaling continued diplomatic pressure via forums like the UN Council. Despite these advances, over 120 countries retained legal allowances for parental as of late 2024, highlighting persistent cultural and sovereignty-based resistance to universal .

Retention in Common-Law Countries and Parental Rights Defenses

In common-law jurisdictions including the , , , and and , parental corporal punishment such as spanking remains legally permissible when deemed reasonable and non-abusive, distinguishing these systems from the outright prohibitions enacted in many civil-law countries since 1979. This retention stems from longstanding common-law precedents affirming parents' authority to administer moderate physical correction for disciplinary purposes, provided it does not cause actual , as interpreted through statutes and judicial rulings. In the United States, no bans parental spanking, and all 50 states permit it in the home as a form of reasonable discipline, with legal boundaries defined by state statutes that prohibit injuries like bruises, welts, or lacerations but allow transient discomfort from open-hand methods. Courts have upheld this practice under the constitutional protection of parental rights to direct child-rearing, as recognized in precedents emphasizing family autonomy absent clear evidence of harm. Defenses invoke the 14th Amendment's , arguing that criminalizing non-injurious spanking infringes on fundamental liberty interests without sufficient empirical justification for state intervention, particularly given surveys showing majority adult support for the practice in moderation. Canada's Section 43 explicitly provides a defense for parents and teachers using "reasonable force" for correction, a provision upheld by the in 2004, which clarified limits such as prohibiting objects, facial blows, or force on children under two or over twelve to prevent degradation or injury. This retention reflects judicial balancing of parental authority against , with the Court reasoning that limited, non-trifling force aligns with societal norms and avoids over-criminalizing traditional discipline absent proven long-term detriment. Reform efforts to repeal Section 43 have failed, citing risks to family privacy and the lack of causal evidence linking moderate spanking to broader harms when culturally normative. Australia maintains legality across all states and territories via common-law allowances for "reasonable" chastisement, supplemented by statutes in some jurisdictions like , where parental force is defensible unless it constitutes causing harm. Parental rights defenses emphasize the federated system's deference to family decision-making, arguing that bans overlook evidence of short-term behavioral benefits and could disproportionately burden low-income or culturally diverse households reliant on physical correction. In and Northern Ireland, the common-law defense of "reasonable punishment" permits smacking without wounding or grievous harm, a doctrine preserved despite bans in and since 2019 and 2022, respectively, as parliamentary votes have rejected full prohibition to safeguard parental discretion. Advocates for retention highlight the absence of randomized controlled trials proving bans reduce abuse rates, positing that eroding this defense invites subjective prosecutions undermining family sovereignty, a concern echoed in 2004 rejection of a smacking ban by a 250-75 margin. Across these jurisdictions, defenses pivot on first-principles of —resolving discipline within families before state involvement—and empirical critiques of anti-spanking studies, which often confound with causation due to unmeasured variables like pre-existing behavioral issues. Retention persists amid international pressure, as common-law systems prioritize evidentiary thresholds over precautionary bans, with no observed spikes in child maltreatment post-attempted reforms elsewhere.

Recent Developments and Enforcement Challenges (2020-2025)

Between 2020 and 2025, several countries enacted comprehensive bans on of children, including spanking in the home, advancing a global trend initiated by in 1979. prohibited all forms in 2020, followed in 2021, and in 2022, in 2023, and in 2024, with becoming the 68th nation to impose a full ban in March 2025. In November 2024, eight additional countries—, Czechia, , , , , , and —pledged to eliminate entirely, targeting reforms in schools and homes. These developments reflect commitments under international frameworks like the UN Convention on the of the , though varies by . In the United States, where parental rights to mild physical discipline remain protected under common-law traditions in all 50 states for home use, school-level policies showed mixed evolution. As of 2024, corporal punishment remained legal in public schools across 17 states and practiced in 14, primarily in the South, with disproportionate application to Black students and those with disabilities documented in federal data. Florida enacted a law in August 2025 permitting parental opt-in for school-administered spanking where districts allow it, positioning the state among 14 permitting such measures. Federally, the Protecting Our Students in Schools Act, introduced in 2025, sought to prohibit corporal punishment in schools receiving federal funds, including acts like paddling, but faced opposition amid debates over local autonomy. A April 2025 executive order under President Trump rescinded prior guidance addressing racial disparities in discipline, emphasizing "common-sense" policies without altering corporal punishment's legal status, which critics claimed indirectly bolstered its retention despite no explicit authorization. Enforcement of bans, particularly in private homes, has proven challenging across jurisdictions due to the concealed nature of family and reliance on self-reported data or third-party complaints. In countries with longstanding prohibitions like , prosecution rates for violations remain low—fewer than 10 cases annually in recent decades—despite heightened public awareness and mandatory reporting laws, with mortality rates stable but not demonstrably reduced by the ban alone. WHO analyses indicate that post-ban prevalence of either declines modestly, stabilizes, or increases in some nations, attributing persistence to entrenched cultural norms where up to 55% of adults in surveys endorse physical for compliance. Studies highlight factors, including socioeconomic stressors and alternative reporting biases, which inflate perceived without distinguishing mild spanking from severe harm; for instance, Canadian data post-1990s reforms show no clear decline in substantiated maltreatment linked to bans. In the U.S., where home spanking is unregulated federally, enforcement hinges on investigations, often triggered by anonymous tips, leading to resource strain and accusations of overreach in low-risk cases amid cultural divides—only 18% of adults perceive broad support for federal school bans.

Alternatives and Comparative Effectiveness

Non-Physical Discipline Techniques

Non-physical discipline techniques encompass strategies such as time-outs, positive reinforcement, and logical consequences, which seek to modify through removal of privileges, rewards for compliance, or outcomes directly tied to the misbehavior, respectively, without employing physical force. These methods emphasize self-regulation and , drawing from behavioral principles where contingencies shape conduct. Empirical support varies by technique, with randomized trials and meta-analyses indicating short-term in reducing disruptive behaviors, though long-term outcomes depend on consistent application and parental . Time-outs involve temporarily isolating a from reinforcing stimuli following misbehavior, typically for one minute per year of age, to interrupt the action and allow reflection. A of 24 studies, including six randomized controlled trials, found strong causal for time-outs in decreasing noncompliant and aggressive behaviors, with effect sizes demonstrating immediate compliance gains comparable to or exceeding other interventions. This holds across diverse populations, including those with , where time-outs integrated into parent training programs yielded no of and sustained behavioral improvements over 6-12 months. However, diminishes without clear , such as consistent duration and calm enforcement, and some observational data suggest overuse may foster avoidance rather than internalization of rules. Positive entails providing immediate , tokens, or privileges contingent on desirable actions to increase their frequency, rooted in paradigms. Systematic reviews of classroom and home-based applications report moderate to large effect sizes in enhancing prosocial behaviors and reducing disruptions, with behavior-specific alone boosting by 20-30% in controlled settings. Parent training programs incorporating , such as those evaluated in over 77 studies, show sustained reductions in conduct problems when combined with antecedent strategies like clear expectations. Limitations arise in high-need children, where inconsistent delivery or preference for negative attention can undermine gains, necessitating tailored intensity. Logical consequences impose outcomes logically linked to the infraction, such as cleaning up a after destructive play, to illustrate cause-effect without adult-imposed unrelated penalties. Experimental studies with children aged 4-8 indicate these are perceived as fairer and more effective than arbitrary punishments for deterring repetition, with self-reports showing higher acceptance and behavioral adjustment rates. Unlike consequences, which occur independently (e.g., from refusing food), logical ones require parental structuring but lack large-scale longitudinal trials confirming superiority over other non-physical methods; small-scale evaluations suggest they promote when explained, yet fail in severe defiance without reinforcement pairings. Comparative analyses of non-physical tactics reveal no consistent edge over mild spanking in curbing antisocial behavior in samples, with one study of 26 reports finding equivalent sizes after covariate adjustment, highlighting that hinges more on parental warmth and consistency than technique type alone. In clinical contexts, integrated programs blending these methods achieve 50-70% reductions in externalizing problems, but real-world adherence challenges limit population-level impacts.

Empirical Comparisons with Spanking Outcomes

A of 26 studies examining outcomes found that conditional spanking—defined as mild physical punishment administered only after a defiantly resists milder disciplinary tactics—produced effect sizes favoring it over 10 of 13 alternative tactics, including time-out, reasoning, and grounding, particularly in reducing immediate noncompliance and antisocial . In randomized controlled trials comparing back-up spanking (used for persistent defiance) to non-physical responses like child-release timeouts, spanking resulted in significantly lower rates of noncompliance, with effect sizes indicating greater effectiveness in 2- to 6-year-olds. These comparisons controlled for within-study variations, revealing spanking's short-term advantages in enforcing compliance where alternatives alone failed, though long-term data remained limited in these designs. Longitudinal comparisons adjusting for confounders such as family and baseline child behavior showed no significant differences in outcomes like or between customary spanking and non-physical methods like privilege removal or verbal reprimands. A 2024 reconciling prior contradictory findings emphasized that studies isolating normative, non-abusive spanking from harsher reported comparable or superior behavioral corrections with spanking versus alternatives, attributing discrepancies in anti-spanking to methodological issues like retrospective self-reports and failure to distinguish spanking types or sequences. For instance, in defiant children unresponsive to initial non-physical tactics, adding conditional spanking reduced antisocial behavior more than escalating non-physical measures alone, without evidence of elevated long-term risks when frequency was low (e.g., less than twice weekly). Critiques of broader anti-spanking meta-analyses highlight their aggregation of spanking with abusive and neglect of direct comparisons, inflating apparent harms while overlooking efficacy data from controlled designs. Recent variance partitioning analyses indicate spanking accounts for under 1% of variance in externalizing or internalizing problems, suggesting minimal causal impact relative to unmeasured familial factors, though this does not preclude comparative benefits in targeted use. In high-defiance scenarios, alternatives like positive reinforcement showed weaker compliance gains without physical backup, underscoring spanking's role as a conditionally effective rather than a standalone or inferior method. Overall, evidence from comparative studies supports spanking's noninferiority—and occasional superiority—for behavioral correction when integrated judiciously with non-physical approaches, challenging blanket assertions of universal detriment.

Critiques of Alternatives in High-Risk Environments

In environments characterized by high child defiance, low , or elevated risk of antisocial —such as single-parent households or those with parental stress—non-physical alternatives like time-outs and often demonstrate limited efficacy due to children's impaired impulse control and inconsistent parental implementation. Studies indicate that defiant preschoolers, prevalent in such settings, frequently refuse to comply with time-outs, resulting in prolonged confrontations or escalation rather than behavioral correction; for instance, compliance rates post-time-out hovered around 60% in controlled evaluations of disruptive youth. Empirical comparisons reveal that mild, conditional spanking used as a to ineffective non-physical tactics outperforms many alternatives in reducing noncompliance among 2- to 6-year-olds exhibiting defiance, a demographic overrepresented in high-risk families. A randomized found backup spanking led to lower antisocial behavior than 10 of 13 non-physical methods, including time-outs and privilege removal, particularly when initial milder tactics failed, as defiance undermines self-regulated responses required for alternatives to succeed. This approach conditions cooperation with less intrusive disciplines over time, reducing overall spanking frequency, whereas standalone non-physical strategies in chaotic environments falter from inconsistent enforcement amid parental fatigue or resource constraints. Children with (ODD) or ADHD, conditions correlating with high-risk backgrounds, further challenge non-physical methods, as these youth exhibit heightened resistance to reasoning or isolation tactics without immediate, tangible consequences. Research on pathologically defiant children underscores that verbal reprimands or positive reinforcement alone yield marginal results, often necessitating structured escalation to enforce boundaries, where backup physical correction has shown superior short-term compliance gains without the relational rupture of unchecked escalation to harsher measures. In low-income contexts, where spanking persists at higher rates due to perceived immediacy, alternatives' reliance on sustained parental vigilance proves impractical, potentially exacerbating cycles of defiance absent viable enforcement mechanisms.

Debates and Controversies

Child Welfare vs. Family Autonomy

The debate over spanking centers on the tension between safeguarding child welfare through restrictions on physical discipline and upholding family autonomy, which prioritizes parental in child-rearing decisions free from undue state interference. Advocates for child welfare argue that spanking, even when mild, correlates with adverse outcomes such as increased , antisocial behavior, and problems, positioning it as a form of warranting legal limits or bans to protect vulnerable children. This perspective draws from meta-analyses aggregating decades of data, which report small but consistent associations between spanking frequency and negative developmental effects across cultures, though causation remains debated due to reliance on correlational designs. Critics of expansive child welfare interventions, emphasizing family autonomy, contend that reasonable corporal punishment—defined as open-handed swats on clothed buttocks for defiance in young children—does not equate to abuse and can enhance compliance when used conditionally alongside other methods, without long-term harm. Longitudinal reviews highlight methodological shortcomings in anti-spanking research, including failure to distinguish disciplinary spanking from harsh or abusive practices, same-source reporting biases where parent and child perceptions overlap, and confounding factors like pre-existing family dysfunction that may drive both spanking and poor outcomes. Recent analyses of controlled studies, including randomized trials, indicate near-zero net effects on externalizing behaviors or cognitive development when spanking is implemented judiciously, challenging blanket harm narratives and suggesting overgeneralization risks policy overreach. In the United States, autonomy prevails legally, with parental spanking permitted in all 50 states provided it constitutes reasonable rather than causing , reflecting a rooted in common-law parental and substantiated by surveys showing 70-80% of parents view occasional spanking as acceptable. This stance contrasts with international trends influenced by the UN Convention on the of the , which frames physical as a rights violation, yet proponents argue such conventions undermine —the principle that families, not distant bureaucracies, best assess child needs—and could erode in the home. Empirical support for autonomy includes evidence from high-risk environments where non-physical alternatives alone fail to curb severe misbehavior, implying selective physical correction may serve welfare when tailored by informed parents. Philosophically, the debate invokes causal realism: while flags risks, individual-level factors like parental intent, temperament, and cultural context mediate effects, favoring decentralized over uniform prohibitions that ignore heterogeneous family dynamics. plays a , as much anti-spanking scholarship emerges from institutions predisposed against traditional , potentially amplifying weak associations while downplaying null findings or positive compliance from pro-autonomy studies. Ultimately, unresolved evidentiary gaps underscore the need for nuanced respecting empirical limits, lest welfare pretexts justify intrusive eroding familial sovereignty.

Methodological Flaws in Anti-Spanking Research

Critics of anti-spanking research, including developmental psychologist Robert E. Larzelere, argue that prominent studies often confound mild disciplinary —typically defined as open-handed swats on the —with more severe forms of physical , such as beatings or face-slapping, thereby overstating risks associated with the former. For instance, Elizabeth Gershoff's 2002 included measures of overly severe from seven studies on face-slapping and three on beatings, which Larzelere contends distorts conclusions about normative spanking practices used for immediate compliance in defiant children aged 2-6. This lumping ignores contextual differences, where disciplinary spanking is brief and conditional on prior non-physical tactics failing, unlike abusive acts that lack such boundaries. A second prevalent issue is the failure to adequately control for preexisting child behavior problems, leading to spurious correlations misinterpreted as causal harm from spanking. Longitudinal studies frequently observe that parents spank more in response to ongoing defiance or , yet anti-spanking analyses rarely adjust for these baseline traits, resulting in reverse causation where child misbehavior predicts both spanking and later outcomes. Larzelere's meta-analyses of conditional spanking, which statistically control for prior noncompliance, find it more effective than alternatives like timeouts for high-defiance cases, with randomized trials showing increased compliance without long-term detriment. In contrast, uncontrolled designs in Gershoff's work attribute outcomes like antisocial behavior to spanking without disentangling whether environments or unmeasured confounders drive both. Additional flaws include same-source , where parents or children report both discipline methods and behavioral outcomes, inflating associations due to shared perceptual errors, and overreliance on self-reports from adults, which are susceptible to memory distortion and current ideological influences. Cross-sectional studies exacerbate this by lacking temporal order to infer . Effect sizes in these reviews are typically small—correlations around 0.10-0.13, explaining less than 2% of variance in outcomes—insufficient to warrant blanket prohibitions when compared to stronger predictors like or consistency. Recent multi-method meta-analyses reconciling divergent reviews confirm that methodological rigor, such as for confounders, diminishes or eliminates spanking's purported negative effects on externalizing problems. These shortcomings contribute to contradictory literature reviews: Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor's analysis reported uniform harms, while Larzelere's controlled comparisons highlight benefits in specific contexts, underscoring how unadjusted correlations perpetuate policy advocacy despite causal ambiguities. Such biases may stem from institutional pressures in academia favoring anti-corporal narratives, as evidenced by selective citation patterns in advocacy-oriented syntheses over balanced empirical scrutiny.

Societal Impacts of Declining Acceptance

The prohibition of parental spanking in Sweden, enacted in 1979 as the world's first national ban on all corporal punishment, has been associated with substantial increases in reported child maltreatment and youth violence rather than the expected declines. Official statistics reveal a 22-fold rise in alleged child abuse cases and a 24-fold increase in criminal assaults committed by minors from 1981 to 2010, trends that persisted despite heightened public awareness campaigns against physical discipline. These escalations occurred alongside a failure to reduce severe or frequent physical punishment, as parental attitudes toward milder spanking showed minimal change post-ban. Comparative analyses indicate Sweden's physical child abuse rates were 49% higher than in the United States during the 1980s, challenging claims that bans inherently curb familial violence. Such patterns suggest that declining acceptance of spanking may erode effective disciplinary tools, contributing to elevated . Longitudinal reviews of criminal records from jurisdictions with spanking bans find that youth raised without legal parental options for physical correction exhibit higher involvement in compared to peers in permissive environments, potentially due to reliance on less authoritative alternatives that fail to instill long-term compliance. In Sweden, assaults against minors by other minors surged five- to six-fold following the ban, correlating with broader societal shifts toward state-mediated child welfare interventions over family . This has led to expanded caseloads, with investigations of maltreatment allegations rising dramatically, though mortality from remained low, indicating possible over-reporting or displacement of unreported discipline into criminalized categories. Broader societal repercussions include strained family structures, as bans often coincide with intensified monitoring by agencies, fostering dependency on external authority and diminishing parental confidence in boundary-setting. Empirical critiques note that while anti-spanking advocacy emphasizes , bans have not demonstrably lowered intergenerational violence transmission, instead correlating with persistent or worsening behavioral outcomes in high-risk households where non-physical methods prove insufficient. These developments underscore methodological challenges in attributing solely to spanking's absence, as factors like cultural attitude shifts predate , yet the data highlight unintended costs in youth and public safety.

References

  1. https://www.chhs.niu.edu/child-center/resources/articles/alternatives-to-spanking.shtml
  2. https://preventchildabuse.org/resources/physical-punishment-attitudes-behaviors-and-norms-associated-with-its-use-across-the-us/
  3. https://slate.com/culture/2012/10/who-invented-paddling-the-history-of-spanking-peoples-butts-with-paddles.html
  4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213404002534
  5. https://preventchildabuse.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Prevent-Child-Abuse-America-2021-Physical-Punishment-Report.pdf
  6. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/corporal-punishment-and-health
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7992110/
  8. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01494929.2024.2392672
  9. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1566&context=lcp
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6967056/
  11. https://brilliantmaps.com/corporal-punishment/
  12. https://www.etymonline.com/word/spank
  13. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spank
  14. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/spanking_n
  15. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/spank_v2
  16. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spanking
  17. https://www.etymonline.com/word/spanking
  18. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S014521342200182X
  19. https://aifs.gov.au/resources/short-articles/what-does-evidence-tell-us-about-physical-punishment-children
  20. https://www.appstate.edu/~steelekm/classes/psy5150/Documents/Ferguson2013-spanking.pdf
  21. https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/when-does-discipline-become-abuse.html
  22. https://texaslawhelp.org/article/corporal-punishment
  23. https://www.egattorneys.com/corporal-punishment-in-california
  24. https://attorneylehiutah.com/is-spanking-child-abuse-divorce-attorney-utah-hoyer-law/
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3768154/
  26. https://preventchildabuse.org/resources/corporal-punishment-one-pager/
  27. https://the-past.com/news/ancient-egyptian-police-and-punishment/
  28. https://ivypanda.com/essays/judicial-corporal-punishment-an-update/
  29. https://hub.edubirdie.com/examples/the-evolution-of-corporal-punishment-in-education/
  30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300326643_Corporal_Punishment_in_the_Ancient_School
  31. https://academic.oup.com/book/46926/chapter/422637693
  32. https://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/777777121908/
  33. https://biblehub.com/proverbs/13-24.htm
  34. https://biblehub.com/proverbs/23-13.htm
  35. https://www.gotquestions.org/spare-rod-spoil-child.html
  36. https://thecripplegate.com/is-the-rod-of-proverbs-literal-or-metaphorical/
  37. https://www.focusonthefamily.com/parenting/is-spanking-biblical/
  38. https://studenttheses.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%253A2631479/view
  39. https://themediaevalmonk.wordpress.com/2021/12/06/corporal-punishment-in-medieval-monasteries-part-1-oblates/
  40. https://www.representingchildhood.pitt.edu/medieval_child.htm
  41. https://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php?id=37670
  42. http://bildungsromanproject.com/childhood-in-the-enlightenment
  43. https://www.newpaltz.edu/media/history/Jones%2C%2520Jessica%2520Fall%25202022.pdf
  44. https://egrove.olemiss.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=etd
  45. https://academic.oup.com/book/44041/chapter/373188883
  46. https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-assets/108645_book_item_108645.pdf
  47. https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004355972/BP000017.xml?language=en&srsltid=AfmBOoqG6Warvnq-eRD14LrQwr-A3uvEGcevBRfi6z5KHfyTCqC4E4E3
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3447048/
  49. https://tcu360.shorthandstories.com/navigating-a-spectrum-of-child-discipline/index.html
  50. https://www.openbible.info/topics/corporal_punishment
  51. https://versebyverseministry.org/bible-answers/is-corporal-punishment-biblical
  52. https://www.chaimbentorah.com/2018/07/hebrew-word-study-spare-the-rod/
  53. https://reformjudaism.org/learning/answers-jewish-questions/does-judaism-advise-spanking-disobedient-child
  54. https://www.gotquestions.org/disciplining-children.html
  55. https://www.openbible.info/topics/physical_punishment
  56. https://riwaqalquran.com/blog/what-quran-say-about-hitting-your-child/
  57. https://islamqa.info/en/answers/127233
  58. https://islamqa.info/en/answers/10016
  59. https://www.islamicteachings.org/forum/topic/22420-hitting-children-discipline-or-abuse/
  60. https://africlaw.com/2025/09/25/corporal-punishment-as-a-public-health-concern-breaking-the-cycle-of-violence-against-children-in-africa/
  61. https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/05/10/middle-east/north-africa-end-violent-punishment-children
  62. https://capmh.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13034-023-00632-9
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2766084/
  64. https://coa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/almtaibatsujapanforum.pdf
  65. https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/11/04/361205792/la-chancla-flip-flops-as-a-tool-of-discipline
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7177180/
  67. https://www.afrobarometer.org/articles/day-of-the-african-child-afrobarometer-survey-shows-majority-support-for-corporal-punishment-but-opposition-growing/
  68. https://endcorporalpunishment.org/africa/
  69. https://endcorporalpunishment.org/colombia-prohibits-all-corporal-punishment/
  70. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2010/672780
  71. https://www.daystar.ac.ke/ajcp/download/26/1662536542_CHARLES.......JOY.pdf
  72. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-asian-studies/article/archaic-sovereignty-and-colonial-law-the-reintroduction-of-corporal-punishment-in-colonial-india-18641909/67A89718CB6C07736E9B420C58200A81
  73. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/17/parenting/stacey-patton-spanking.html
  74. https://www.theworldofchinese.com/2023/01/tough-love-healing-the-trauma-of-corporal-punishment/
  75. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-african-history/article/rod-of-empire-the-debate-over-corporal-punishment-in-the-british-african-colonial-forces-18881946/7D6EBAD7AD891AF84A225B291FE663D5
  76. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8386132/
  77. https://endcorporalpunishment.org/countdown/
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2952896/
  79. https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/27/health/spanking-decline-us-wellness
  80. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213423004623
  81. https://rm.coe.int/enf-vae-2024-06-e-end-corporal-punishment/1680b1ca63
  82. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15898303/
  83. https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-1284539.pdf
  84. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10567-005-2340-z
  85. https://acpeds.org/research-on-disciplinary-spanking-is-misleading/
  86. https://www.hrw.org/reports/2008/us0808/5.htm
  87. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5560991/
  88. https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/corporal-punishment-schools-still-legal-many-states
  89. http://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/key-policy-letters/secretarys-letter-governors-and-chief-state-school-officers-about-eliminating-use-of-corporal-punishment-schools
  90. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/reinstating-common-sense-school-discipline-policies/
  91. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5766273/
  92. https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1201&context=clrj
  93. https://endcorporalpunishment.org/global-progress/
  94. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224499.2020.1767025
  95. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12410599/
  96. https://sexualhealthalliance.com/nymphomedia-blog/2024/3/14/the-psychology-of-pain-and-pleasure-understanding-bdsm-play
  97. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11176219/
  98. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8813685/
  99. https://med-fom-brotto.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2018/10/Dunkley-Brotto-2018-Clinical-Considerations-in-Treating-BDSM-Practitioners-A-Review.pdf
  100. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/42798772_Safe_Sane_and_Consensual_Contemporary_Perspectives_on_Sadomasochism
  101. https://www.rti.org.tw/en/news?uid=3&pid=121682
  102. https://www.corpun.com/twi00401.htm
  103. https://iol.co.za/news/eish/2004-01-26-ring-in-the-new-year-with-a-spanking-for-luck/
  104. http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Terms/penal_zhang.html
  105. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/understanding-sharia-intersection-islam-and-law
  106. https://english.radio.cz/czech-easter-tradition-whipping-girls-8164899
  107. https://www.tasteofprague.com/pragueblog/czech-easter-tradition-explained
  108. https://brnodaily.com/2025/04/19/lifestyle/pomlazka-the-most-controversial-czech-easter-tradition/
  109. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52270063
  110. https://www.dw.com/en/german-island-to-end-ritual-of-spanking-women-with-cow-horn/a-70940053
  111. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/education/pre-contact-education-native-american-history
  112. https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=soc_work_pubs
  113. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9246249/
  114. https://www.nicwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/NICWA_Safe-Babies_Native-Perspectives_revised-8-13-24.pdf
  115. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0886260519861678
  116. https://scholarworks.alaska.edu/bitstream/handle/11122/9753/8729.02.conn.1991.punishment-precolonial-indigenous.ch.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y
  117. https://www.appstate.edu/~steelekm/classes/psy5150/Documents/Benjet&Kazdin2003.pdf
  118. https://news.utexas.edu/2016/04/25/risks-of-harm-from-spanking-confirmed-by-researchers/
  119. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213422003519
  120. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/15/5/658
  121. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8194004/
  122. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29797703/
  123. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2841151/
  124. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254586612_Are_Spanking_Injunctions_Scientifically_Supported
  125. https://cacap-acpea.org/wp-content/uploads/Commentary_on_Spanking_Bans_design_v5-Single-1.pdf
  126. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1567&context=lcp
  127. https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/news/spanking-and-other-physical-discipline-lead-exclusively-negative-outcomes-children-low-and
  128. https://www.apa.org/act/resources/webinars/corporal-punishment-gershoff.pdf
  129. https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-022-02154-5
  130. https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj27/the-state-of-research-on-effects-of-physical-punishment-27-pages114-127.html
  131. https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2019/07/on-this-day-40-years-of-prohibition-on-disciplinary-corporal-punishment-of-children-in-sweden/
  132. https://www.futurepolicy.org/rightsofchildren/swedens-children-and-parent-code-to-prohibit-all-corporal-punishment-and-other-humiliating-treatment-of-children/
  133. https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/document/first-anti-spanking-law-world-historical-background-swedish-legislation/
  134. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Timeline-of-corporal-punishment-policies-Including-international-recommendations-and_fig1_273953724
  135. https://www.who.int/teams/social-determinants-of-health/violence-prevention/ending-corporal-punishment-of-children
  136. https://endcorporalpunishment.org/
  137. https://endcorporalpunishment.org/thailandprohibitscorporalpunishment/
  138. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/nov/07/countries-pledge-to-ban-corporal-punishment-children
  139. https://www.togetherscotland.org.uk/news-and-events/news/2024/11/eight-countries-pledge-to-ban-corporal-punishment-to-protect-children-against-violence/
  140. https://endcorporalpunishment.org/reports-on-every-state-and-territory/usa/
  141. https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201635E
  142. https://codalaw.com.au/is-it-legal-to-smack-my-kid/
  143. https://childlawadvice.org.uk/information-pages/the-law-on-smacking-children/
  144. https://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch06s02s01.php
  145. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/child-discipline-laws-by-state
  146. https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/04/21/corporal-punishment-in-america-most-adults-in-us-support-spanking-children-and-19-states-allow-it-in-schools/
  147. https://endcorporalpunishment.org/human-rights-law/national-high-level-court-judgments/canada-2004-supreme-court-judgment/
  148. https://jfcy.org/en/rights/corporal-punishment/
  149. https://www.canada.ca/en/office-federal-ombudsperson-victims-crime/recommendations-recommandations/2024-25/20241201.html
  150. https://lawpointlawyers.com.au/is-smacking-your-child-illegal-in-australia/
  151. https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/it-s-time-to-ban-corporal-punishment-of-kids-in-australia
  152. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9q4x9d9xgpo
  153. https://news.sky.com/story/what-are-the-smacking-laws-in-the-uk-and-could-they-change-13450109
  154. https://endcorporalpunishment.org/reports-on-every-state-and-territory/uk/
  155. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1326020023021507
  156. https://www.savethechildren.org/us/about-us/media-and-news/2025-press-releases/thailand-becomes-68th-country-to-ban-corporal-punishment
  157. https://www.wcjb.com/2025/08/14/new-florida-law-lets-parents-opt-spanking-schools/
  158. https://codifylegalpublishing.com/blog-article/codify-analysis-of-protecting-our-students-in-schools-act-of-2025-us-119th-congress
  159. https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-no-trump-did-013000583.html
  160. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10348380/
  161. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12019996/
  162. https://experts.okstate.edu/robert.larzelere/publications
  163. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01494929.2020.1712304
  164. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2795824
  165. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ976654.pdf
  166. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18205039/
  167. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1045988X.2023.2181303
  168. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0193397317301247
  169. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2719514/
  170. https://bmcpediatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2431-10-10
  171. https://www.psypost.org/does-spanking-harm-child-development-major-study-challenges-common-beliefs/
  172. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7843827_Comparing_Child_Outcomes_of_Physical_Punishment_and_Alternative_Disciplinary_Tactics_A_Meta-Analysis
  173. https://yourparentingmojo.com/captivate-podcast/timeoutsforkids/
  174. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3251275/
  175. https://www.additudemag.com/slideshows/how-to-deal-with-a-child-with-odd-and-adhd/
  176. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8279040/
  177. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2154&context=facpubs
  178. https://www.wcpp.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/PPIW-REPORT-Parental-Physical-Punishment-Child-Outcomes-and-Attitudes_fo....pdf
  179. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40969656/
  180. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1323784/full
  181. https://www.unmc.edu/newsroom/2002/06/28/dr-larzelere-featured-in-spanking-stories/
  182. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-17153-001
  183. https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1192&context=akronlawreview
  184. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10611766/
  185. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1357669
  186. https://www.christian.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sweden_smacking.pdf
  187. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275649144_Swedish_Trends_in_Criminal_Assaults_against_Minors_since_Banning_Spanking_1981-2010
  188. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2466/pr0.1999.85.2.381
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.