When I’m asked about my opinion on smacking – or spanking as it’s known in the US – my first thought is of previous generations, such my father-in-law.
My wife’s father came from a different era. Brought up in a poor rural area of the US at the end of the First World War, his own father died of Spanish Flu, leaving him as the sole breadwinner for his family at just ten-years-old. He never had a proper education.
When he had children of his own, he had a simple approach to discipline. He would say: ‘If you don’t listen, you’ll have to feel.’
Thankfully, my wife listened and was never smacked. But her brothers were smacked occasionally when they didn’t listen. All four children became exemplary college-educated adults.
I mention this because there are many people today who believe this approach to be severely outdated and uneducated. Last week a group of leading child doctors called on the UK Government to ban smacking in England.
It’s already outlawed in Scotland, Wales and 67 other countries, with a further 20 committing to do so in the near future. Those behind the push to end smacking describe it as a ‘Victorian-era punishment’ that does not benefit children.
However, as a leading child education expert who has dedicated his life to researching smacking, I think banning the punishment would be a mistake.
In fact, while I may have had 20 years more education than my father-in-law, I’ve come to the conclusion that his belief that children who don’t listen must ‘feel’ is sometimes the right approach.
Professor Robert Larzelere believes that a ban on smacking children would be a mistake and that the punishment can actually benefit youngsters as they develop
In some situations, smacking children is warranted – even beneficial. And the research backs this up too.
First, let’s be clear about we are talking about here. The kind of smacking shown by research to be beneficial is an open-handed swat on the buttocks, repeated no more than two times in one go.
The smack should not be done so hard that it leaves any marks beyond temporary redness.
It should always be used as a last resort, when two to six-year-olds have refused to cooperate with mild methods, like sending them to their room.
The aim is to show children that there are consequences for not cooperating with parents’ attempts to resolve bad behaviour verbally or, when necessary, with a mild negative consequence.
We are not talking about harsh physical punishment, such as punching, squeezing, shaking, or slapping other parts of the body. These tactics are already outlawed in the UK.
For much of the past century, smacking has been taken as a normal part of parenting. In the UK, smacking children has been legal since 1860.
However, since the 1980s there has been a growing trend towards a new approach to caring for children – known as gentle parenting.
Smacking is outlawed in Scotland, Wales and 67 other countries but could soon be made illegal in England after a group of leading child doctors called on the Government to ban it
Gentle parenting advocates argue that resorting to any form of punishment – whether that’s sending a child to their room or smacking – means parents have failed.
Instead, they argue, parents should be able to explain to their child, using words, why their actions are wrong.
This approach is fine with cooperative children, but more defiant children sometimes need negative consequences to support positive parenting.
Smacking may occasionally be needed to convince defiant children to cooperate with going to their room.
One argument for banning smacking is that it protects children from abuse. However, studies show this isn’t necessarily the case.
In 2000 Germany banned smacking. But one study, carried out seven years later, found only 32 per cent of German parents knew mild smacking had been banned.
Although they were less likely to use mild smacking, they were more likely to resort to more severe physical punishment, such as ‘beating with an object’, than German parents who thought that mild smacking was still legal.
This might suggest that, without access to smacking, parents are more likely to lose control and lash out at their children.
Another claim that campaigners make is that smacking children wrongly teaches them that violence is an acceptable solution to problems. Smacking, they argue, makes children more violent.
But research suggests that, in fact, the opposite may be true. One 1999 study found that aggressive pre-schoolers who are not punished – preferably with privilege removal or timeouts – tend to be just as violent 20 months later even if their mothers reasoned with them a lot.
Those that are punished – first with being sent to their room and, if that fails, with smacking – are much less likely to be aggressive within the same time period.
In fact, I would say that, when used correctly, smacking can benefit children – and improve their lives in the long-run.
Study after study has shown that, along with isolation (sending children to their room), smacking is the most effective measure for responding to oppositional defiance – this is the scientific term for persistent refusal to cooperate with parents.
A 2001 study shows that children with unaddressed oppositional defiance are more likely to go on to commit crimes. So it’s crucial that parents manage this issue as early as possible. Smacking can help such children to listen and cooperate with milder consequences.
Anti-smacking campaigners often argue that, since isolation is an effective tool against oppositional defiance, there is no need for smacking.
But sometimes isolation doesn’t work and parents need a second option. If there were only two effective treatments for Covid or cancer, no one would argue that we only needed one of them. So why is the same argument used for smacking? I would argue that having the ability to smack young children, when other options have been exhausted, improves the lives of parents too.
Belgian researchers are currently leading a 42-country study of parental burnout. This is where the stress and exhaustion brought on by parenting can trigger a number of symptoms including depression, sleep problems, and anger.
The research shows that parental burnout is significantly more common in the West than in the so-called Third World.
This is a surprising finding given that Western families have greater access to food and shelter, not to mention are less likely to be exposed to war or deadly disease.
One argument, that I tend to agree with, is that the rise in gentle parenting – and opposition to all negative consequences, including smacking – has created a generation of stressed-out parents who feel unable to control their children when they are defiant.
Of course, there are important caveats to all of this.
All research shows that smacking is only effective when done sparingly. I would say that once or twice a month is acceptable, but any more is not. The less is often better.
Likewise, it has to be age appropriate. Children under two are too young because they don’t understand the concept of consequences. Any older than 12 and smacking can be bad for the development of children.
This is because this is the age parents need to start treating children like adults, and smacking is inherently infantilising.
But, despite the growing chorus of doctors and campaigners who are against smacking, I still believe it has its place in modern parenting. And I think banning it would be a mistake.
- Professor Robert Larzelere is an expert in human development and family science at Oklahoma State University
