- Email: [email protected]
Re: Response to Dr. Ian Hassall
Child Abuse & Neglect 34 (2010) 82–83
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Child Abuse & Neglect
Letter to the Editor Re: Response to Dr. Ian Hassall We would like to thank Dr. Ian Hassall for his Letter to the Editor concerning our article, Parental Physical and Psychological Aggression, which appeared in Child Abuse & Neglect. We are in agreement with Dr. Hassall that adults should never hit children. We applaud the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which recognizes the right of every child to physical integrity, and we also hope to see the United States join the many other Western nations who have criminalized spanking and other forms of corporal punishment. In the United States, we do not tolerate strangers hitting one another, nor do we tolerate spouses hitting one another. Why then is it permissible for parents to hit their children? We agree with Dr. Hassall that it is not. We may disagree with Dr. Hassall, however, with regard to two particular issues he raises in his response. The first is that Dr. Hassall is concerned that we contribute to a common misapprehension when we write, “the question of whether or not CP results in detrimental outcomes is central to the current debate about the value and appropriateness of spanking as a parenting technique.” Although Dr. Hassall believes that the main argument against CP does not focus on harm, it seems clear to us that the question of outcomes is indeed front and center in the spanking debate. For example, Dr. Miller-Perrin served on a task force of APA’s Section on Child Maltreatment of Division 37, chaired by Sandra Graham-Bermann, which recently examined the research evidence relevant to the spanking controversy. The group focused almost exclusively on the question of outcomes. Proponents of spanking argue that, if done appropriately, spanking is effective and results in both short- and long-term compliance and less aggressive and antisocial behavior (e.g., Larzelere & Kuhn, 2005). In contrast, opponents argue that spanking is not only ineffective as a discipline technique, but is also correlated with a large number of undesirable outcomes including physical injury, impaired mental health, and increased aggressive and antisocial behaviors (e.g., Gershoff, 2002; Straus, 2004). A second issue included in Dr. Hassall’s response is the language that he and others often use as it relates to corporal punishment. “The central issue is not whether or not harm is done,” he writes, “but whether or not one person is entitled to assault another.” Corporal forms of punishment, such as spanking, are in his words “legally sanctioned assaults” (emphasis added). We are certainly not legal scholars, but at the risk of leaving ourselves open to criticism from those who are, we researched the word assault. Essentially all of the definitions we encountered had one element in common: assault is, by definition, harming (i.e., injuring) another person, or attempting to do so. The California Penal Code, for example, defines assault as an “unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another” (California Penal Code, Section 240). Ironically, when Dr. Hassall uses the word “assault,” he contradicts the very point he wishes to make. Corporal punishment, if defined as an assault on a child, is by its very definition indicative of harm (and even injury) to a child. Given the cultural acceptance of spanking, one can certainly understand the temptation to invoke dramatic language when arguing against its use. Yet we wonder if this strategy might sometimes harm the very causes for which we advocate. We have a number of friends and colleagues who spank their children. To the best of our knowledge they do so very rarely, and they do so “appropriately.” (We borrow the word “appropriate” here from spanking advocates, who argue that an open hand, paired with explanation, is effective and harmless. But, just to be clear, we agree with Dr. Hassall that spanking is never appropriate.) Likewise, a majority of our students were spanked as children, and a majority (although, thankfully, a smaller majority), intend to spank when they become parents. We could tell our friends who spank that they are perpetrators of assault upon their children, but they probably would not want to be our friends any longer. And certainly we could tell our students they were victims of assault, but such a claim would likely not ring true to their experience, and they would probably dismiss our concerns. Indeed, in a culture that accepts spanking, our claims that spanked children are victims of assault are likely to fall on deaf ears. Perhaps what Dr. Hassall means to say is that spanking and other forms of corporal punishment, despite being culturally acceptable, should instead be viewed as inappropriate forms of physical violence against children. Furthermore, although the question of human rights is not currently central to the debate, perhaps it should be. Many professionals in the field, including us, agree that children have a right—a basic human right—NOT to be hit (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 0145-2134/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.12.001
Letter to the Editor / Child Abuse & Neglect 34 (2010) 82–83
83
2006). Some professionals even consider the use of physical punishment with children a moral or ethical violation (Schenck, Lyman, & Bodin, 2000). Perhaps the time has come to shift the focus of the debate from child outcomes toward a focus on ethical beliefs and the human rights of children. On this point we may all agree. References Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2006). General Comment No. 8 (2006): The right of the child to protection from corporal punishment and or cruel or degrading forms of punishment (articles 1, 28(2), and 37, inter alia) (CRC/C/GC/8). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations. Retrieved April 30, 2009, from http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf. Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 539–579. Larzelere, R. E., & Kuhn, B. R. (2005). Comparing child outcomes of physical punishment and alternative disciplinary tactics: A meta-analysis. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 8, 1–37. Schenck, E. R., Lyman, R. D., & Bodin, S. D. (2000). Ethical beliefs, attitudes, and professional practices of psychologists regarding parental use of corporal punishment: A survey. Children’s Services: Social Policy, Research, and Practice, 3, 23–38. Straus, M. A. (2004). Cross-cultural reliability and validity of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales: A study of university student dating couples in 17 nations. Cross-Cultural Research, 38, 407–432.
Robin Perrin Cindy Miller-Perrin ∗ Social Science Division, Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA 90263, United States ∗ Corresponding
author.
4 December 2009 Available online 12 February 2010
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Child Abuse & Neglect
Letter to the Editor Re: Response to Dr. Ian Hassall We would like to thank Dr. Ian Hassall for his Letter to the Editor concerning our article, Parental Physical and Psychological Aggression, which appeared in Child Abuse & Neglect. We are in agreement with Dr. Hassall that adults should never hit children. We applaud the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which recognizes the right of every child to physical integrity, and we also hope to see the United States join the many other Western nations who have criminalized spanking and other forms of corporal punishment. In the United States, we do not tolerate strangers hitting one another, nor do we tolerate spouses hitting one another. Why then is it permissible for parents to hit their children? We agree with Dr. Hassall that it is not. We may disagree with Dr. Hassall, however, with regard to two particular issues he raises in his response. The first is that Dr. Hassall is concerned that we contribute to a common misapprehension when we write, “the question of whether or not CP results in detrimental outcomes is central to the current debate about the value and appropriateness of spanking as a parenting technique.” Although Dr. Hassall believes that the main argument against CP does not focus on harm, it seems clear to us that the question of outcomes is indeed front and center in the spanking debate. For example, Dr. Miller-Perrin served on a task force of APA’s Section on Child Maltreatment of Division 37, chaired by Sandra Graham-Bermann, which recently examined the research evidence relevant to the spanking controversy. The group focused almost exclusively on the question of outcomes. Proponents of spanking argue that, if done appropriately, spanking is effective and results in both short- and long-term compliance and less aggressive and antisocial behavior (e.g., Larzelere & Kuhn, 2005). In contrast, opponents argue that spanking is not only ineffective as a discipline technique, but is also correlated with a large number of undesirable outcomes including physical injury, impaired mental health, and increased aggressive and antisocial behaviors (e.g., Gershoff, 2002; Straus, 2004). A second issue included in Dr. Hassall’s response is the language that he and others often use as it relates to corporal punishment. “The central issue is not whether or not harm is done,” he writes, “but whether or not one person is entitled to assault another.” Corporal forms of punishment, such as spanking, are in his words “legally sanctioned assaults” (emphasis added). We are certainly not legal scholars, but at the risk of leaving ourselves open to criticism from those who are, we researched the word assault. Essentially all of the definitions we encountered had one element in common: assault is, by definition, harming (i.e., injuring) another person, or attempting to do so. The California Penal Code, for example, defines assault as an “unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another” (California Penal Code, Section 240). Ironically, when Dr. Hassall uses the word “assault,” he contradicts the very point he wishes to make. Corporal punishment, if defined as an assault on a child, is by its very definition indicative of harm (and even injury) to a child. Given the cultural acceptance of spanking, one can certainly understand the temptation to invoke dramatic language when arguing against its use. Yet we wonder if this strategy might sometimes harm the very causes for which we advocate. We have a number of friends and colleagues who spank their children. To the best of our knowledge they do so very rarely, and they do so “appropriately.” (We borrow the word “appropriate” here from spanking advocates, who argue that an open hand, paired with explanation, is effective and harmless. But, just to be clear, we agree with Dr. Hassall that spanking is never appropriate.) Likewise, a majority of our students were spanked as children, and a majority (although, thankfully, a smaller majority), intend to spank when they become parents. We could tell our friends who spank that they are perpetrators of assault upon their children, but they probably would not want to be our friends any longer. And certainly we could tell our students they were victims of assault, but such a claim would likely not ring true to their experience, and they would probably dismiss our concerns. Indeed, in a culture that accepts spanking, our claims that spanked children are victims of assault are likely to fall on deaf ears. Perhaps what Dr. Hassall means to say is that spanking and other forms of corporal punishment, despite being culturally acceptable, should instead be viewed as inappropriate forms of physical violence against children. Furthermore, although the question of human rights is not currently central to the debate, perhaps it should be. Many professionals in the field, including us, agree that children have a right—a basic human right—NOT to be hit (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 0145-2134/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.12.001
Letter to the Editor / Child Abuse & Neglect 34 (2010) 82–83
83
2006). Some professionals even consider the use of physical punishment with children a moral or ethical violation (Schenck, Lyman, & Bodin, 2000). Perhaps the time has come to shift the focus of the debate from child outcomes toward a focus on ethical beliefs and the human rights of children. On this point we may all agree. References Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2006). General Comment No. 8 (2006): The right of the child to protection from corporal punishment and or cruel or degrading forms of punishment (articles 1, 28(2), and 37, inter alia) (CRC/C/GC/8). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations. Retrieved April 30, 2009, from http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf. Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 539–579. Larzelere, R. E., & Kuhn, B. R. (2005). Comparing child outcomes of physical punishment and alternative disciplinary tactics: A meta-analysis. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 8, 1–37. Schenck, E. R., Lyman, R. D., & Bodin, S. D. (2000). Ethical beliefs, attitudes, and professional practices of psychologists regarding parental use of corporal punishment: A survey. Children’s Services: Social Policy, Research, and Practice, 3, 23–38. Straus, M. A. (2004). Cross-cultural reliability and validity of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales: A study of university student dating couples in 17 nations. Cross-Cultural Research, 38, 407–432.
Robin Perrin Cindy Miller-Perrin ∗ Social Science Division, Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA 90263, United States ∗ Corresponding
author.
4 December 2009 Available online 12 February 2010