Physical discipline

Keeping a child safe is not punishment

Two different things often get called physical discipline.

• Physical intervention for safety: grabbing a child who runs toward the street, holding a child who is about to hurt someone, carrying a child away from danger. This is appropriate and necessary at every age.
• Physical punishment: spanking, smacking, slapping or hitting with an object, used to correct or deter behavior through pain or discomfort. This is the contested topic the rest of this page covers.

The difference is purpose and timing. A safety hold stops harm in the moment and ends as soon as everyone is safe. Physical punishment comes after the behavior, as a penalty.

How to step in physically, calmly

1. Act fast, then slow down. Grab first if you have to. Once the danger has passed, slow your movements and your voice.
2. Use only the force you need. Hold a hand, an arm or the body firmly enough to stop the danger, without squeezing, twisting, yanking or shaking.
3. Say what you are doing in a few words, in a low, steady voice.
4. To stop hitting or kicking, step between the children, hold your child’s hands, or pick up a small child and move away. Never press on the chest, neck or back, never hold a child face down, and never shake.
5. Let go as soon as everyone is safe.
6. Afterwards, keep it short: name the danger, state the rule and reconnect.

With babies and toddlers, safety-proof the home so you need fewer emergency grabs. If you find yourself holding or restraining your child often, talk to a professional; see when to get help.

What most research finds

The larger body of research, summarized in several meta-analyses and reviews, links physical punishment with worse outcomes for children.

• Spanking meta-analyses. Meta-analyses focused specifically on spanking, covering 111 effect sizes from 160,927 children, found that 13 of 17 mean effects were significantly different from zero, and all of them linked spanking with a higher risk of detrimental outcomes. The size of these links did not differ substantially between spanking and physical abuse, or by study design.⁵⁵
• Corporal punishment meta-analysis. An earlier meta-analysis found corporal punishment associated with all 11 child behaviors and experiences it examined, including higher immediate compliance, but also more aggression, lower moral internalization (taking rules on as one’s own) and worse mental health.⁵⁴
• Over time. A review of 69 prospective studies found that physical punishment consistently predicted increases in behavior problems, was not associated with positive outcomes over time, was linked with a higher risk of involvement with child protective services, and predicted worsening behavior in quasi-experimental studies. The links held across child and parent characteristics, with some evidence that more physical punishment went with worse outcomes.⁵⁷
• Babies. In a study of 2,788 urban families, 30% of 1-year-olds had been spanked at least once in the past month, and spanking at age 1 was linked with a 33% greater probability of child protective services involvement between ages 1 and 5.⁶³
• Across settings. A review weighing this research against accepted criteria for judging cause concluded that physical punishment is linked with the same harms as physical abuse, and that its links with detrimental outcomes are consistent across cultural, family and neighborhood contexts. The authors recommend that parents avoid it.⁵⁶
• Shouting and shaming. In its 2018 policy statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics links harsh verbal abuse with mental health problems in preteens and adolescents.⁶⁴ In a study of 976 two-parent families, harsh verbal discipline at age 13 predicted increases in conduct problems and depressive symptoms over the following year, and parental warmth did not soften these links. Teenagers’ misbehavior also predicted more harsh verbal discipline, so the links ran both ways.⁶⁵ Both concern older children; we include them because shouting can look like the obvious replacement for spanking.

How strong is the case for cause? Most of these studies are observational: they follow or survey families rather than assigning discipline at random, so on their own they show links, not proof of cause. Majority-side researchers have weighed the research against accepted criteria for causal inference and, on that basis, recommend that parents avoid physical punishment.⁵⁶ Quasi-experimental studies, which come closer to testing cause, also found that physical punishment predicted worsening behavior.⁵⁷ The minority side disputes this reading, as the next section explains. For more on reading this kind of evidence, see correlation and causation.

What proponents argue

A smaller group of researchers argues that the case against all spanking is overstated. These are their main points, in their terms.

The links shrink when earlier behavior is controlled. A 2024 meta-analysis of controlled longitudinal studies found that customary spanking explained less than 1% of the remaining variance in each child outcome after controlling for children’s earlier adjustment. The authors attribute harmful-looking results to residual confounding (differences the studies did not fully account for, such as how much a child was already misbehaving), point to large effects of spanking used to enforce time-out in clinic programs for defiant young children, and discourage blanket injunctions against spanking.⁶² A 2013 meta-analysis of longitudinal studies found small but non-trivial links between spanking or corporal punishment and later behavior problems and lower cognitive performance. Once children’s earlier levels were controlled, the links with behavior problems were statistically significant but trivial, and the author concluded that the impact was minimal.⁵³

Other methods look harmful too, with the same analyses. Re-analyzing data on 785 children aged 6 to 9, Larzelere and colleagues found that spanking appeared to increase antisocial behavior when they used the original study’s simple three-category measure of earlier behavior. Grounding and psychotherapy showed a similar pattern, as did, in part, privilege removal and sending children to their room. With fuller measures of earlier behavior problems, all of these effects, spanking included, became non-significant. The authors argue that how and when a method is used may matter more than which method it is.⁶¹ Larzelere’s 2000 review makes a similar point: apparently detrimental outcomes have been found for every alternative disciplinary tactic when studied with similar analyses.⁵⁹

“Conditional” spanking. In their meta-analysis of 26 studies comparing physical punishment with other discipline tactics, Larzelere and Kuhn report that what they call conditional spanking was favored over 10 of 13 alternative tactics for reducing noncompliance or antisocial behavior, that customary physical punishment did as well as the alternatives (apart from one large study that favored physical punishment), and that only overly severe or predominant use compared unfavorably.⁶⁰ Larzelere’s 2000 review reported beneficial outcomes, such as less noncompliance and fighting, mainly when nonabusive spanking was used to back up milder discipline with 2- to 6-year-olds, and attributed detrimental outcomes in longitudinal studies chiefly to overly frequent use.⁵⁹

As proponents describe it, then, the conditions under which they report benefits are narrow: nonabusive spanking, with children of about 2 to 6, used as a back-up to milder discipline such as time-out. Overly frequent, severe or predominant use is where they, too, report worse outcomes. This is their position, set out so you can weigh it. It is not this site’s advice, and this site gives no instructions for physical punishment.

A critique of the 2002 meta-analysis. Commenting on it, Baumrind, Larzelere and Cowan argued that its biases and confounds limit causal conclusions, that corporal punishment may be linked with poor outcomes because it marks inept, harsh parenting, and that although the harm of physical abuse and other extreme punishment is clear, the evidence it presented did not justify a blanket injunction against spanking.⁵²

Culture and family autonomy. Parents also raise arguments that are not about statistics:

• In our culture it is normal, and children understand it as care.
• I was spanked as a child and I turned out fine.
• How we discipline is our family’s decision.

Research speaks to some of these. In a study of mothers and children in 6 countries, including China, physical discipline was less strongly linked with poor child outcomes where it was seen as more normal, which supports part of the cultural argument. But it was still linked with more adverse outcomes however normal it was seen to be, and in every country, more physical discipline went with more aggression and anxiety.⁵⁸ A second study in the same 6 countries linked corporal punishment with more aggression and anxiety in 8- to 12-year-olds, with some moderation by how normal children thought it was. It also linked yelling and expressing disappointment with more aggression, and time-out and shaming with more anxiety, so the picture is not simple for any method.³⁵ Both are cross-sectional studies, which show links rather than causes.

On “I turned out fine”: research describes average risks across many children. It cannot say how any one person would have turned out with different discipline. On family choice, the minority researchers above argue on evidence grounds that a blanket injunction against spanking is not justified.⁵² In its 2018 policy statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics, looking at the same field, recommends against all corporal punishment.⁶⁴

Positive parenting programs have also been tested with Chinese families. In randomized trials in Shanghai and Hong Kong, parents who took Triple P reported fewer child adjustment or behavior problems than parents on a wait list.¹⁰¹⁷

Where both sides agree

Read side by side, the two camps agree on more than the headlines suggest.

• Harsh, frequent or severe physical punishment is harmful. Proponents attribute detrimental findings chiefly to overly frequent use.⁵⁹ They report that overly severe or predominant use compares unfavorably with other discipline,⁶⁰ and they call the harm of physical abuse and other extreme punishment clear.⁵² Majority researchers find some evidence that more physical punishment goes with worse outcomes.⁵⁷
• Non-physical discipline works. Even in the proponents’ meta-analysis, customary physical punishment did no better than alternative tactics, apart from one large study.⁶⁰ The benefits proponents report come mainly from spanking used as a back-up to milder discipline,⁵⁹ and in a direct test, a non-physical back-up for time-out worked as well as spanking.³¹ In experiments, time-out and briefly ignoring a child after noncompliance robustly increased compliance.⁴⁰
• The wider pattern of parenting matters. Proponents argue that how and when a method is used may matter more than which method it is,⁶¹ and that spanking may look harmful because it marks inept, harsh parenting.⁵² Parenting-program research finds larger effects for programs that build positive parent-child interaction and consistency.¹¹

Where they disagree

The real disagreement is narrower than it looks. It is mainly about ordinary, occasional spanking: whether it adds harm, and whether it adds anything as a back-up.

• Does ordinary spanking add harm? The majority finds consistent links with detrimental outcomes, robust across child and parent characteristics, and of similar size to the links for physical abuse.⁵⁵⁵⁷ The minority finds that once children’s earlier behavior is controlled, the links become trivial, or explain less than 1% of the remaining variance.⁵³⁶²
• Cause or confounding? Majority researchers have weighed the evidence against accepted criteria for cause and recommend that parents avoid physical punishment.⁵⁶ Minority researchers argue that biases and confounds limit causal conclusions, and attribute harmful-looking results to residual confounding.⁵²⁶²
• Does a spanking back-up for time-out help? Proponents point to large effects in clinic programs that used spanking to enforce time-out.⁶² In a direct comparison, a non-physical “barrier” back-up worked as well as spanking.³¹
• What should parents be told? In its 2018 policy statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends against all corporal punishment.⁶⁴ The minority argues that the evidence does not justify blanket injunctions against spanking.⁵²⁶²

One more point: no peer-reviewed source on this site shows that physical discipline is faster or more effective for busy parents. For that question in detail, see the little-time guide.

What medical bodies recommend

This site cites only policy statements published in peer-reviewed journals. On physical punishment, that is the 2018 policy statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, published in Pediatrics.

• It advises parents and other adults not to use any corporal punishment, including hitting and spanking, and not to use verbal abuse such as threatening, insulting, humiliating or shaming.⁶⁴
• It states that such aversive strategies are minimally effective in the short term and not effective in the long term, and links corporal punishment with an increased risk of negative behavioral, cognitive, psychosocial and emotional outcomes.⁶⁴
• In their place, it recommends positive reinforcement of appropriate behavior, limit setting, redirecting and setting future expectations.⁶⁴

Researchers on the minority side disagree with blanket recommendations of this kind, as described under where they disagree.

Questions to ask yourself

There is no score at the end. These questions are meant to help you decide with the evidence in view.

• What do I want my child to learn from this moment, and will this teach it?
• Am I calm, or am I reacting? If you are angry, wait until you are calm before deciding anything.
• Have I given non-physical methods a fair try? That means a few weeks of using them the same way every time, not a few days. See when it is not working.
• Is it becoming more frequent, or harder? Both sides see frequent or severe use as harmful; see where both sides agree.
• If I am weighing the proponents’ view, does what happens in my home fit the conditions they describe? Nonabusive, with a child of about 2 to 6, as a back-up to milder discipline, and not frequent, severe or the main method.
• Do the other adults who care for my child agree? See when caregivers disagree.
• How does my child react afterwards? Calmer and closer, or fearful, secretive or more defiant?
• When my child is angry with someone smaller, what do I want them to do?

Warning signs that discipline has become abuse

Reach out for help now if any of these are true:

• You hit with an object, such as a belt, stick, ruler, hanger or slipper. In an anonymous survey of mothers in 2 US states, those who reported spanking with an object had markedly higher odds of also reporting physical abuse.⁶⁶
• It is happening more often, or harder. In the same survey, more frequent spanking was linked with higher odds of reported abuse.⁶⁶ A review of prospective studies found some evidence that more physical punishment went with worse outcomes.⁵⁷
• You hit a baby or toddler. Spanking at age 1 was linked with a higher chance of child protective services involvement by age 5, and the authors advise professionals to counsel parents not to spank infants and toddlers.⁶³
• You shake your child, or hit the head or face.
• It leaves marks, bruises or injuries.
• You hit in a rage, or find it hard to stop once you start.
• Your child seems afraid of you: flinching when you move quickly, hiding, or lying to avoid being hit.
• You hide it from other adults, or other adults have told you they are worried.
• Threats, insults, humiliation or shaming have become routine. The American Academy of Pediatrics advises against all of these in its 2018 policy statement.⁶⁴

If any of these apply, talk to your pediatrician or family doctor, or use the help lines on the About page. If your child is hurt, get medical care. If you fear you might hurt your child, make sure your child is somewhere safe, step away and call someone. Parenting programs are one kind of help: in a Cochrane review, group-based behavioral parenting programs reduced conduct problems in children aged 3 to 12 and also improved parents’ mental health.⁸ See also when to get professional help.

What to do instead, in the moment

1. Stop any danger first, with a calm safety hold if needed.
2. Pause yourself. Hands down, step back, breathe out slowly. If your child is safe, take a minute in another room.
3. Say very little. One short sentence is enough (see the script below).
4. Once you are calm, use one brief non-physical consequence: a short time-out or losing a privilege; for a toddler, redirection; for whining and other bids for attention, planned ignoring.
5. Then return to normal. No grudges. Look for the next chance to notice something your child does well.

In experiments, time-out and briefly ignoring a child after noncompliance robustly increased compliance.⁴⁰ In a direct comparison, a non-physical back-up for leaving time-out worked as well as spanking.³¹

For specific moments:

• Your child hits or bites: Hitting and biting
• A meltdown: Tantrums, or when you are out, Public meltdowns
• Flat refusal: Defiance and “no”
• Children fighting each other: Sibling fighting
• Your child will not stay in time-out: when a child refuses time-out

For the long run, see the core of the best-proven approach. If time is tight, start with When you have little time.

After you lose your temper

If you shouted or hit in anger, you can still repair it with your child.

1. Calm down first.
2. Check on your child. Make sure they are not hurt.
3. Name what happened, without excuses or “but you…”.
4. Say sorry, and say what you will do next time.
5. Reconnect: a hug if your child wants one, or a few minutes together.
6. Keep the limit. The original rule still stands.
7. Plan for next time. Notice your own early warning signs, such as a raised voice or a tight jaw, and decide now what you will do instead.

Research on babies and their caregivers, which is not about discipline, suggests that healthy development is linked with interactions in which mismatches are frequently repaired, and poorer development with long stretches of failed interaction and negative feeling.⁵⁰ A parent losing their temper is a much bigger rupture than those everyday mismatches, so take this as a guiding idea, not proof that repair undoes harm. More on how to repair: Repair after conflict.

If you lose your temper often, treat it as a sign to get support for yourself; see the warning signs.

The law

Laws on physical discipline differ from country to country, so check the law where you live.

Sources

The small numbers in the text point to these sources. Each one has a full entry on the Research page.

8. Furlong, M., McGilloway, S., Bywater, T., Hutchings, J., Smith, S. M., & Donnelly, M. (2012). Behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting programmes for early-onset conduct problems in children aged 3 to 12 years. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2012(2). See it on the Research page doi:10.1002/14651858.cd008225.pub2 Back to the text
10. Guo, M., Morawska, A., & Sanders, M. R. (2016). A randomized controlled trial of Group Triple P with Chinese parents in Mainland China. Behavior Modification, 40(6), 825-851. See it on the Research page doi:10.1177/0145445516644221 Back to the text
11. Kaminski, J. W., Valle, L. A., Filene, J. H., & Boyle, C. L. (2008). A Meta-analytic Review of Components Associated with Parent Training Program Effectiveness. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36(4), 567-589. See it on the Research page doi:10.1007/s10802-007-9201-9 Back to the text
17. Leung, C., Sanders, M. R., Leung, S., Mak, R., & Lau, J. (2003). An outcome evaluation of the implementation of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program in Hong Kong. Family Process, 42(4), 531-544. See it on the Research page doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2003.00531.x Back to the text
31. Day, D. E., & Roberts, M. W. (1983). An analysis of the physical punishment component of a parent training program. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 11(1), 141-152. See it on the Research page doi:10.1007/bf00912184 Back to the text
35. Gershoff, E. T., Grogan-Kaylor, A., Lansford, J. E., Chang, L., Zelli, A., Deater-Deckard, K., & Dodge, K. A. (2010). Parent Discipline Practices in an International Sample: Associations With Child Behaviors and Moderation by Perceived Normativeness. Child Development, 81(2), 487-502. See it on the Research page doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01409.x Back to the text
40. Leijten, P., Gardner, F., Melendez-Torres, G. J., Knerr, W., & Overbeek, G. (2018). Parenting behaviors that shape child compliance: A multilevel meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 13(10), e0204929. See it on the Research page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0204929 Back to the text
50. Tronick, E. Z. (1989). Emotions and emotional communication in infants. American Psychologist, 44(2), 112-119. See it on the Research page doi:10.1037/0003-066x.44.2.112 Back to the text
52. Baumrind, D., Larzelere, R. E., & Cowan, P. A. (2002). Ordinary physical punishment: Is it harmful? Comment on Gershoff (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 580-589. See it on the Research page doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.580 Back to the text
53. Ferguson, C. J. (2013). Spanking, corporal punishment and negative long-term outcomes: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(1), 196-208. See it on the Research page doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2012.11.002 Back to the text
54. Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 539-579. See it on the Research page doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.539 Back to the text
55. Gershoff, E. T., & Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2016). Spanking and child outcomes: Old controversies and new meta-analyses. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(4), 453-469. See it on the Research page doi:10.1037/fam0000191 Back to the text
56. Gershoff, E. T., Goodman, G. S., Miller-Perrin, C. L., Holden, G. W., Jackson, Y., & Kazdin, A. E. (2018). The strength of the causal evidence against physical punishment of children and its implications for parents, psychologists, and policymakers. American Psychologist, 73(5), 626-638. See it on the Research page doi:10.1037/amp0000327 Back to the text
57. Heilmann, A., Mehay, A., Watt, R. G., Kelly, Y., Durrant, J. E., van Turnhout, J., & Gershoff, E. T. (2021). Physical punishment and child outcomes: a narrative review of prospective studies. The Lancet, 398(10297), 355-364. See it on the Research page doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00582-1 Back to the text
58. Lansford, J. E., Chang, L., Dodge, K. A., Malone, P. S., Oburu, P., Palmérus, K., Bacchini, D., Pastorelli, C., Bombi, A. S., Zelli, A., Tapanya, S., Chaudhary, N., Deater-Deckard, K., Manke, B., & Quinn, N. (2005). Physical Discipline and Children’s Adjustment: Cultural Normativeness as a Moderator. Child Development, 76(6), 1234-1246. See it on the Research page doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00847.x Back to the text
59. Larzelere, R. E. (2000). Child outcomes of nonabusive and customary physical punishment by parents: An updated literature review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 3(4), 199-221. See it on the Research page doi:10.1023/a:1026473020315 Back to the text
60. 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), 1-37. See it on the Research page doi:10.1007/s10567-005-2340-z Back to the text
61. Larzelere, R. E., Cox, R. B., & Smith, G. L. (2010). Do nonphysical punishments reduce antisocial behavior more than spanking? a comparison using the strongest previous causal evidence against spanking. BMC Pediatrics, 10(1), 10. See it on the Research page doi:10.1186/1471-2431-10-10 Back to the text
62. Larzelere, R. E., Gunnoe, M. L., Pritsker, J., & Ferguson, C. J. (2024). Resolving the Contradictory Conclusions from Three Reviews of Controlled Longitudinal Studies of Physical Punishment: A Meta-Analysis. Marriage & Family Review, 60(7), 395-433. See it on the Research page doi:10.1080/01494929.2024.2392672 Back to the text
63. Lee, S. J., Grogan-Kaylor, A., & Berger, L. M. (2014). Parental spanking of 1-year-old children and subsequent child protective services involvement. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38(5), 875-883. See it on the Research page doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.01.018 Back to the text
64. Sege, R. D., Siegel, B. S., Council on Child Abuse and Neglect, & Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health (2018). Effective Discipline to Raise Healthy Children. Pediatrics, 142(6), e20183112. See it on the Research page doi:10.1542/peds.2018-3112 Back to the text
65. Wang, M.-T., & Kenny, S. (2014). Longitudinal Links Between Fathers’ and Mothers’ Harsh Verbal Discipline and Adolescents’ Conduct Problems and Depressive Symptoms. Child Development, 85(3), 908-923. See it on the Research page doi:10.1111/cdev.12143 Back to the text
66. Zolotor, A. J., Theodore, A. D., Chang, J. J., Berkoff, M. C., & Runyan, D. K. (2008). Speak Softly - and Forget the Stick. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(4), 364-369. See it on the Research page doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.06.031 Back to the text
88. Narang, S. K., Fingarson, A., Lukefahr, J., & Council on Child Abuse and Neglect (2020). Abusive Head Trauma in Infants and Children. Pediatrics, 145(4), e20200203. See it on the Research page doi:10.1542/peds.2020-0203 Back to the text