Literature Review
Spanking and corporal punishment are controversial topics in the psychology world. There are numerous arguments against spanking, stating its effects on the moral and psychological growth of a child. Parents support spanking due to the perceived positive impact and moral grounds from the Bible proverb "spare the rod and spoil the child." It is difficult to convince parents to use other methods of retribution. Most parents rely on behavior theory, thinking that this would help children become better and disciplined people in society. It isn’t easy to clearly show a causative agent in psychology experiments- more than one effect might be at play in a child’s life.
While the issue isn’t fully mapped out, waiting while detrimental effects in society continue unabated is dangerous. Violence in society is unacceptable, and research has found that the culture of spanking is passed from generation to generation. This paper seeks to critically review previous scholarly articles and their results regarding a child's moral development relative to spanking. Due to ethical concerns mapping parents who spank directly to kids is tricky. Difficulty in mapping and quantifying sociological and environmental factors exist. An argument similar to nature vs. nurture could be brought about, and depending on the side of the tree one stands, then facts are deduced. A big question is whether the children's aggressive nature is the cause of spanking or whether aggressiveness is a result of spanking. Spanking, however, results in more aggression in already aggressive kids.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
A genetic argument claiming that volatile characteristics that make a parent more likely to spank also make the child aggressive and likely to receive a spanking. A study on twin parents suggested that parents who did not spank their children resulted in a more morally developed child. Abusive parents tend to punish their children more harshly. Soft spanking is associated with growth in harder spanking. A parent tends to increase the volume of spanking as the child grows. This contrasts with the idea that spanking actually causes behavior change and thus builds an argument at its counter production. Communication and reasoning can help in parenting, and through this, the child learns and grows morally. The parent-child relationship stays loving, and the child is more open to interpersonal relationships and socialization.
Anxiety in society could also be linked to childhood spanking. The fear developed in a child due to the lack of comfort and peaceful environment results in adult fear of the unknown. When children are spanked, they don’t understand the reason for the pain they received but rather learn to avoid it. Children begin to lie to their parents as an avoidance mechanism. Children stay tense, always on the watch for spanking. It could be explained in adult anxiety when one's thoughts are racing on the lookout for pain or possible causes of pain.
Spanking is engrained in Biblical morals as well as our culture. It is important to find an alternative to spanking for us to shape the future society and generation. We should use the power granted to us to make others better and not spank them because they are weaker. If spanking was a measure of discipline, then why don’t we spank an undisciplined adult?
The paper explores the long-term effects of spanking on the development of the moral of a child. There is a huge controversy in this topic, from causative agent to biased environmental factors.
Understanding moral development
Moral development is a long term process that is an internal definition of right and wrong in a person’s mind. Parents think that spanking children will result in behavior change. If they display particular behavior, somebody will spank them, according to Watson’s S and R behaviorism model that does not care about what goes on inside the mind. The model explains A-->B-->C, B is the mental process. If A leads to B and B to C, Then A leads to C (Al-Harbi,2019).
Rogoff (as cited by, Al-Harbi, 2019) found that Piaget and Vygotsky dwelled on cognition as key in character formation. Piaget proposed that a child be left to learn the world to form complex cognitive models, unlike Vygotsky, who suggested the child be a parent’s student. Vygotsky’s aim was not to clone the parent’s behaviors onto the child but rather to train a child from a learner to an autonomous being. Vygotsky brings forth the idea that parents should act as examples and children should ask questions regarding what they don’t understand. Upon receiving explanations as to wrong and right, their morals develop. The child understands action and consequence better than where a child relates any wrongdoing with spanking.
Despite basing moral development on cognition, Piaget and Vygotsky had different methodologies of nourishing a child's comprehension. Piaget demonstrated that storytelling and asking questions had the same effect as Vygotsky’s proposal. Stories told to children are preceded by questions that put the listener’s mind in the narrative. The listener then judges the character's actions according to the cognitive moral model they have. Parents ask the child whether the character’s behavior is right or wrong and why they are right or why punishment is necessary.
Kohlberg (1984, as cited in, Al-Harbi,2019) finds two types of moral judgment. One is heteronymous, which bases morals on others' opinions, and the other autonomous, which depends on internal ethical standards. Children observe adults and derive what is wrong and right. Children grow up to imitate the adult’s judgment and thus form moral reasoning.
Importance of touch in social mammals
Touch is an essential sensation to a baby as it is among the first sensory inputs. The baby gets a holding sensation in the womb and postnatally receives in-arms motherly care. Touch sensory input influences the development of neurobiological systems in mammals. The implications of touch on moral development are unclear and need more in-depth research (Narvaez et al., 2019). Prescott (1996, as cited in Narvaez et al.,2019) found sensory deficit disorder in children who received more negative(punitive) touches than warm touches—later linking the punitive touches to addictions and violence, which the child associated with badness. Narvaez et al. (2019) suggest a relationship between spanking and withdrawal or aggressiveness in social interactions. Further, Narvaez et al. (2019) hypothesize early touch experience is associated with characteristics connected to moral development since moral development is about self-regulation while focusing on oneself and others’ needs.
Against spanking
Spanking is considered a negative touch on a child. It is considered ACE (Adverse Childhood Experience) and therefore carries with it consequences of ACE’s. Various scholars have researched the effect of ACE’s on the growth of a child and behavior as adults. Exclusion of negative touch was a better predictor than providing a nurturing touch (Narvaez et al., 2019). Further sociomoral behavior is measured using empathy and concern subscales of My child (Kochnska et al., 1994) and the Children’s Behavior Questionnaire inhibitory control subscale. A 5-point Likert-type scale was used to collect responses. Moral orientation was measured using Child Triune Ethics Measure by Gleason et al. (2016, as cited in Narvaez et al., 2019). The subscales come from the ethics of protectionism (opposition, distrust, and withdrawal), engagement (social enjoyment, social attunement, and social consideration), and imagination (social imagination).
Punitive attitudes are related to a lack of engagement and imagination (Narvaez et al., 2019). However, the results of their first study have limited generalizability. In their second study, longitudinal data from 4 -36 months where in addition to mother reports, observations of mother-child interactions and interviews were conducted. A hypothesis was drawn that the longitudinal findings would replicate later in sociomoral outcomes later in life. Results showed a decrease in positive touch ratings and an increase in punishment from 4- 30 months. Mothers who did not use negative touch at six months had toddlers who were more socially engaged at 18 months. In their third study, Narvaez et al. (2019) measured moral capacities using subscales from the Interpersonal reactivity Index: empathetic concerns, perspective-taking, and personal distress. Personal distress was positively related to social withdrawal.
McCord (1995, as cited in Al-Harbi, 2019) found that parents’ consistent use of corporal punishment is related to antisocial behavior or low self-esteem in children. Gershoff (2002, as cited in Al-Harbi, 2019), in his meta-analytic review, found that spanking resulted in immediate compliance but will not result in a substantive change in behavior. It means that the parent will find the child in the wrong again despite spanking him or her. This will result in an endless cycle, and as the child matures as it is not affecting long-term behavior change. Children who experience aggressive behavior in their childhood are more likely to be abusive in their adulthood. Strauss and Mordian (1998, as cited in Al-Harbi, 2019) found spanking a risk factor for children developing impulsive and antisocial behaviors. Spanking is therapeutic to parents’ anger rather than behavior changing to the child. The thinking and living of a child are hindered by penal logic. The child does not realize his or her mistakes but rather fears pain. Smith (2012, as cited in Polk 2016) spanking doesn’t work in the long term and can make children more aggressive. Impacts of spanking are not immediately visible, and research has to be trusted, just like in smoking. Aggression to others in adulthood is a sign of poor moral development. Polk (2016) finds that negative brain changes occur when a child is spanked, resulting in lower cognitive ability and reduced self-control. The more you physically punish your kids for their lack of self-control, the self-control continues to diminish. Spanking leads to moral degradation as cognitive abilities are necessary for moral development. Kercheval (2014, as cited in Polk, 2016) explored the impact of assertive power techniques on academic performance was explored, as was their effect on the development of locus of control.
Spanking is considered extremely harmful to the person as a whole as adult life mental issues are related to childhood spanking. Researchers find a relationship to increased aggression and delinquency, antisocial and violent behaviors, and depression and suicidality. ACE’s bring about post-traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse disorder. A decade long study was made collecting data from more than 17,000 Kaiser Permanente patients who voluntarily gave their information. The study attempted to link ACE’s to the leading causes of death in the United States, such as smoking, alcohol abuse, illicit drugs, physical inactivity, obesity, promiscuity, and suicide attempts with increased ACE’s found a direct relationship. The effects of spanking are dire to moral development, as seen in the study Felliti et al. (1998, as cited in Polk, 2016). Parents acting in a manner likely to suggest harm or pain to children elicits fear in them. The brain conditioning of a child relates spanking with badness.
The American Psychoanalytic Association (2013, as cited in Polk, 2016) indicates that spanking a child brings the opposite intended emotional outcome: distress, fear, shame, and anger. As the child grows, they have a fear of interpersonal relationships. D’andrea et al. (2012, as cited in Polk, 2016) find that children exposed to interpersonal trauma have distorted attributions about themselves and the world, which causes global shame. Further, trust is difficult, diminished social skills, and an inability to understand social interactions.
An absence of empathy also results from spanking. Perry and Slazavitz (2010, as cited in Polk, 2016) find that spanking cannot encourage empathy. Empathy is the ability to relate your primary feelings to another persons’ situation. Empathy defines a human being and should be learned in childhood. Empathy’s potential is expressed only under certain development conditions of caring, nurturing, and vibrant social conditions. Spanking can lead to antagonistic behavior toward others. By recommending spanking as a disciplinary measure, one moves from victim to perpetrator in a vicious cycle that needs to be broken.
Conclusion
The empirical case convinces us to stop spanking. Knowledge in the developmental theory asserts the negative effects of spanking on moral development. As the literature reviewed in this paper, the findings relate poor moral development to spanking. Spanking has a reverse impact on moral cognitive development and, therefore, moral development. It is difficult to ignore the consistency in the findings cited.
Over time, there are more variables at play in the growth phase of a child than can be mapped. Some include exposure to various entertainment media that could affect a child’s moral development. With the improvement in data collection through technology, there are research gaps that could hypothesize the theory of entertainment and moral development.
Children, according to the social learning theory, could pick up violence from the environment. Imitation comes into play, and now as they grow up, spanked children are accustomed to violence and have no trouble inflicting it on others. It explains the cyclic regeneration of spanking. Children internalize low self-worth and lack of love when spanked by the people they love. It makes individuals develop into adults with low self-esteem and a likelihood of having depression. When coupled together, a gateway to immortality is opened. Self-harming activities can be understood better as an inherent lack of self-worth and self-love. When one takes drugs deemed harmful, it is an indicator that they don’t love themselves. Spanking affects rationality, which is the key to moral development.
References
Al-Harbi, S. S. Original Paper Parental Spanking and Children Development: Review of Literature and Theories.
Narvaez, D., Wang, L., Cheng, A., Gleason, T. R., Woodbury, R., Kurth, A., & Lefever, J. B. (2019). The importance of early life touch for psychosocial and moral development. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica , 32 (1), 16.
Polk, J. R. M. (2016). The Effects of Spanking on Mental Health and Why Clinicians Need to Know . Pacifica Graduate Institute.
