Miller Perrin Rush

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/328819503
Attitudes, knowledge, practices, and ethical beliefs of psychologists related to

spanking: A survey of American Psychological Association division members.
Article in Psychology Public Policy and Law · November 2018

DOI: 10.1037/law0000184
CITATIONS READS
2 856
2 authors:
Cindy L Miller-Perrin Ryan Rush

Pepperdine University Franklin College of Indiana
70 PUBLICATIONS 1,669 CITATIONS 5 PUBLICATIONS 15 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Ryan Rush on 23 July 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
© 2018 American Psychological Association 2018, Vol. 24, No. 4, 405– 417
1076-8971/18/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/law0000184
Attitudes, Knowledge, Practices, and Ethical Beliefs of Psychologists

Related to Spanking: A Survey of American Psychological Association
Division Members
Cindy Miller-Perrin Ryan Rush

Pepperdine University Franklin College
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
The current study examined attitudes, ethical beliefs, and professional practices related to spanking in a
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
sample of American Psychological Association (APA) division members and represented a replication
and extension of a similar survey conducted 18 years ago. We administered an online survey to 3,000
randomly selected members of 10 APA divisions. A total of 782 members completed the survey for a
response rate of 28%. Findings indicated that overwhelmingly, psychologists are opposed to parental use
of spanking. The majority of APA division members believe that spanking is a bad disciplinary technique
(83%), that it is harmful to children (71%), and that mental health professionals should not advise parents
to use spanking under any circumstances (72%). Of psychologists who directly advise parents about child
rearing, 86% indicated that they never recommend that parents spank their children. Furthermore, 76%
believed it was unethical for a mental health professional to suggest spanking to a parent. The majority
of psychologists surveyed also believe that the APA should adopt policies opposing the recommendation
of physical punishment and its use by parents. Although the majority of psychologists are aware of the
research on spanking outcomes, a substantial minority are unsure about spanking’s impact on children’s
development. Multiple regressions revealed significant associations among the recommendations of
psychologists, personal attitudes, ethical beliefs, and experiences with spanking. These findings suggest
a significant shift in the opinion of psychologists in the past 18 years. We discuss these findings in terms
of their implications for policy and practice.
Keywords: psychologists’ attitudes, physical punishment, spanking, discipline, parenting
Physical punishment of children, defined as “any punishment in physical punishment, beliefs in the appropriateness of physical
which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of punishment were declining prior to the implementation of these
pain or discomfort” (United Nations, Committee on the Rights of laws and have since continued to decline (Lansford et al., 2017). In
the Child, 2007, p. 4), has long been viewed as an appropriate the United States, spanking practices and positive attitudes are also
method for correcting and controlling children’s behavior (Scott, declining (Straus, Douglas, & Medeiros, 2014). Despite these
1996). However, attitudes and practices regarding physical pun- shifts, spanking in the United States remains the norm. Three-
ishment and its most common form, spanking with an open hand, fourths of U.S. adults agree or strongly agree with the statement “It
has dramatically changed. To date, more than 50 countries have is sometimes necessary to discipline a child with a good, hard
banned parental use of spanking (Global Initiative to End Corporal spanking” (Child Trends Data Bank, 2015), and 80% of a sample
Punishment of Children, 2017). In Sweden, the first country to ban of more than 10,000 U.S. parents reported that they have spanked
their child at some point during child rearing (Gershoff, Lansford,
Sexton, Davis-Kean, & Sameroff, 2012).
Over the last 50 years, physical punishment of children in
general, and spanking in particular, has garnered significant atten-
Cindy Miller-Perrin, Social Science Division, Pepperdine University;
Ryan Rush, Psychology Department, Franklin College. tion by social scientists, and results overwhelmingly suggest that
The first author previously presented some of the data reported in this spanking does more harm than good (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor,
article at the 2016 convention of the American Psychological Association, 2016). Despite the mounting evidence, however, not all psychol-
Denver, Colorado. A grant from the Committee on Division/APA Rela- ogists agreed with regard to spanking’s effectiveness, whether it
tions (CODAPAR) supported this research. The authors would like to is harmful to a child’s development, if and when to recommend its
acknowledge the following individuals for their assistance with this re- use, and whether it is ethical for psychologists to recommend its
search: Anthony Chambers, Jonathan Cleveland, Joan Cook, Allie Gonza-
use. Psychologists’ views on these issues are relevant given the
lez, Gail Goodman, Yo Jackson, Cynthia Najdowski, Karen Saywitz, and
Jennifer Woolard.
important role that psychologists play in recommendations about
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Cindy physical punishment, and these data have significant implications
Miller-Perrin, Social Science Division, Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA for policy and practice recommendations at both regional and
90265. E-mail: [email protected] national levels.
405
406 MILLER-PERRIN AND RUSH
Research Examining Spanking Effectiveness study utilizing propensity score matching, a statistical method that
and Harmfulness allows the closest possible approximation to a randomized exper-
iment, indicated that whether children were spanked at age 5
Empirical debates on the impact of spanking primarily focus on predicted increases in child behavior problems by ages 6 and 8
three questions. First, is it effective at improving child compli- even after propensity matching on a range of sociodemographic,
ance? Second, is it harmful to a child’s development? Third, is the family, and cultural characteristics and children’s initial behavior
methodology strong enough to conclude that spanking is a causal problems (Gershoff, Sattler, & Ansari, 2018; see also Okuzono,
factor in child developmental outcomes? Decades of research has Fujiwara, Kato, & Kawachi, 2017). These findings have led ex-
yielded more than 500 studies examining the impact of physical perts in the field to conclude that the negative consequences of
punishment of children (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016). physical punishment of children are unequivocal (e.g., Long,
Within the past 15 years, several meta-analyses have attempted to 2018).
synthesize this body of research but have arrived at different Although not every incidence of spanking results in negative
conclusions (see Ferguson, 2013; Gershoff, 2002; Larzelere & outcomes, the preponderance of evidence clearly suggests that
Kuhn, 2005). A meta-analysis conducted by Gershoff (2002) in spanking is ineffective and is a significant risk factor for negative
which she concluded that physical punishment is not only ineffec- developmental outcomes. Spanking and hitting children is a risk
tive, but also harmful, increased interest in the contemporary factor for adverse effects on such important outcomes as children’s
debate about spanking. Larzelere and Kuhn (2005) conducted a aggressive behavior, mental health, and relationships with parents
meta-analysis a few years later and concluded that physical pun- (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016). In addition, spanking is asso-
ishment may be effective if used conditionally, such as an open- ciated with increased risk for physical abuse. Gershoff and
handed swat on the buttocks with 2- to 6-year-olds when other Grogan-Kaylor (2016) found that of all of the outcomes studied,
forms of discipline have been unsuccessful. Others who have the factor most strongly linked with spanking was physical abuse
conducted meta-analyses have concluded that while physical pun- victimization. Others have linked physical punishment of children
ishment is linked to negative child developmental outcomes, with later perpetration of dating violence, a relationship that held
claims of harm to children have been largely exaggerated (Fergu- even after controlling for broad confounding variables such as sex,
son, 2013; Paolucci & Violato, 2004). ethnicity, age, parental education, and child physical abuse (Tem-
Much of the debate in more recent years has focused on the ple et al., 2018).
quality of research conducted, further fueling the debate about
physical punishment of children. A recent meta-analysis conducted
Psychologists’ Attitudes, Knowledge, and Practices
by Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor (2016) examined 50 years of
research on outcomes associated with spanking and attempted to
Related to Spanking
address two issues about the quality of research conducted on this Research demonstrates that the recommendations of health care
topic. The first issue concerns the potential confound between professionals, including psychologists, can influence parents’ use
potentially abusive physical punishment and spanking. The second of physical punishment (Taylor, Moeller, Hamvas, & Rice, 2013).
issue concerns the assertion that physical punishment, including Given their important role in advising parents about discipline,
spanking, is linked to harmful outcomes only in methodologically along with the mounting evidence suggesting the ineffectiveness
weak studies (e.g., correlational and cross-sectional studies that did and harm associated with spanking, it is important to understand
not control for various confounding variables). Gershoff and what psychologists know about the research on physical punish-
Grogan-Kaylor analyzed 75 studies in the context of these two ment and how that knowledge influences their interactions with
questions and found (a) no evidence that non-abusive spanking is parents. Psychologists’ recommendations related to spanking are
effective at improving child behavior, (b) evidence that spanking becoming less favorable. A survey of psychologists conducted 40
was associated with increased risk for 17 harmful outcomes, and years ago found that 51% of those who worked with parents
(c) no evidence that spanking is only associated with harmful recommended spanking as a discipline technique (Anderson &
outcomes in methodologically weak studies. Anderson, 1976). In 1990, 65% of a sample of American Psycho-
Research on the negative outcomes associated with non-abusive logical Association (APA) members reported that they had never
physical punishment of children has therefore clearly demon- recommended that parents spank their children (Rae & Worchel,
strated correlational links between spanking and numerous dele- 1991). By 2000, 70% of a sample of psychologists stated that they
terious outcomes. Critics continue to assert, however, that in the would never recommend that a parent spank a child (Schenck,
absence of experimental evidence, the research cannot definitively Lyman, & Bodin, 2000). According to these studies, although a
suggest that physical punishment causes these deleterious out- growing consensus of psychologists believe that spanking should
comes. Evidence is mounting, however, to suggest causal associ- be avoided, a sizable minority continue to suggest its use with
ations between spanking and negative developmental outcomes. some level of frequency under certain circumstances.
Longitudinal studies, for example, demonstrate that spanking pre- Why are some psychologists hesitant to recommend to parents
dicts deterioration rather than improvement in children’s behavior that they never spank? One reason could be that many psycholo-
problems over time (e.g., Grogan-Kaylor, 2005; Mulvaney & gists are simply not aware of the research indicating that spanking
Mebert, 2007). In addition, studies using statistically rigorous is ineffective and potentially harmful. Schenck et al.’s 2000 survey
controls for confounding variables have found that increases in of APA members found that the majority of respondents were
spanking predict increases in negative child outcomes (Choe, unable to assess the accuracy of several statements about the
Olson, & Sameroff, 2013; Gershoff et al., 2012; Grogan-Kaylor, research outcomes associated with physical punishment, suggest-
2005; Ma, Grogan-Kaylor, & Lee, 2018). Furthermore, a recent ing that they were largely uninformed about the research literature.
ATTITUDES, KNOWLEDGE, PRACTICES 407
Personal attitudes and experiences related to physical punish- raises the question of whether psychologists should recommend a
ment might also influence professional recommendations about parenting practice that represents a significant risk factor for
spanking. Although no research has evaluated how psychology healthy child development (e.g., Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor,
professionals’ personal attitudes about spanking might influence 2016). Second, recommending spanking could also increase a
their professional recommendations, several studies have shown child’s risk for physical abuse, as considerable research shows that
that attitudes about spanking can influence other, related profes- the use of spanking has the potential to escalate into abusive levels
sional behaviors. When professionals have more positive attitudes of physical violence (e.g., Trocme et al., 2010).
toward physical punishment, for example, they are less likely to The principle of Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity refers
recognize certain behaviors as physically abusive and are less to psychologists’ obligation to respect the dignity and worth of all
likely to make reports concerning suspected or known child mal- individuals and to be “aware that special safeguards may be
treatment (Ashton, 2001; Bluestone, 2005; Tirosh, Offer Shechter, necessary to protect the rights and welfare of persons or commu-
Cohen, & Jaffe, 2003). nities whose vulnerabilities impair autonomous decision making”
In addition to personal attitudes, personal experiences with (American Psychological Association, 2010, p. 4). This principle
physical punishment also influence both attitudes about spanking addresses the human rights of children as well as their vulnerable
as well as professional decisions. Several studies have demon- developmental status. The APA supported the United Nations
strated a significant relationship between the experience of phys- Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioners (1989), which
ical punishment as a child and spanking approval rates in adoles- concluded that physical punishment is a violation of children’s
cence and adulthood (e.g., Bower-Russa, Knutson, & Winebarger, human rights (United Nations, Committee on the Rights of the
2001). Furthermore, the experience of physical punishment as a Child, 2007), by passing a resolution declaring that “APA should
child is linked to greater intentions and actual use of physical apply the principles in the Convention in its own work related to
punishment among both parent and nonparent samples (Barkin, children” (American Psychological Association, 2001).
Scheindlin, Ip, Richardson, & Finch, 2007; Russa, Rodriguez, & Very little research has examined psychologists’ beliefs about
Silvia, 2014). Schenck et al. (2000) evaluated personal experiences whether recommending physical punishment of children is ethical.
of both physical punishment and physical abuse among psychol- A survey conducted with pediatric psychologists in 1991 found
ogists in their sample of APA division members and found that that just 29% of these APA members believed it was unquestion-
experiencing corporal punishment as a child was linked to an ably not ethical to recommend physical punishment under any
increased likelihood of recommending physical punishment as a circumstance (Rae & Worchel, 1991). Another 13% thought phys-
professional. In addition, a significant relationship was found ical punishment was either unquestionably ethical or ethical under
between psychologists’ use of physical punishment with their own some circumstances, while 14% were unsure. A study published
children, and a greater likelihood of recommending physical pun- nine years later by Schenck et al. (2000) found that 33% of APA
ishment as a professional. These results suggest that some psy- members believed that recommending spanking was clearly un-
chologists may make recommendations based on personal views or ethical while 52% believed it was only ethical “under rare circum-
biases rather than professional guidelines or empirical evidence. stances;” just 6% believed it was either ethical “under many
circumstances” or clearly ethical. These findings suggest a shift
The Ethics of Spanking as a Professional toward increased questioning of the ethicality of physical punish-
ment, but also indicate that only one third believed that physical
Practice Recommendation
punishment of children is clearly unethical.
Many professionals concerned about the welfare of children and
families have raised concerns that recommendations regarding
The Present Study
parental use of physical discipline represent a human rights vio-
lation and clear ethical dilemma for psychologists (Miller-Perrin & Much has changed since Schenck and colleagues reported their
Perrin, 2017; Schenck et al., 2000). The United Nations, for survey of APA members in 2000. There is now, for example, a
example, has stated that corporal punishment violates Article 19 of larger research base that addresses the impact of spanking on child
the Convention on the Rights of the Child and should be banned development, and it includes more complex, nuanced investiga-
under all circumstances (Committee on the Rights of the Child, tions of both the effectiveness and outcomes of spanking across a
2006). In 1975, the APA passed a resolution on physical punish- range of samples (see Ferguson, 2013; Gromoske & Maguire-Jack,
ment (i.e., corporal punishment) of children in all public and 2012). In addition, many professional health organizations have
private institutions where children are cared for and educated called on parents to abandon spanking as a child disciplinary
including schools, juvenile facilities, and childcare nurseries. Cur- practice (e.g., American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on
rently, however, the APA does not provide specific ethical guide- Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, 1998; American
lines for psychologists to guide professional practice concerning Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 2012). Finally, the
spanking by parents. cultural climate regarding spanking has shifted, indicating declin-
Two ethical principles in the APA Code of Ethics are relevant to ing support among U.S. citizens toward the use of physical pun-
the issue of spanking by parents. The principle of Beneficence and ishment by parents (Straus et al., 2014).
Nonmaleficence refers to psychologists’ obligation to benefit those The present study attempted to replicate and extend the work of
with whom they work and to “do no harm” (American Psycho- Schenck et al. (2000) with a survey of APA division members’
logical Association, 2010, p. 3). Recommendations regarding pa- attitudes, knowledge, practices, and ethical beliefs related to
rental use of spanking represent a clear ethical dilemma for psy- spanking. Schenck and colleagues surveyed only psychologists in
chologists based on this principle for several reasons. First, it clinical practice and confounded the broader term “corporal pun-
ishment” with “spanking.” The current study was unique from survey and were prompted with the same definition at multiple
previous research attempts in that it addressed a broader represen- points throughout the survey. The survey questionnaire was de-
tation of APA members by including both practice- and science- signed to both replicate and extend the survey information solic-
oriented divisions, assessed psychologists’ personal attitudes to- ited by Schenck et al. (2000), although some of the questions used
ward spanking, and focused specifically on spanking as the form of in this study’s survey questionnaire represent modifications based
physical punishment of interest. We hypothesized that based on on more recent research on spanking (e.g., Taylor & Lee, 2015). In
cultural shifts in attitudes and increased availability of research addition, the survey questionnaire used for the present study in-
substantiating the negative risk associated with spanking, the ma- cluded additional questions not examined by Schenck et al., in-
jority of psychologists would have unfavorable attitudes toward cluding personal attitudes and various ethical beliefs about spank-
spanking, would not recommend its use, and would view a pro- ing.
spanking recommendation as unethical. Furthermore, we hypoth- The survey questionnaire was divided into six different sections:
esized that the attitudes, knowledge, and recommendations related (1) personal attitudes toward spanking, (2) knowledge about re-
to spanking would not differ between practice- and science- search on spanking outcomes, (3) professional practice recommen-
oriented division members. We also hypothesized that psycholo- dations about discipline, (4) ethical beliefs about spanking, (5)
gists’ personal experiences with spanking would significantly re- knowledge and opinion about APA policy on spanking, and (6)
late to their professional recommendations related to spanking. personal demographic information, which concluded with ques-
Finally, we wanted to explore how psychology professionals’ tions about personal experiences with spanking and physical
knowledge of the research on spanking outcomes and their per- abuse. All sections of the survey questionnaire were presented in
sonal experience with spanking predicted personal attitudes and the above order for each participant. Questions within the first four
ethical beliefs toward spanking. sections were presented in a randomized order for each participant
to control for potential order effects, with one exception. In the
Method fourth section, questions about ethical beliefs regarding spanking
as it pertained to the age of the child were presented in a fixed
order from youngest (infant) to oldest (high school) so that items
Potential Participants progressed logically. Questions regarding knowledge and opinion
We distributed the original e-mail invitation to participate in the about APA policy on spanking and personal demographic infor-
online survey to 3,000 randomly selected APA division members. mation were presented in a fixed order.
On the basis of the method used by Schenck et al. (2000), we Personal attitudes toward spanking. An 11-item scale,
recruited 300 members from two clinical practice divisions: 37 which included items developed by the authors, as well as select
(Society for Child and Family Policy and Practice) and 53 (Society items from the Attitudes Toward Spanking scale (Holden, Cole-
of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology). In addition, to man, & Schmidt, 1995), assessed personal attitudes toward spank-
expand the breadth of APA division members surveyed, we re- ing. Participants responded to each item using a 5-point Likert
cruited 300 members from each of eight other divisions to include scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A
additional practice-oriented divisions (43: Society for Couple and Spanking Attitudes score was calculated by summing the re-
Family Psychology and 56: Trauma Psychology) and divisions sponses to each item (6 items were reverse scored), with high
with a primary science and/or policy focus (3: Society for Exper- scores indicating less favorable attitudes toward spanking (M ⫽
imental Psychology and Cognitive Science; 8: Society for Person- 41.99, SD ⫽ 8.61). Cronbach’s alpha for the current sample was
ality and Social Psychology; 7: Developmental Psychology; 9: high (␣ ⫽ .90).
Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues; 41: American Knowledge about research on spanking outcomes. Based
Psychology–Law Society; and 45: Society for the Psychological on current research evidence (e.g., Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor,
Study of Culture, Ethnicity and Race). 2016), 16 items were included to assess respondents’ knowledge of
A total of 843 members consented and responded to the survey. the outcomes supported by research that are associated with spank-
We excluded the data from 59 participants from the analysis ing. Participants were asked to respond to items based on “How
because they did not complete at least three of the five main strongly does recent research support that spanking is associated
sections of the survey, excluding the demographics section. We with each of the following outcomes?” using a 4-point Likert scale
excluded an additional two participants from the analyses because ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (strongly). Participants could also
they reported being graduate students. Therefore, survey responses respond as “not sure.” We created two subscales to measure
for 782 participants were available for data analysis, or 93% of knowledge about positive and negative research outcomes. Six
survey responses received. The survey was constructed such that items measured positive research outcomes (e.g., being better
respondents were not required to complete all items as they pro- behaved in the short-term) that are not supported by the research
ceeded through the survey. Therefore, the number of individuals evidence, and 10 items measured the negative research outcomes
responding to any particular item varies. (e.g., having antisocial tendencies) that are supported by the re-
search evidence. We created separate Positive Research Outcomes
and Negative Research Outcomes subscales by summing the re-
Survey Questionnaire
sponses of items associated with either positive research outcomes
This study utilized an online survey questionnaire in which we or negative research outcomes. Low scores on the Positive Re-
defined spanking as “hitting a child with a hand or an object for the search Outcomes scale indicate a more accurate understanding of
purpose of correction or control of the child’s behavior.” We the research outcome literature (M ⫽ 10.23, SD ⫽ 3.44), while
provided participants with this definition at the beginning of the high scores on the Negative Research Outcomes scale indicate a
more accurate understanding of the research outcome literature ishment. Participants were asked whether they were “spanked or
(M ⫽ 28.03, SD ⫽ 6.89). Cronbach’s alpha for the Positive and hit with a hand or object as a child,” whether they “spanked or hit
Negative Research Outcomes subscales was high for both scales their own children with a hand or an object,” and whether or not
(␣ ⫽ .86 and ␣ ⫽ .94, respectively). they experienced physical abuse as a child (defined as “acts carried
Professional practice recommendations about discipline. out intentionally or non-accidentally that cause physical injury”).
We first asked participants whether they “directly advise parents Participants responded on a scale to assess frequency of these
about child rearing as part of your role as a teacher, researcher, or experiences ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (often).
practitioner.” If the participant responded “no” they were directed
to the next section of the survey questionnaire. If the participant Procedure
responded “yes,” they were directed to 10 statements about advis-
We identified a division member representative from each of the
ing parents about various child discipline strategies. Participants
10 divisions to assist in distributing the online survey to its
were asked to respond to items based on “How often you advise
respective members. Each division representative randomly se-
parents to use the following discipline techniques” using a 5-point
lected 300 nonstudent members from its division membership list
Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). Of interest to

to participate. If a member’s e-mail was not valid, the representa-
the present study were the two items assessing frequency of

tive randomly replaced them.
psychology professionals advising “parents to spank a child with a
Each division representative sent out the same e-mail text (with
hand” (M ⫽ 1.18, SD ⫽ 0.48) and “parents to spank a child with
slight division-specific modifications) inviting division members
an object” (M ⫽ 1.02, SD ⫽ 0.17). We examined these items
to complete the online survey (including a link to the survey). The
individually rather than combine them into a scale, and therefore
e-mail invitation included general information about completing
we did not calculate internal consistency reliability for these items.
the survey as well as the following: (1) a statement of endorsement
Ethical beliefs related to spanking. Ethical beliefs about
for the survey research by the division president, (2) a statement
spanking were assessed using an 18-item scale where items were
that the survey was a replication and extension of a previous study
rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (definitely no) to 4
on the use of physical punishment with children, (3) a request that
(definitely yes). Participants could also respond with “don’t know/
the survey only be completed one time, and (4) information about
not sure.” The first 8 items of the scale assessed various beliefs
an incentive for completing the survey.
related to ethical issues associated with spanking, such as the
We distributed the survey in two phases. We distributed the
ethics about advising parents to spank or intervening in situations
original invitation in December 2015 and included several
where spanking is occurring. These items were used to create an
follow-up reminders, with data collection ending in February
Ethical Beliefs scale by summing the responses to these items (2
2016. We offered an incentive to enter into a raffle for one of three
items were reverse scored), with high scores indicating a belief that
$200 Amazon gift cards. To increase the sample size, a second
advising or permitting spanking is unethical (M ⫽ 27.58, SD ⫽
round of data collection occurred in May and June 2016, ending in
3.64). Cronbach’s alpha for the Ethical Beliefs subscale was ade-
early July 2016. The Internal Review Board of the university
quate (␣ ⫽ .76). The last 10 items of the scale assessed various
affiliate of the first author approved the current study.
circumstances under which participants believe it is ethical for a
mental health professional to suggest that a parent use spanking
Data Analysis
(e.g., with a child with extreme behavioral problems, for a child
resistant to other discipline strategies, for children of various To examine the broad characteristics of the data set, we calcu-
developmental stages). lated frequency counts for all variables for members of all 10 APA
Knowledge and opinion about APA policy on spanking. divisions (Total Sample). Next, frequency counts for all variables
Participants were asked two questions pertaining to their knowl- were calculated for members of the child- and family-focused
edge of current APA policy on spanking, including whether the practice divisions—Divisions 37 and 53 (Division 37/53 Sub-
“APA has a current policy opposing spanking of children by group)—as in the Schenck et al. (2000) survey, in order to observe
parents” and “spanking of children by school personnel.” Partici- changes in attitudes, beliefs, and practices since the original study.
pants were also asked to provide their opinion about future APA To examine differences in attitudes, ethical beliefs, research
policy on two questions with regard to whether the “APA should knowledge, personal experience with spanking, and knowledge
adopt a policy opposing any use of spanking or physical punish- and opinion of APA policy, responses from the Division 37/53
ment by parents/caretakers” and “APA should adopt a policy Subgroup were compared to another subgroup of Division 7 mem-
stating that its members should never recommend spanking of bers (Division 7 Subgroup), primarily representing a child-focused
physical punishment to parents/caretakers.” Participants responded science, rather than practice, perspective using a multivariate anal-
“yes,” “no,” or “unsure” to these items. ysis of variance. We conducted a similar analysis to assess the
Personal demographic information. To assess the demo- differences in these variables between a combined Division 37/
graphic characteristics of the sample, participants were asked to 53/7 Subgroup and the other seven divisions combined.
provide information including (a) sex, (b) race/ethnicity, (c) age, We used Pearson Product-Moment correlations to examine the
(d) geographic location, (e) religious affiliation, (f) highest degree measures of Spanking Attitudes, Ethical Beliefs, Positive Research
earned, (g) specific degree field, (h) current work status, (i) pri- Outcomes, and Negative Research Outcomes and personal expe-
mary work setting, (j) years of work experience in the field of rience with being spanked, being abused, and spanking one’s own
psychology, and (k) the division that contacted them about the child. We conducted these analyses to validate the constructs
survey. At the very end of the survey, we asked participants three measured as well as to assess the conditions necessary for subse-
questions to determine their personal history with physical pun- quent multiple regression analyses.
We used multiple regression analyses to examine if knowledge sion 37/53 ⫽ 8.4%), ␹2(8) ⫽ 63.45, p ⬍ .001. A greater percent-
of current research, personal attitudes toward spanking, ethical age of the Division 7 Subgroup reported working in an academic
beliefs about spanking, and personal experience with being setting (Division 7 ⫽ 63.4%, Division 37/53 ⫽ 30.7%) and fewer
spanked, being abused, and spanking one’s own child, predicted reported working in a clinical/medical setting compared to the
Spanking Attitudes scores, Ethical Beliefs scores, and professional members of the Division 37/53 Subgroup (Division 7 ⫽ 12.9%,
recommendations about spanking with a hand or with an object. Division 37/53 ⫽ 48.6%), ␹2(8) ⫽ 44.13, p ⬍ .001. These findings
support the assumption that the Division 37/53 Subgroup repre-
Results sented the “practice” side of psychology while the Division 7
Subgroup represented the “science” or academic side of psychol-
ogy.
Response Rates
We calculated a response rate of 28% by dividing the total Personal Experiences With Spanking and
number of surveys received by the number emailed (843/3,000). Physical Abuse
An adjusted response rate of 28% was calculated by dividing the

number of usable surveys received (n ⫽ 782) by the number of Participants were asked about personal experiences with phys-
surveys mailed to individuals who were not members of more than ical punishment, including the frequency with which they were
one of the 10 divisions surveyed (2,790), to account for the spanked as a child, were physically abused as a child, and spanked
possibility of duplicate e-mail invitations. These response rates are their own child. Results for the Total Sample indicated that 41.9%
comparable to previous paper surveys of APA and/or division of respondents were sometimes or often spanked or hit with a hand
members, which generally range from 27% to 40% (e.g., Addis & or object during their first 18 years of life by a caregiver; 42.7%
Krasnow, 2000; Rabin, Barr, & Burton, 2005; Sweet, Peck, were rarely, and just 15.4% indicated that they were never hit. In
Abramowitz, & Etzweiler, 2003). Response rates based on the contrast, the majority of respondents indicated that they “never”
adjusted sample size varied considerably across divisions, ranging (62.1%) or “rarely” (34.6%) hit their own children while they were
from a low of 15% (both Divisions 3 and 9) to a high of 39% growing up. When asked if they ever experienced physical abuse
(Division 37). Response rates for the remaining divisions were as by a parent or caregiver as a child, 14.8% indicated they experi-
follows: Division 7 (37%), Division 8 (19%), Division 41 (26%), enced physical abuse either “rarely,” “sometimes,” or “often.”
Division 43 (19%), Division 45 (19%), Division 53 (27%), and
Division 56 (22%). Most division response rates (80%) were Professional Practice Recommendations
greater than 18%, which is higher than several recent online About Discipline
surveys of psychologists and other mental health professionals
(e.g., Parrish & Rubin, 2012; Samios, Rodzik, & Abel, 2012). Of the Total Sample, 56% (n ⫽ 436) of participants reported
that they directly advise parents about child rearing as part of their
Personal Demographics of Participants role as a teacher, researcher, or practitioner. Of these participants,
the overwhelming majority reported that they “never” advise a
Overall, the majority of the sample was female (62.9%) and parent to spank a child either with a hand (86%) or with an object
White or Caucasian (83.1%). The average age of the sample was (98%). In contrast, the majority of these participants indicated
56.35 years (SD ⫽ 15.53). The overwhelming majority of respon- advising parents to use alternative techniques such as reasoning
dents were living in the U.S., with 5% identifying as international. with a child, rewarding good behavior, using time out, or taking
Most participants were currently engaged in full-time work away privileges (52% to 96% responded “fairly often” or “very
(76.9%) with a PhD (84.9%) or PsyD (8.1%) as their highest often”).
degree earned. Participants’ degree field and work settings varied
considerably, although almost half identified with the Clinical/
Ethical Beliefs Related to Spanking
Counseling/Child Clinical areas (46.2%), and 60% worked in
either academia (43.4%) or independent practice (16.5%). These We examined two items from the Ethical Beliefs scale descrip-
demographic characteristics are similar to the APA member pro- tively. The majority of participants in the Total Sample responded
files provided by the American Psychological Association Center that it is “definitely not” ethical for mental health professionals to
for Workforce Studies (2016). In general, there was good repre- suggest that a parent spank a child (75.7%). Additionally, the
sentation across divisions, with the greatest number of division majority of participants said that it is “definitely” ethical for
members identifying with Divisions 7 (13.3%), 37 (14.1%), and 53 mental health professionals to advise parents not to spank their
(9.6%). children (60.8%). We also examined responses to these questions
We conducted chi-square analyses on relevant demographic for the Division 37/53 Subgroup and Division 7 Subgroup, in
variables to compare the Division 7 and Division 37/53 Subgroups, particular, to provide information about any shifts since the
which indicated that both subgroups were generally similar. How- Schenck et al. (2000) study and to compare divisions with a
ever, compared to the Division 37/53 Subgroup, fewer members of practice versus science emphasis related to children and families.
the Division 7 Subgroup indicated that their degree field was in the The majority of participants from the Division 37/53 Subgroup
area of Clinical/Counseling/Child Clinical psychology (Division responded that it is “definitely not” ethical for mental health
7 ⫽ 21.2%, Division 37/53 ⫽ 63.5%) and more reported that their professionals to suggest that a parent spank a child (81%) and that
degree field was in developmental psychology compared to mem- it is “definitely” ethical for mental health professionals to advise
bers of the Division 37/53 Subgroup (Division 7 ⫽ 39.4%, Divi- parents not to spank their children (66.3%). Similarly, the majority
of the Division 7 Subgroup indicated that it was “definitely not” Correlations Among Measured Constructs
ethical to recommend spanking (79%), while it is “definitely”
ethical to advise against spanking (74.3%). Table 1 includes a correlation matrix of all four scales (i.e.,
We also asked participants 10 questions that assessed under Positive Research Outcomes, Negative Research Outcomes,
which circumstances participants believed it ethical for a mental Spanking Attitudes, and Ethical Beliefs), measures of personal
health professional to suggest that a parent use spanking. Among experience with spanking and abuse, and measures of recom-
the total sample, the majority of participants responded “definitely mended spanking practices (i.e., with a hand or with an object).
no” to all of the circumstances presented, ranging from 70.6% The results support the validity of all scales, as all significantly
“with a child who is resistant to other discipline strategies” to correlated with each other in predicted ways. Spanking Attitude
96.7% “with an infant less than one-year-old.” scores significantly positively correlated with Ethical Beliefs
scores. Positive Research Outcomes scores significantly negatively
correlated with Negative Research Outcomes, Spanking Attitudes,
Knowledge and Opinion About APA and Ethical Beliefs about spanking. Additionally, Negative Re-
search Outcomes significantly positively correlated with Spanking
Policy on Spanking
Attitudes and Ethical Beliefs about spanking. Measures of personal
We asked participants about their knowledge of current APA experience with spanking and measures of recommended spanking
policy on spanking as well as their opinion about future APA practices significantly correlated in predicted directions with all
policy on spanking. When examining the Total Sample, results scaled variables. Personal experience with physical abuse was only
indicated that the majority of participants were unsure whether the correlated with one scaled variable (recommend spanking with an
APA has a current policy opposing the spanking of children by object), and so was only included in the regression analysis pre-
parents (69.4%) and were largely unsure whether the APA has a dicting this scaled variable. All significant correlation coefficients
current policy opposing the spanking of children by school per- presented in Table 1 were below a .80 cut-off to detect multicol-
sonnel (53.1%). When asked whether the APA should adopt a linearity (Berry & Feldman, 1985), and therefore these measures
policy opposing any use of spanking or physical punishment by were included in subsequent multiple regression analyses.
parents or caretakers, over half of participants responded affirma-
tively (59.1%). When asked whether the APA should adopt a
Division Differences
policy stating that its members should never recommend spanking
or physical punishment to parents or caretakers, findings were We compared responses from the Division 37/53 Subgroup to
similar, with 61.4% of participants responding affirmatively. the Division 7 Subgroup using multivariate analysis of variance on
About 18% of respondents responded that they were “unsure” to all scale scores (i.e., Spanking Attitudes, Positive Research Out-
each of these questions. comes, Negative Research Outcomes, and Ethical Beliefs), as well
We also examined responses to these questions for the Division as knowledge of current APA policy (i.e., parental use and school
37/53 Subgroup and Division 7 Subgroup, in particular, to provide personnel use of spanking), belief that the APA should adopt
information about any shifts since the Schenck et al. (2000) study policy opposing/recommending spanking, scores on personal ex-
and to compare divisions with a practice versus science emphasis periences with spanking and physical abuse, and finally, profes-
related to children and families. Among the Division 37/53 and sional recommendations related to spanking. Items assessing cur-
Division 7 Subgroups, a larger majority of members voiced sup- rent and future APA policy were coded orthogonally for the
port for APA policy opposing any use of spanking or physical MANOVA analyses, such that ⫺1 ⫽ No, 0 ⫽ Unsure, and 1 ⫽
punishment by parents/caretakers (64.5% and 69.2%, respectively) Yes. Results indicated no statistically significant differences be-
and expressed stronger support for policy stating that its members tween the Division 37/53 Subgroup and the Division 7 Subgroup,
should never recommend spanking or physical punishment to F(12, 72) ⫽ 1.59, p ⫽ .115, ␩2 ⫽ .209, on any measures,
parents/caretakers (66.3% and 71%, respectively). suggesting that both practice- and science-based divisions shared
Table 1
Correlation Matrix of Measures Assessing Research Knowledge, Spanking Attitudes, Ethical Beliefs, Personal Experiences With
Spanking, and Spanking Recommendations
Dependent measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Positive outcomes 1.00

2. Negative outcomes ⫺.33ⴱⴱⴱ 1.00
3. Spanking attitudes ⫺.62ⴱⴱⴱ .65ⴱⴱⴱ 1.00
4. Ethical beliefs ⫺.49ⴱⴱⴱ .61ⴱⴱⴱ .67ⴱⴱⴱ 1.00
5. Spanked as child .16ⴱⴱ ⫺.04 ⫺.15ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.10ⴱ 1.00
6. Abused as child .04 ⫺.002 .02 .04 .44ⴱⴱⴱ 1.00
7. Spanked own child .22ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.19ⴱⴱ ⫺.35ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.23ⴱⴱⴱ .28ⴱⴱⴱ .13ⴱⴱ 1.00
8. Recommend spanking with hand .50ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.29ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.52ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.44ⴱⴱⴱ .12ⴱ .003 .27ⴱⴱⴱ 1.00
9. Recommend spanking with object .33ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.21ⴱⴱ ⫺.27ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.31ⴱⴱⴱ .13ⴱⴱ .14ⴱⴱ .10 .36ⴱⴱⴱ 1.00
Note. Response rates for correlation coefficients range from 240 to 733 participants.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.
similar attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, and experience as it relates to We also examined participants’ knowledge of the research lit-
spanking and abuse. We therefore combined responses from the erature by reviewing the percentage of participants who responded
Division 37/53 Subgroup and Division 7 Subgroup for further with “not sure” across both the positive and negative research
analyses. outcome items for the Total Sample as well as for the subsample
We combined responses for Divisions 37/53/7 and compared of division members who directly advise parents about child
them to all other divisions using multivariate analysis of variance rearing in their professional capacity. For the Total Sample, the
on the same variables noted above in the Division 37/53 Subgroup/ percentage of participants who responded with “not sure” for the
Division 7 Subgroup comparison. Results indicated no statistically positive research outcomes ranged from 17.5% to 22.3% across all
significant differences between the Division 37/53/7 subgroup and items. For the negative research outcomes, the percentage of
the other divisions, F(13, 159) ⫽ 1.72, p ⫽ .061, ␩2 ⫽ .124, participants who responded with “not sure” ranged from 15.1% to
suggesting that across the different divisions sampled, APA mem- 35.9% across all items. Among those who advise parents directly,
bers reported similar attitudes, ethical beliefs, knowledge, and “unsure” responses ranged from 9% to 15.1% for positive research
experience with spanking. As a result, we did not consider APA outcomes and 7.2% to 28.4% for negative research outcomes.
division as a variable for subsequent analyses and treated all

participants as a single group.

Personal Attitudes About Spanking
Knowledge of Research on Spanking Outcomes For 7 out of 11 items for the Total Sample, the large majority of
Table 2 includes descriptive response to the individual items for the total sample responded with personal attitudes opposed to
both positive and negative spanking research outcomes for the spanking. The majority of participants, for example, agreed or
Total Sample. Across questions assessing research support for strongly agreed that overall, spanking is a bad disciplinary tech-
positive research outcomes associated with spanking (e.g., being nique (83.2%) and that spanking is harmful to children (70.6%).
better behaved long-term), most participants accurately reported Similarly, the majority of participants disagreed or strongly dis-
that research “minimally” supported or did “not at all” support 5 of agreed that there are no negative effects associated with spanking
the 6 items addressing positive research outcomes (66.9%–75.5%). (90.1%). In addition, the majority of participants disagreed or
One exception emerged as 39.9% of participants indicated that strongly disagreed that spanking is sometimes the only way to get
research on outcomes moderately or strongly supports that spank- a child to behave (77.1%). With regard to professional recommen-
ing results in “being better behaved in the short-term.” dations related to spanking, 72% of participants agreed or strongly
Across questions assessing research support for negative re- agreed that mental health professionals should not advise parents
search outcomes associated with spanking (e.g., having antisocial to use spanking under any circumstances, while only 7.1% agreed
tendencies), one half to three fourths of participants accurately or strongly agreed that mental health professionals should advise
reported that research “moderately” or “strongly” supports 8 of the spanking under some circumstances.
10 negative research outcomes (47%–73.4%). Two exceptions Interestingly, when we asked participants if spanking is a form
emerged as 35.1% and 34.9% indicated that the research did not of violence, 71.7% agreed or strongly agreed with this statement.
support, or minimally supported, the finding that spanking is However, when we asked participants if spanking is a violation of
associated with “having poorer physical health” or “having poorer a child’s human rights, less than half of respondents (48%) agreed
cognitive abilities,” respectively. or strongly agreed. In addition, 34.3% of participants agreed or
Table 2
Percentage of Participants Acknowledging Research Support for Positive and Negative Outcomes of Spanking
Response
Question Not at all Minimally Moderately Strongly Not sure
Positive outcomes
Being better behaved in the short term 9.5 31.6 29.9 10.0 19.0
Being better behaved in the long term 50.2 25.3 5.2 1.4 17.9
Being more respectful to parents 36.2 30.7 8.5 2.3 22.3
Learning the correct behavior 33.4 38.2 8.8 2.2 17.5
Having better relationship with parents 54.7 18.0 3.5 1.7 22.1
Having better sense of self-control 50.2 22.9 4.4 1.3 21.2
Negative outcomes
Having antisocial tendencies 5.6 21.2 31.1 15.9 26.2
Having poorer physical health 10.4 24.7 20.9 8.1 35.9
Having poorer mental health 5.2 18.3 33.7 19.5 23.3
Experiencing long-term emotional upset 4.9 22.1 31.9 17.0 24.1
Having poorer cognitive abilities 12.1 22.8 21.2 8.3 35.5
Being more aggressive 1.9 9.6 34.4 39.0 15.1
Being more depressed 3.6 18.1 35.0 17.0 26.3
Having greater likelihood of being a delinquent or incarcerated 5.6 19.3 30.3 17.1 27.7
Being physically injured during the spanking/hitting 1.7 23.0 35.8 15.5 24.1
Being physically abused 2.6 15.6 34.6 24.3 22.9
strongly agreed with the belief that it is within the parents’ rights Table 4
to spank their children if they think it is necessary. Ethical Beliefs About Spanking Regressed on Research
Knowledge, Personal Attitudes, and Personal Experiences With
Being Spanked as a Child and Spanking One’s Own Child (N ⫽
Predicting Spanking Attitudes, Ethical Beliefs, and
273)
Recommendations About Spanking
Predictors of ethical beliefs B SE B ␤
We conducted several multiple regression analyses to examine
the factors predicting spanking attitudes, ethical beliefs toward Intercept 17.50 1.57
spanking, and professional practice recommendations regarding Positive research outcomes ⫺.22 .06 ⫺.20ⴱⴱⴱ
the use of a hand or object to spank, and display the findings in Negative research outcomes .14 .03 .26ⴱⴱⴱ
Personal attitudes .18 .03 .42ⴱⴱⴱ
Tables 3–5. The first multiple regression model included Positive Spanked as a child .09 .18 .02
Research Outcomes and Negative Research Outcomes, Ethical Spanked one’s own child .45 .32 .07
Beliefs, and personal experience with spanking scores (i.e., being
Note. R2 ⫽ .53; F(5, 267) ⫽ 59.98, p ⬍ .001.
spanked as a child and spanking one’s own child) as predictors of ⴱⴱⴱ

p ⬍ .001.
Spanking Attitude scores. The variables in the model significantly

predicted Spanking Attitude scores, F(5, 267) ⫽ 110.16, p ⬍ .001.
The adjusted R square value was .67, which indicates that the A third multiple regression model included Positive Research
model explained 67% of the variance in Spanking Attitude scores. Outcomes and Negative Research Outcomes, Spanking Attitudes,
After controlling for all other variables in the model, Positive Ethical Beliefs, and personal experience with spanking scores (i.e.,
Research Outcomes, Negative Research Outcomes, Ethical Be- being spanked as a child and spanking one’s own child) as pre-
liefs, and spanking one’s own child predicted Spanking Attitude dictors of recommending spanking with a hand. The variables in
scores (see Table 3). Specifically, having less accurate knowledge the model significantly predicted recommending spanking with a
of positive research outcomes, more accurate knowledge of neg- hand, F(6, 176) ⫽ 16.15, p ⬍ .001. The adjusted R square value
ative research outcomes, stronger beliefs that spanking was uneth- was .36, which indicates that the model explained 36% of the
ical, and reporting a lower frequency of spanking one’s own child variance in recommending spanking with a hand. After controlling
predicted more negative attitudes toward spanking. for all other variables in the model, Positive Research Outcomes,
A second multiple regression model included Positive Research Spanking Attitudes, and Ethical Beliefs predicted recommending
Outcomes and Negative Research Outcomes, Spanking Attitudes, spanking with a hand (see Table 5). Specifically, having less
and personal experience with spanking scores (i.e., being spanked accurate knowledge of positive research outcomes, more favorable
as a child and spanking one’s own child) as predictors of Ethical attitudes toward spanking, and a stronger belief that spanking was
Beliefs scores. The variables in the model significantly predicted ethical predicted being more likely to recommend spanking with a
Ethical Beliefs scores, F(5, 267) ⫽ 59.98, p ⬍ .001. The adjusted hand.
R square value was .53, which indicates that the model explained A final multiple regression model included Positive Research
53% of the variance in Ethical Beliefs scores. After controlling for Outcomes and Negative Research Outcomes, Spanking Attitudes,
all other variables in the model, Positive Research Outcomes, Ethical Beliefs, personal experience with spanking (including only
Negative Research Outcomes, and Spanking Attitudes predicted the item “being spanked as a child”), and personal experience with
Ethical Beliefs scores (see Table 4). Specifically, having less physical abuse scores as predictors of recommending spanking
accurate knowledge of positive research outcomes, more accurate
knowledge of negative research outcomes, and greater negative
attitudes toward spanking predicted a greater belief that spanking Table 5
was unethical. Professional Practice Recommendations Regressed on Research
Knowledge, Personal Attitudes, Ethical Beliefs, and Personal
Experiences With Being Spanked as a Child, Being Abused as a
Child, and Spanking One’s Own Child
Table 3
Personal Attitudes About Spanking Regressed on Research Recommendation Recommendation
Knowledge, Ethical Beliefs, and Personal Experiences With with hand with object
Being Spanked as a Child and Spanking One’s Own Child (N ⫽ Predictors of professional
273) practice recommendations B SE B ␤ B SE B ␤
Predictors of personal Intercept 1.66 .38 1.25 .14

attitudes about spanking B SE B ␤ Positive research outcomes .04 .01 .28ⴱⴱ .01 .01 .18ⴱ
Negative research outcomes .01 .01 .16 .00 .00 .01
Intercept 22.59 3.52 Personal attitudes ⫺.01 .01 ⫺.25ⴱ .00 .00 .09
Positive research outcomes ⫺.84 .11 ⫺.32ⴱⴱⴱ Ethical beliefs ⫺.03 .01 ⫺.20ⴱ ⫺.02 .01 ⫺.34ⴱ
Negative research outcomes .46 .06 .34ⴱⴱⴱ Spanked as a child .00 .04 .00 .00 .02 .00
Ethical beliefs .70 .11 .29ⴱⴱⴱ Abused as a child — — — .04 .02 .17ⴱ
Spanked as a child ⫺.00 .36 .00 Spanked one’s own child .09 .06 .11 — — —
Spanked one’s own child ⫺2.80 .61 ⫺.17ⴱⴱⴱ
Note. Hand: R2 ⫽ .36; F(6, 176) ⫽ 16.15, p ⬍ .001. Object: R2 ⫽ .19;
Note. R2 ⫽ .67; F(5, 267) ⫽ 110.16, p ⬍ .001. F(6, 189) ⫽ 7.51, p ⬍ .001.
ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱ
p ⬍ .001. p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
with an object. The variables in the model significantly predicted ogists agreed that it is a violation of human rights. Although 24%
recommending spanking with an object, F(6, 189) ⫽ 7.51, p ⬍ were neutral about whether spanking is a violation of human
.001. The adjusted R square value was .19, which indicates that the rights, 28% percent disagreed that spanking is a violation of a
model explained 19% of the variance in recommending spanking child’s human rights. Similarly, 34% of psychologists indicated
with an object. After controlling for all other variables in the that they believed it is within the parents’ rights to spank their
model, Positive Research Knowledge, Ethical Beliefs, and expe- children if they think it necessary. These findings suggest that
riencing abuse as a child, predicted recommending spanking with among division members of the APA, there seems to be some
an object (see Table 5). Specifically, having less accurate knowl- degree of tension surrounding the question of whether spanking is
edge of positive research outcomes, a stronger belief that spanking a parental right or whether it violates a child’s rights. This tension
was ethical, and a greater frequency of experiencing abuse as a is consistent with critics of anti-spanking positions who object to
child predicted being more likely to recommend spanking with an interference in parenting by outside bodies (Wilkins, Becker, Har-
object. ris, & Thayer, 2003). Additional research is needed to examine
why most psychologists view spanking as a form of violence yet
nearly half do not see this violence as a violation of children’s

Discussion
rights.
The current study presents survey data that indicates a signifi- The United Nations has clearly stated that physical punishment
cant change in psychologists’ knowledge, practices, and ethical is a violation of children’s human rights (United Nations, Com-
beliefs related to spanking. The present study also represents one mittee on the Rights of the Child, 2007). In addition, the APA has
of the first attempts to assess psychologists’ personal attitudes supported the United Nations Human Rights, Office of the High
toward spanking and how they relate to professional practices and Commissioners (1989) by passing a resolution declaring that the
ethical beliefs. We examined these variables in a sample of 782 “APA should apply the principles in the Convention in its own
APA members, which represents a significantly larger sample size work related to children” (American Psychological Association,
than previous surveys of APA members (e.g., 169 in Rae & 2001). It may be that many members of the APA are not aware of
Worchel, 1991; 237 in Schenck et al., 2000). The findings from their organization’s stance on this issue. The APA should consider
this study have several implications for future policy on the issue being more explicit in its policy statements and ethical code
of parental use of spanking. regarding how psychologists should apply this principle as it
The survey findings indicate that the overwhelming majority of relates to parental use of spanking.
psychologists surveyed oppose the use of spanking by parents and In general, psychologists are aware of the research indicating
believe that recommending its use is not sound practice. Of note is that spanking does more harm than good. The large majority
the fact that we observed no differences in attitudes, beliefs, and (70%–76% for all but one item) indicated that spanking is signif-
practices when comparing primarily science- versus practice- icantly associated with detrimental outcomes. Approximately one
focused divisions. The majority of APA division members believe half to three fourths of participants (47%–73% for all but two
that spanking is a bad disciplinary technique (83%), that it is items) accurately reported that spanking is negatively associated
harmful to children (71%), and that mental health professionals with beneficial outcomes. However, a substantial minority (rang-
should not advise parents to use spanking under any circumstances ing from 15% to 36% across items) admitted a lack of knowledge
(72%). about outcomes associated with spanking. Although the findings of
Approximately 76% of division members believe it is definitely the current study suggest greater awareness of the research litera-
not ethical to suggest spanking to a parent, and among those who ture on spanking outcomes compared to respondents in Schenck et
advise parents directly, 86% say they never advise parents to spank al.’s (2000) survey, a substantial minority of psychologists con-
a child with a hand. These findings about practice recommenda- tinue to be unaware of the outcome research related to spanking. It
tions suggest a significant shift in the opinion of psychologists is sometimes difficult for psychologists working in nonuniversity
since 2000, when Schenck et al. (2000) found that only 33% of settings to obtain affordable access to empirical research, and as a
psychologists indicated it was not ethical to suggest spanking to a result, it would be important for the APA to engage in efforts to
parent, and 70% indicated that they never advise a parent to spank. educate its members on this issue.
This shift becomes more significant when one considers that the APA members’ lack of knowledge is of particular concern given
current study used a narrower definition of physical punishment that members’ knowledge of the research on spanking outcomes
(i.e., spanking) compared to Schenck et al. (i.e., corporal punish- significantly related to their personal attitudes about spanking,
ment). The data suggest, therefore, that psychology professionals their ethical beliefs about spanking, as well as their professional
who recommend that parents spank are out of the mainstream of recommendations with regard to spanking. Multiple regression
current professional opinion about best child discipline practices. It analyses showed that the best predictor of recommending spanking
is important that professional psychological associations, such as with a hand was knowledge of positive research outcomes. Knowl-
the APA, consider the ethical implications surrounding the use of edge of positive research outcomes also predicted spanking with
spanking as a disciplinary technique and provide practice guide- an object. Specifically, those who incorrectly believed that spank-
lines on this issue given these shifts in attitudes combined with the ing was associated with positive outcomes were more likely to
preponderance of research suggesting that the outcomes associated recommend spanking with both a hand and an object. In addition,
with spanking are harmful to children (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, multiple regression analyses showed that the best predictors of
2016). unfavorable attitudes toward spanking were accurate knowledge of
Nearly three fourths of members recognize that spanking is a both positive and negative research outcomes associated with
form of violence against children, yet only about half of psychol- spanking. Accurate knowledge of research outcomes were also
significant predictors of the belief that spanking is an unethical specific divisions surveyed by Schenck and colleagues (Division
practice. It is imperative that psychologists become educated about 37 and what is now Division 53) suggests that the proportion of
the research on spanking and the potential harmful effects of those endorsing a policy change has more than doubled. This shift
recommending it, as prior research indicates that professionals’ in opinion, in combination with the findings that nearly 20% of
perceptions of the impact that their decisions will have on children psychologists are unsure about whether a policy change is war-
affects their professional judgments and professional decisions ranted and the majority of psychologists do not recommend spank-
(Hansen et al., 1997). Several efforts are currently underway by the ing in their professional capacity and believe it is unethical to do
APA to disseminate information to its membership about the so, suggests that the APA should encourage discussion about this
ineffectiveness and potential harm of spanking, such as articles in issue among its members and consider expanding its policy op-
the APA Monitor, the newsletter of the Committee on Youth and posing physical punishment of children in public settings to in-
Families (CYF), and CYF-sponsored blog posts (e.g., see Ameri- clude all settings, both public (e.g., schools) and private (e.g.,
can Psychological Association, 2017). children’s homes).
The results of the current study also suggest that there are There are several limitations to the current study. First, the
significant relationships between the professional recommenda- overall response rate of 28% could call into question the repre-
tions of psychologists and their personal attitudes, ethical beliefs, sentativeness of the sample. There is no reason to suspect, how-
and experiences associated with spanking. Multiple regression ever, that systematic bias occurred in the current study, as the
analyses, for example, showed that favorable attitudes toward sample appeared to be demographically representative of the APA
spanking and belief that spanking is ethical predicted likelihood of membership (American Psychological Association Center for
recommending spanking with a hand. Multiple regression analyses Workforce Studies, 2016). It is also possible that self-
also showed that a belief that spanking is ethical and a history of presentational biases influenced the results of the current study, a
physical abuse predicted likelihood of recommending spanking problem with most survey research. However, we guaranteed
with an object. These findings are consistent with past research respondents anonymity and we did attempt to include reverse-
linking spanking attitudes with behavior (Vittrup, Holden, & Buck, score items providing for variability in responses. Furthermore, the
2006). In addition, in the current study, a personal history of response rate of the current study was comparable to that obtained
physical abuse was a significant predictor for professionally ad- by Schenck et al. (2000) and within the range for paper–pencil
vising parents to spank with an object, but not with a hand. In surveys, and better than many online surveys (e.g., Parrish &
contrast, Schenck et al. found that physical abuse in childhood was Rubin, 2012; Samios et al., 2012).
linked to less likelihood of professionally recommending corporal A second limitation is that we had hoped to be able to examine
punishment. This discrepancy could be due to the narrower defi- whether professional practice recommendations related to various
nition of physical punishment (i.e., spanking) that we used in the demographic characteristics of the sample. For example, socioeco-
current study, or to differences in the way we defined and mea- nomic background, race, and personal religious beliefs might
sured physical abuse. However, personal attitudes, ethical beliefs, influence psychologists’ recommendations. Prior research has
and personal experiences clearly related to professional decisions shown that all of these factors, especially socioeconomic disad-
of division members, which could prove problematic when psy- vantage, being African American, and identifying as conservative
chologists make recommendations based on personal views or Protestant, are related to more positive attitudes toward and use of
biases rather than professional guidelines or scientific evidence. spanking (Berlin et al., 2009; Ellison, Musick, & Holden, 2011;
Professionals in practice should make decisions based on knowl- Gershoff et al., 2012; Perron et al., 2014). We were unable to
edge of the empirical research related to spanking rather than on examine these demographic variables, however, because of the
individual value judgments. These findings also suggest the need low variability on these variables; the large majority of psychol-
for psychological associations, such as the APA, to consider form- ogists surveyed indicated that they would never recommend
ing specific practice guidelines for its membership on the topic of spanking. The regression models predicting spanking recommen-
spanking. dations explained 36% and 19% of the variance for spanking with
The majority of members surveyed were not aware of current a hand or object, respectively, suggesting that future research
APA policy related to spanking and physical punishment of chil- should include additional variables that might influence psychol-
dren. The majority of members were unsure about current APA ogists’ recommendations.
policy on spanking as it relates to both parents (69% were un- Overall, the results of the current study suggest that it is impor-
aware) and school personnel (53% were unaware). However, the tant to educate psychologists and other professionals about the
majority of members—approximately 60%— believe that the APA ineffectiveness and potential harm of spanking as well as about
should adopt both a policy opposing any use of spanking or effective alternatives to spanking. Continuing education programs
physical punishment by parents/caregivers as well as a policy could address this gap in professionals’ knowledge and under-
stating that its member should never recommend spanking or standing of the ineffectiveness and potential harm associated with
physical punishment. When examining divisions with a primary spanking. Several recent studies with medical professionals eval-
emphasis on children and families—Division 37/53 and Division 7 uated various approaches to educating professionals about physical
Subgroups—an even greater number endorsed the idea that the punishment and other disciplinary alternatives and demonstrated
APA should adopt policies opposing any use of spanking (65% effectiveness in increasing intentions to counsel parents against the
and 69%, respectively) or recommendation thereof (66% and 71%, use of physical punishment (Scholer, Brokish, Mukherjee, & Gi-
respectively). These proportions are in stark contrast to those gante, 2008), reducing positive attitudes toward spanking (Hornor
obtained by Schenck et al. (2000) 18 years ago, which were 30% et al., 2015), and increasing the likelihood that medical staff would
for each question. Comparing the current findings to those of the intervene if they observed physical punishment (Gershoff et al.,
2016). These studies are preliminary evidence that educational Choe, D. E., Olson, S. L., & Sameroff, A. J. (2013). The interplay of
interventions can be an effective way of changing professionals’ externalizing problems and physical and inductive discipline during
attitudes and practices related to physical punishment, but more childhood. Developmental Psychology, 49, 2029.
research, particularly that which targets psychologists and other Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2006). General Comment No. 8
mental health professionals, is needed. Additional education and (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,
understanding about both the empirical research on spanking and
inter alia) (CRC/C/GC/8). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations.
the ethical issues and responsibilities of psychologists will be
Ellison, C. G., Musick, M. A., & Holden, G. W. (2011). Does conservative
important to guide future policy on this issue. Protestantism moderate the association between corporal punishment
and child outcomes? Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 946 –961.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00854.x
References
Ferguson, C. J. (2013). Spanking, corporal punishment and negative long-
Addis, M. E., & Krasnow, A. D. (2000). A national survey of practicing term outcomes: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Clinical
psychologists’ attitudes toward psychotherapy treatment manuals. Jour- Psychology Review, 33, 196 –208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012
nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 331–339. http://dx.doi .11.002

.org/10.1037/0022-006X.68.2.331 Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. (2012, July 30). child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review.
Policy statement on corporal punishment. Retrieved from http://www Psychological Bulletin, 128, 539 –579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-
.aacap.org/aacap/policy_statements/2012/Policy_Statement_on_Corporal_ 2909.128.4.539
Punishment.aspx Gershoff, E. T., Font, S. A., Taylor, C. A., Foster, R. H., Garza, A. B.,
American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Olson-Dorff, D., . . . Spector, L. (2016). Effectiveness of a No Hit Zone
Child and Family Health. (1998). Guidance for effective discipline. policy in reducing staff support for and intervention in physical punish-
Pediatrics, 101, 723–728. ment in a hospital setting. Manuscript in preparation.
American Psychological Association. (2001). APA resolution on UN Con- Gershoff, E. T., & Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2016). Spanking and child out-
vention on the Rights of The Child and the convention’s optional comes: Old controversies and new meta-analyses. Journal of Family
protocols. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/about/policy/rights-child- Psychology, 30, 453– 469. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/fam0000191
2001.aspx Gershoff, E. T., Lansford, J. E., Sexton, H. R., Davis-Kean, P., & Samer-
American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psy- off, A. J. (2012). Longitudinal links between spanking and children’s
chologists and code of conduct. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved externalizing behaviors in a national sample of White, Black, Hispanic,
from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/principles.pdf and Asian American families. Child Development, 83, 838 – 843. http://
American Psychological Association. (2017, April). CYF news. Retrieved dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01732.x
from http://www.apa.org/pi/families/resources/newsletter/2017/04/ Gershoff, E. T., Sattler, K. M. P., & Ansari, A. (2018). Strengthening
index.aspx causal estimates for links between spanking and children’s externalizing
American Psychological Association Center for Workforce Studies. behavior problems. Psychological Science, 29, 110 –120.
(2016). APA member profiles. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/ Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children. (2017).
workforce/publications/16-member-profiles/index.aspx?tab⫽2 Countdown to universal prohibition. Retrieved from http://www
Anderson, K. A., & Anderson, D. E. (1976). Psychologists and spanking.
.endcorporalpunishment.org/progress/countdown.html
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 5, 46 –70. http://dx.doi.org/10
Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2005). Corporal punishment and the growth trajectory
.1080/15374417609532712
of children’s antisocial behavior. Child Maltreatment, 10, 283–292.
Ashton, V. (2001). The relationship between attitudes toward corporal
Gromoske, A. N., & Maguire-Jack, K. (2012). Transactional and cascading
punishment and the perception and reporting of child maltreatment.
relations between early spanking and children’s social-emotional devel-
Child Abuse & Neglect, 25, 389 –399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0145-
opment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 1054 –1068. http://dx.doi
2134(00)00258-1
.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01013.x
Barkin, S., Scheindlin, B., Ip, E. H., Richardson, I., & Finch, S. (2007).
Hansen, D. J., Bumby, K. M., Lundquist, L. M., Chandler, R. M., Le, P. T.,
Determinants of parental discipline practices: A national sample from
& Futa, K. T. (1997). The influence of case and professional variables on
primary care practices. Clinical Pediatrics, 46, 64 – 69. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0009922806292644 the identification and reporting of child maltreatment: A study of li-
Berlin, L. J., Ispa, J. M., Fine, M. A., Malone, P. S., Brooks-Gunn, J., censed psychologists and certified master’s social workers. Journal of
Brady-Smith, C., . . . Bai, Y. (2009). Correlates and consequences of Family Violence, 12, 313–332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:102285292
spanking and verbal punishment for low-income White, African Amer- 1883
ican, and Mexican American toddlers. Child Development, 80, 1403– Holden, G. W., Coleman, S. M., & Schmidt, K. L. (1995). Why 3-year-old
1420. children get spanked: Parent and child determinants as reported by
Berry, W. D., & Feldman, S. (1985). Multiple regression in practice: college-educated mothers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 41, 431– 452.
Quantitative applications in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Hornor, G., Bretl, D., Chapman, E., Chiocca, E., Donnell, C., Doughty, K.,
Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412985208 . . . Quinones, S. G. (2015). Corporal punishment: Evaluation of an
Bluestone, C. (2005). Personal disciplinary history and views of physical intervention by PNPs. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 29, 526 –535.
punishment: Implications for training mandated reporters. Child Abuse http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pedhc.2015.04.016
Review, 14, 240 –258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/car.901 Lansford, J. E., Cappa, C., Putnick, D. L., Bornstein, M. H., Deater-
Bower-Russa, M. E., Knutson, J. F., & Winebarger, A. (2001). Disciplinary Deckard, K., & Bradley, R. H. (2017). Change over time in parents’
history, adult disciplinary attitudes, risk for abusive parenting. Journal of beliefs about and reported use of corporal punishment in eight countries
Community Psychology, 29, 219 –240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop with and without legal bans. Child Abuse & Neglect, 71, 44 –55. http://
.1015 dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.10.016
Child Trends Data Bank. (2015). Attitudes toward spanking: Indicators on Larzelere, R. E., & Kuhn, B. R. (2005). Comparing child outcomes of
children and youth. Washington, DC: Child Trends. physical punishment and alternative disciplinary tactics: A meta-
analysis. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 8, 1–37. http:// residents about childhood aggression. Clinical Pediatrics, 47, 891–900.
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10567-005-2340-z http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0009922808319965
Long, S. S. (2018). Negative consequences of corporal punishment of Scott, G. R. (1996). The history of corporal punishment. London, England:
children are unequivocal. The Journal of Pediatrics, 194, 1. http://dx Senate.
.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.01.002 Straus, M. A., Douglas, E. M., & Medeiros, R. A. (2014). The primordial
Ma, J., Grogan-Kaylor, A., & Lee, S. J. (2018). Associations of neighbor- violence: Spanking children, psychological development, violence, and
hood disorganization and maternal spanking with children’s aggression: crime. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
A fixed-effects regression analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect, 76, 106 – Sweet, J. J., Peck, E. A., III, Abramowitz, C., & Etzweiler, S. (2003).
116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.10.013 National Academy of Neuropsychology/Division 40 of the American
Miller-Perrin, C., & Perrin, R. (2017). Changing attitudes about spanking Psychological Association Practice Survey of Clinical Neuropsychology
among conservative Christians using interventions that focus on empir- in The United States: Part II: Reimbursement experiences, practice
ical research evidence and progressive biblical interpretations. Child economics, billing practices, and incomes. Archives of Clinical Neuro-
Abuse & Neglect, 71, 69 –79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.03 psychology, 18, 557–582.
.015 Taylor, C. A., & Lee, S. J. (2015). APSAC members’ opinions, training
Mulvaney, M. K., & Mebert, C. J. (2007). Parental corporal punishment needs, and practices regarding advising parents about child discipline
predicts behavior problems in early childhood. Journal of Family Psy- and use of corporal punishment. Paper presented at the 23rd APSAC
chology, 21, 389. Annual Colloquium, Boston, MA.

Okuzono, S., Fujiwara, T., Kato, T., & Kawachi, I. (2017). Spanking and Taylor, C. A., Moeller, W., Hamvas, L., & Rice, J. C. (2013). Parents’
subsequent behavioral problems in toddlers: A propensity score- professional sources of advice regarding child discipline and their use of
matched, prospective study in Japan. Child Abuse & Neglect, 69, 62–71. corporal punishment. Clinical Pediatrics, 52, 147–155. http://dx.doi.org/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.04.002 10.1177/0009922812465944
Paolucci, E. O., & Violato, C. (2004). A meta-analysis of the published Temple, J. R., Choi, H. J., Reuter, T., Wolfe, D., Taylor, C. A., Madigan,
research on the affective, cognitive, and behavioral effects of corporal S., & Scott, L. E. (2018). Childhood corporal punishment and future
punishment. The Journal of Psychology, 138, 197–222. perpetration of physical dating violence. The Journal of Pediatrics, 194,
Parrish, D. E., & Rubin, A. (2012). Social workers’ orientations toward the 233–237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.10.028
evidence-based practice process: A comparison with psychologists and Tirosh, E., Offer Shechter, S., Cohen, A., & Jaffe, M. (2003). Attitudes
licensed marriage and family therapists. Social Work, 57, 201–210. towards corporal punishment and reporting of abuse. Child Abuse &
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sw/sws016 Neglect, 27, 929 –937. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(03)
Perron, J. L., Lee, C. M., Laroche, K. J., Ateah, C., Clément, M.-È., & 00140-6
Chan, K. (2014). Child and parent characteristics associated with Cana- Trocme, N., Fallon, B., MaLaurin, B., Sinha, V., Black, T., Fast, E., . . .
dian parents’ reports of spanking. Canadian Journal of Community Holroyd, J. (2010). Rates and outcomes of maltreatment-related inves-
Mental Health, 33, 31– 45. http://dx.doi.org/10.7870/cjcmh-2014-014 tigations: CIS-1998, CIS-2003, and CIS-2008. Canadian Incidence
Rabin, L. A., Barr, W. B., & Burton, L. A. (2005). Assessment practices of Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect—2008: Major Findings.
clinical neuropsychologists in the United States and Canada: A survey of Ottawa, Canada: Public Health Agency of Canada.
INS, NAN, and APA Division 40 members. Archives of Clinical Neu- United Nations, Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2007, March 2).
ropsychology, 20, 33– 65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2004.02.005 CRC General Comment No. 8 (2006): The right of the child to protection
Rae, W. A., & Worchel, F. F. (1991). Ethical beliefs and behaviors of from corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of pun-
pediatric psychologists: A survey. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 16, ishment (U. N. CRC/C/GC/8). Retrieved from http://www.refworld.org/
727–745. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/16.6.727 docid/460bc7772.html
Russa, M. B., Rodriguez, C. M., & Silvia, P. J. (2014). Frustration influ- United Nations Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioners. (1989).
ences impact of history and disciplinary attitudes on physical discipline Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved from http://www.ohchr
decision making. Aggressive Behavior, 40, 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10 .org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx
.1002/ab.21500 Vittrup, B., Holden, G. W., & Buck, J. (2006). Attitudes predict the use of
Samios, C., Rodzik, A. K., & Abel, L. M. (2012). Secondary traumatic physical punishment: A prospective study of the emergence of disciplin-
stress and adjustment in therapists who work with sexual violence ary practices. Pediatrics, 117, 2055–2064. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/
survivors: The moderating role of posttraumatic growth. British Journal peds.2005-2204
of Guidance & Counselling, 40, 341–356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ Wilkins, R. G., Becker, A., Harris, J., & Thayer, D. (2003). United States
03069885.2012.691463 and its participation in the Convention on the Rights of the Child: Why
Schenck, E. R., Lyman, R. D., & Bodin, S. D. (2000). Ethical beliefs, the United States should not ratify the Convention on the Rights of the
attitudes, and professional practices of psychologists regarding parental Child. St. Louis University Public Law Review, 22, 411– 434.
use of corporal punishment: A survey. Children’s Services: Social
Policy, Research, and Practice, 3, 23–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
S15326918CS0301_2 Received June 8, 2018
Scholer, S. J., Brokish, P. A., Mukherjee, A. B., & Gigante, J. (2008). A Revision received August 13, 2018
violence-prevention program helps teach medical students and pediatric Accepted August 13, 2018 䡲
View publication stats

Miller Perrin Rush

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Miller Perrin Rush

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Miller Perrin Rush

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Attitudes, knowledge, practices, and ethical beliefs of psychologists related to

Article in Psychology Public Policy and Law · November 2018

Cindy L Miller-Perrin Ryan Rush

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Attitudes, Knowledge, Practices, and Ethical Beliefs of Psychologists

Cindy Miller-Perrin Ryan Rush

Keywords: psychologists’ attitudes, physical punishment, spanking, discipline, parenting

Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). Of interest to

the present study were the two items assessing frequency of

An adjusted response rate of 28% was calculated by dividing the

1. Positive outcomes 1.00

division as a variable for subsequent analyses and treated all

participants as a single group.

spanked as a child and spanking one’s own child) as predictors of ⴱⴱⴱ

Spanking Attitude scores. The variables in the model significantly

Predictors of personal Intercept 1.66 .38 1.25 .14

nearly half do not see this violence as a violation of children’s

nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 331–339. http://dx.doi .11.002

.org/10.1037/0022-006X.68.2.331 Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated

chology, 21, 389. Annual Colloquium, Boston, MA.

View publication stats

You might also like