Using Bans to Change the Social Norm about Hitting Children
Social norms are guidelines for expected behaviors in a culture or society. They play a key role in maintaining social order, both through informing people how to behave as well as how not to behave. But all too often they serve to perpetuate archaic practices, unhealthy behaviors, discrimination, and violations of human rights. So changing social norms is sometimes not just desirable but an imperative for a just, caring, and egalitarian society.
How do social norms change? They can be transformed in multiple ways, such as a consequence of political revolutions, technological advances, or social movements that challenge existing customs. They also occur, as we faculty members like to believe, as a result of teaching students and discovering new knowledge. But changing norms by one student, one classroom, one book, or one research article at a time is a slow, laborious, and labor-intensive approach.
A more muscular method to drive norm-change stems from governments. Using such tools as new policies, edicts, court rulings, and legislative bans, governments have the power to influence social norms. Indeed, this is a fundamental role that governments play. It is not hard to think of examples. Social norms concerning attitudes and behavior about child and animal abuse, racial or sex discrimination, same-sex marriages, cigarette smoking, and buckling seat belts in cars have all changed dramatically over the past half century. In each of those cases, legislative bans served as prime drivers of social change (e.g., Aksoy, De Hass, Carpenter, & Tran, 2018; Hopkins et al., 2010; Licht, 2008; Mowery, Babb, Hobart, Tworek, & MacNeil, 2012).
Legal bans regarding corporal punishment (CP) of children have long been used in an effort to protect children by reinforcing positive behavior and changing accepted, but problematic, behavior. The first CP ban appeared more than 225 years ago in Poland when, in 1783, CP was outlawed in all state-supported schools. Since that time, 131 countries have passed similar legislation designed to end hitting children in schools. For instance, in 1986, CP was outlawed in all UK state-supported schools. By 2003, that prohibition had been extended to include private schools. However, 67 countries, including the United States, have not yet banned CP in state-supported schools. In the U.S., a CP ban is in effect in 31 states, but it remains legal in the 19 remaining, primarily southern states. The absence of a uniform U.S. ban results in approximately 100,000 children being paddled or hit in schools every year (Sparks & Harwin, 2016).
A number of countries have taken the next step in protecting children by banning all CP. In October 2019, Scotland became the first UK country to make it a criminal offense for parents (or anyone else) to smack children. The Scots now join the Swedes, who were the first country to ban all CP in 1979, and 57 other countries in their efforts to change the social norm. In just this past year, France, South Africa, the Republic of Kosovo, and Georgia and have outlawed all CP.
Are legal prohibitions against CP an appropriate tool to change adult behavior and protect children? Are they effective? Although legal sanctions do not result in universal behavior change, they certainly contribute to modifications of social attitudes and behavior. Indeed, the intention behind the bans is not to criminalize parents but rather to change disciplinary attitudes and behavior. Thus, a common goal of most of the bans is a simple educational one: to make citizens aware that is never okay to hit a child and to change the attitudinal and behavioral norms.
It makes good sense for governments to ban CP. If one of the purposes of legislation is to promote public welfare and health, then there is ample justification for such bans. For more than 50 years researchers have been investigating corporal punishment; there are now approximately 2,000 studies on the topic. Although there are no randomized, controlled trials (involving a child randomly assigned into a classroom or home with or without corporal punishment), the evidence is overwhelming uniform and compelling. Corporal punishment can result in a variety of unintended negative effects for children. Spanking/smacking is associated with a variety of behavioral and emotional problems, negative cognitive consequences, impaired relationships, and even inadvertent injuries (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016). Children’s development and well-being is clearly compromised when they are subjected to CP.
Governments are also justified in passing laws in an effort to modify their citizens’ moral compass. Bans on CP do that by promoting the idea that it is patently wrong to hit another person, and particularly a smaller, young person. Along those line, if countries truly desire to abide by the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) adopted in 1989 (and subsequently signed and ratified by all countries except the U.S.), the elimination of CP is required. The CRC recognizes that CP is a violation of children’s rights; three of the 54 articles are particularly pertinent. First, article 3 states that children’s best interests should be a primary consideration in all actions. Second, article 19 concerns children’s right to freedom from all forms of violence, including physical and mental violence. And third, article 37 states that no child shall be subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment. Physical punishment violates each article. These articles, subsequently supplemented with General Comments 8 & 13, provide a clear rationale as to why corporal punishment is never merited or acceptable.
How effective have the bans on CP been? To date, there is limited empirical evidence of the impact of bans on parents’ attitudes and behavior or children’s behavior. The strongest finding is that bans can be effective in decreasing support for and use of CP (Zolotor & Puzia, 2010). But many more investigations are needed to evaluate the extent of awareness of the bans, compliance with them, the impact of bans on children’s well-being, and how variations in the laws affect outcomes.
Even though bans are not the final word, legislatively ending CP can provide an important step in the efforts to change an entrenched behavior, to adjust our moral compass, and to ensure all children receive the non-violent, respectful care they deserve.
References
Aksoy, C. G., Carpenter, C. S., De Haas, R., & Tran, K. (2018). Do laws shape attitudes? Evidence from same-sex relationship recognition policies in Europe. IZA Discussion Papers, No. 11743. Bonn, Germany: Institute of Labor Economics.
Gershoff, E. T., & Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2016). Spanking and child outcomes: Old controversies and new meta-analyses. Journal of Family Psychology, 30, 453-469. doi:10.1037/fam0000191
Hopkins, D. P., Razi, S., Leeks, K. D., Kalra, G. P., Chattopadhyay, S. K., Soler, R. E., & Task Force on Community Preventive Services (2010). Smokefree policies to reduce tobacco use: A systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 38, S275-S289. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2009.10.029
Licht, A. N. (2008). Social norms and the law: Why peoples obey the law. Review of Law & Economics, 4, 715-750.
Mowery, P. D., Babb, S., Hobart, R., Tworek, C., & MacNeil, A. (2012). The impact of state preemption of local smoking restrictions on public health protections and changes in social norms. Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 2012, 632629. doi:10.1155/2012/632629
Sparks, S. D., & Harwin, A. (2016). Corporal punishment use found in schools in 21 states. Education Week, 36, 1-8.
Zolotor, A. J., & Puzia, M. E. (2010). Bans against corporal punishment: A systematic review of the laws, changes in attitudes and behaviours. Child Abuse Review, 19, 229-247. doi:10.1002/car.1131
George W. Holden is Professor and Chair of the Psychology Department at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, TX. Holden’s research interests are in the area of social development, with a focus on parent-child relationships, discipline, corporal punishment, and positive parenting. Holden is a fellow of the American Psychological Society (APS). He was a member of the American Psychological Association’s Task Force on Corporal Punishment. Currently, he is President and a founding board member of the U.S. Alliance to End the Hitting of Children. His twitter handle is @DrNoSpank. He is married and the father of three adult children.