Content uploaded by Ronald B Cox
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ronald B Cox
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 2.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
CORRE S P O N D E N C E Open Access
Do nonphysical punishments reduce antisocial
behavior more than spanking? a comparison
using the strongest previous causal evidence
against spanking
Robert E Larzelere
1*
, Ronald B Cox Jr
1
, Gail L Smith
2
Abstract
Background: The strongest causal evidence that customary spanking increases antisocial behavior is based on
prospective studies that control statistically for initial antisocial differences. None of those studies have investigated
alternative disciplinary tactics that parents could use instead of spanking, however. Further, the small effects in those
studies could be artifactual due to residual confounding, reflecting child effects on the frequency of all disciplinary
tactics. This study re-analyzes the strongest causal evidence against customary spanking and uses these same methods
to determine whether alternative disciplinary tactics are more effective in reducing antisocial behavior.
Methods: This study re-analyzed a study by Straus et al.[1] on spanking and antisocial behavior using a sample of
785 children who were 6 to 9 years old in the 1988 cohort of the American National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.
The comprehensiveness and reliability of the covariate measure of initial antisocial behavior were varied to test for
residual confounding. All analyses were repeated for grounding, privilege removal, and sending children to their
room, and for psychotherapy. To account for covarying use of disciplinary tactics, the analyses were redone first for
the 73% who had reported using at least one discipline tactic and second by controlling for usage of other
disciplinary tactics and psychotherapy.
Results: The apparently adverse effect of spanking on antisocial behavior was replicated using the original
trichotomous covariate for initial antisocial behavior. A similar pattern of adverse effects was shown for grounding
and psychotherapy and partially for the other two disciplinary tactics. All of these effects became non-significant
after controlling for latent comprehensive measures of externalizing behavior problems.
Conclusions: These results are consistent with residual confounding, a statistical artifact that makes all corrective
actions by parents and psychologists appear to increase children’s antisocial behavior due to child effects on
parents. Improved research methods are needed to discriminate between effective vs. counterproductive
implementations of disciplinary tactics. How and when disciplinary tactics are used may be more important than
which type of tactic is used.
Background
Although physical punishment is used by as many as
94% of parents in some countries, [2] a growing number
of countries have banned its use [3]. Some American
pediatricians oppose all use of corporal punishment,
whereas others think there are situations where
nonabusive spanking should remain a disciplinary option
for parents [4]. The author of one major literature
review opposes all spanking, [5,6] whereas five other
recent literature reviews have made less absolute conclu-
sions [7-11]. In either case, pediatricians need research
evidence comparing the effects of alternative disciplinary
tactics with spanking to advise parents about which tac-
tics to use instead of spanking. To provide that informa-
tion, the present study is one of the first causally
* Correspondence: Robert.Larzelere@okstate.edu
1
Department of Human Development and Family Science, 233 HES Bldg.,
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA
Larzelere et al.BMC Pediatrics 2010, 10:10
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/10/10
© 2010 Larzeler e et al; licensee BioMed Cent ral Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attri bution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits u nrestricted use, distri bution, and
reproductio n in any medium, provided the original work is pro perly cited.
relevant longitudinal studies to compare the child out-
comes of alternative disciplinary tactics with those of
customary spanking. Specifically, it attempts to duplicate
the strongest causal evidence against customary spank-
ing to date [1] and investigates which of three types of
nonphysical punishment are more effective at reducing
antisocial behavior than is customary spanking. Second,
we investigate whether or not that evidence is a statisti-
cal artifact due to residual confounding from child
effects on parents.
In the only scientific consensus conference on cor-
poral punishment, co-sponsored by the American Acad-
emy of Pediatrics, [12] both critics [7,13,14] and
supporters [15,16] of spanking bans acknowledged the
weakness of the relevant scientific evidence. The confer-
ence consensus statements thus included appropriate
cautions about corporal punishment, but fell short of a
blanket opposition to all spanking [17].
Since the literature review published for that confer-
ence, [7] there have been at least five published litera-
ture reviews with a diversity of conclusions [5,8-11]. For
example, Gershoff’s [5] meta-analysis supported an anti-
spanking perspective; [6] whereas Larzelere and Kuhn’s
meta-analysis [9] concluded that child outcomes of phy-
sical punishment were more adverse than those of alter-
native disciplinary tactics only for overly severe or
predominant use of physical punishment.
Gershoff’s [5] meta-analysis concluded that physical
punishment was associated with 10 adverse outcomes,
whereas immediate compliance was the only benefit
associated with spanking. The 10 adverse mean effect
sizes, however, were based on cross-sectional, retrospec-
tive, or prospective correlations for 60%, 26%, and 14%
of the supporting studies, respectively. It is well-known
that meta-analyses of correlational evidence can produce
precise but spurious results [18,19]. As has been shown
elsewhere, [20] selection biases cause even prospective
correlations to be biased against most corrective actions,
whether implemented by parents or professionals. For
example, hospitalization is associated with about a 30-
fold increased risk of dying in Medicare patients, and
psychotherapy is associated with a median 14-fold
increased risk of suicide, compared to matched-age
groups not receiving (or needing) those corrective
actions. Just as the severity of the presenting condition
accounts for the prospective longitudinal correlations
between hospitalization and mortality and between psy-
chotherapy and suicide, the severity of oppositional
behavior in children may lead parents to use all disci-
plinary enforcements more often, not just spanking [21].
To adjust for this selection bias, the meta-analysis by
Larzelere and Kuhn [9] compared effect sizes for physi-
cal punishment and alternative tactics investigated in
the same studies. The outcomes of physical punishment
compared unfavorably with alternative disciplinary tac-
tics only when it was the primary disciplinary method
or was too severe (such as beating up a child or striking
the face or head). The outcomes of customary spanking
were neither better nor worse than for any alternative
tactic, except for one study in which spanking reduced
drug abuse more than nonphysical punishment [22].
Customary spanking was defined as ordinary usage,
without any emphasis on how severely it was used. Lar-
zelere and Kuhn also identified an optimal type of nona-
busive back-up spanking, used when a child responds
defiantly to milder disciplinary tactics such as time out
(based mostly on research on 2- to 6-year-olds). Under
these conditions, back-up spanking led to less noncom-
pliance or antisocial behavior than 10 of 13 alternative
disciplinary tactics and produced outcomes equivalent
to the other three tactics. The nine relevant studies
included the only four randomized clinical trials of
spanking, which yielded the strongest causal evidence
about spanking in the scientific literature, albeit limited
to enforcing compliance with time out in clinically defi-
ant 2- to 6-year-olds [23-26]. Compliance with time out
is a crucial component for effective implementation of
most evidence-based psychosocial treatments for Oppo-
sitional Defiance Disorder, Conduct Disorder, and
ADHD in young children [27,28].
A second development since 1996 is new evidence
that customary spanking predicts greater subsequent
antisocial behavior longitudinally after controlling statis-
tically for initial differences in antisocial behavior. A
seminal study by Straus and his colleagues in 1997 [1]
provided the first evidence against customary spanking
based on stronger causal evidence than unadjusted cor-
relations. This improved causal evidence has led some
to conclude that any use of spanking is invariably detri-
mental and should be opposed by all professionals [29].
We located 14 longitudinal studies that investigated
whether physical punishment of children younger than
13 years old predicted subsequent antisocial behavior or
aggression after controlling statistically for initial levels
of those outcome variables. Seven of them lumped
together nonabusive spanking with more severe forms
of punishment, such as shaking, hitting with an object,
or name-calling [30-36]. The remaining seven studies
showed non-significant, [21,37,38] small, [1,39,40] or
mixed effects [41] of customary spanking on subsequent
antisocial behavior or aggression. The small significant
effects were found only for non-Hispanic European-
Americans or in samples dominated by that group, with
effect sizes of b= .05, [39] .06, [40] and .07 [1]. Signifi-
cantly adverse outcomes emerged only in studies in
which mothers reported spanking frequency in the past
week. The studies also used maternal reports for the
outcome variable except for Gunnoe and Mariner, [41]
Larzelere et al.BMC Pediatrics 2010, 10:10
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/10/10
Page 2 of 17
which found contrasting effects for different subgroups.
With a distinct source of information for the child out-
come variable (i.e., child report), Gunnoe and Mariner
found that customary spanking significantly reduced
aggression in the following subgroups: all 4- to 7-year-
olds, all African-Americans, and all girls, although
spanking increased aggression in all 8- to 11-year-olds
and in all European-Americans. They also replicated the
usual small adverse effect of customary spanking on
antisocial behavior when relying solely on parental
report [41].
In sum, the correlational evidence against spanking
that was considered weak evidence by most participants
in the 1996 scientific consensus conference was repli-
cated in Gershoff’s meta-analysis [5]. Since then, the
causal evidence against spanking has been strengthened
by seven studies that have found small, sometimes sig-
nificant adverse effects of customary (non-severe) spank-
ing on subsequent antisocial behavior, after controlling
statistically for pre-existing antisocial scores. On the
other hand, Larzelere and Kuhn’s meta-analysis [9]
found that child outcomes of physical punishment were
more adverse than those for alternative disciplinary tac-
tics only when physical punishment was overly severe or
the predominant disciplinary tactic. No published study
has compared the outcomes of any alternative disciplin-
ary tactic with those of customary spanking in statisti-
cally controlled longitudinal analyses, a gap addressed
by this study.
In addition to investigating the ability of alternative
disciplinary tactics to reduce antisocial behavior, this
study will investigate whether the small adverse effects
attributed to spanking in statistically controlled analyses
could be due to residual confounding [42]. In statisti-
cally controlled analyses, residual confounding explained
why the summer Head Start program appeared to be
detrimental according to a major early evaluation study
[43,44]. Statistical controls yield unbiased estimates of
causal effects only when the process of selecting recipi-
ents for a corrective action is measured comprehensively
[45] and without measurement error [46,47]. Statistically
controlled studies with fallible measures of the selection
process only reduce the artifactual selection bias con-
founded with corrective actions [20,48]. Accordingly,
epidemiologists recognize that residual confounding
remains when confounds are only partially controlled
for statistically [42].
If the association between the frequency of spanking
and subsequent antisocial behavior is due to child differ-
ences in initial levels of oppositional behavior, it follows
that all disciplinary enforcements should show a similar
association with antisocial behavior. This result would
be consistent with Larzelere and Kuhn’s meta-analysis
that found no differences in effect sizes in comparisons
between customary spanking and alternative disciplinary
tactics [9]. No statistically controlled longitudinal study
of customary spanking has also investigated alternative
disciplinary tactics that parents could use instead of
spanking. This is therefore the first study to our knowl-
edge that compares antisocial behavior outcomes of
alternative disciplinary tactics vs. customary spanking
after controlling statistically for pre-existing differences
on antisocial behavior.
Analytic Plan
To compare the effects of three types of nonphysical
punishment with the effects of spanking on subsequent
antisocial behavior, we duplicated the study with the
strongest causal evidence against customary spanking as
closely as possible. Straus et al. [1] was selected because
it has reported the largest effect size associating spank-
ing frequency with subsequent antisocial behavior. Their
somewhat larger effect size might be partly explained
because they chose to feature the cohort (out of five
possible cohorts) with the largest longitudinal correla-
tion between Wave-1 spanking and Wave-2 antisocial
behavior (r= .29, compared to a mean of r=.22inthe
other four cohorts in their Table 1, p. 764) [1]. By dupli-
cating the strongest causal evidence against customary
spanking, our study increases the likelihood of finding
disciplinary alternatives with better child outcomes than
spanking.
If alternative disciplinary tactics show the same
adverse associations with subsequent antisocial behavior
asshownbyspanking,however,thesmalleffectsizes
could be due to residual confounding. To test that pos-
sibility, additional analyses determined whether the
adverse outcomes remained significant after improving
the measure of pre-existing differences. Complete
removal of the confound of oppositional behavior in
children requires that oppositional behavior be mea-
sured comprehensively and without measurement error
[47]. Therefore, it follows that if the causal link between
disciplinary punishments and antisocial behavior is arti-
factual due to residual confounding, then the adverse
effects should become smaller and non-significant with
improved measures of pre-existing antisocial behavior.
Improvement in comprehensiveness will be evaluated in
thisstudybycomparingthetrichotomouscovariate
used in Straus et al. [1] with a continuous measure of
the 6-item antisocial behavior scale and a 16-item mea-
sure of externalizing behavior problems. Structural
equation modeling will also be used because it mini-
mizes measurement error in the measure of pre-existing
externalizing behavior problems [49].
A final set of analyses will determine whether disci-
plinary tactics predict simple change scores in externa-
lizing behavior problems in the same direction that they
Larzelere et al.BMC Pediatrics 2010, 10:10
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/10/10
Page 3 of 17
predict residualized change scores in the above analyses.
Simulation studies have shown that most analyses of
residualized change scores remain biased against correc-
tive actions even though they control statistically for
pre-existing differences [44,50]. In contrast, analyses of
simple gain scores are biased in favor of corrective inter-
ventions due to regression toward the mean in the only
known simulation study [51]. Several prominent metho-
dologists have recommended analyses of simple gain
scores instead of residualized gain scores for many situa-
tions [52-54]. A recent study of Canadian longitudinal
data showed that analyses of residualized gain scores
were biased against corrective actions implemented by
both parents and professionals, whereas analyses of sim-
ple gain scores were biased in favor of those corrective
actions in the same data [48]. When confounding fac-
tors are completely corrected for, however, analyses of
residualized gain scores and simple gain scores agree
with each other [55,56].
Finally, to evaluate the success of the covariate adjust-
ments in this study, the results will include outcomes of
psychotherapy for comparative purposes. If the results
are due to residual confounding, the pattern of results
should be similar for corrective actions by professionals
as well as corrective disciplinary actions by parents.
Because some parents will have used no disciplinary
tactics in the past week and others will have used multi-
ple tactics, we also repeated all the above analyses with
two additional variations [57]. The first variation
repeated the analyses for the subset of families that
reported at least one disciplinary tactic during the past
week. The second variation included all disciplinary tac-
tics and psychotherapy in the same analyses of the full
sample, thereby controlling for each other.
In summary, we re-analyzed the strongest causal evi-
denceagainstcustomaryspanking,[1]usingthesame
National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) cohort
to investigate the apparent effect of spanking on subse-
quent antisocial behavior. Second, we repeated those
analyses with each of three alternative disciplinary tac-
tics: grounding, privilege removal, and sending children
to their room. Third, those analyses were repeated while
varying the adequacy of the covariate used for initial
antisocial behavior. Covariates include a dichotomous
measure, the trichotomous measure used by Straus et
al., [1] a continuous measure of the 6-item antisocial
subscale, and a continuous measure of a 16-item scale
of externalizing problems. Fourth, structural equation
modeling was used to control for a latent factor of
externalizing problems, thereby minimizing measure-
ment error in the covariate. Fifth, we predicted simple
changes in latent externalizing behavior problems,
which should reverse the direction of the selection bias
due to child differences if the effects are due to residual
confounding associated with initial antisocial behavior.
Sixth, we implemented all analyses for psychotherapy.
Seventh, we repeated all these analyses for the subsam-
ple receiving any disciplinary tactics. Finally, we
repeated the analyses in the full sample with all disci-
plinary tactics and psychotherapy as simultaneous pre-
dictors of antisocial behavior.
Methods
Participants
The participants were the mothers of children between
the ages of 6 and 9 during the 1988 wave of the Child
Supplement of the National Longitudinal Survey of
Youth (NLSY) [58] who had valid scores on all relevant
variables in 1988 and 1990. The mothers in the NLSY
came from a nationally representative sample of 6,283
females aged 14 to 21 years old in 1979, with an over-
representation of African-Americans, Hispanics, poor
Whites, and military personnel. By 1988, the young
women ranged in age from 23 to 30; thus the children
in this study were born when they were between 14 and
24 years old (M= 20.0). The sample therefore consists
of children of young mothers. Most military mothers
and the over-sampled poor Whites were dropped from
the longitudinal study, leaving 4,941 eligible in 1990. Of
these, 4,510 (91%) were interviewed in 1990, including
some information on 5,803 of the 5,949 children living
with the 68% of the sample who were mothers by that
time. Of these children, 1,512 were between 8 and 11
years old in 1990 [58]. Based on Straus et al., [1] 996 of
these children had valid data on spanking in 1988 and
on antisocial behavior in 1990. Some of those were
missing data on other variables used as 1988 covariates
or represented multiple children from the same families.
After eliminating those cases, Straus et al. had 807
mother-child pairs in their final sample [1].
In order to re-analyze Straus et al. [1] as closely as possi-
ble, we duplicated their final sample size of 807 families
with valid scores on all the variables in their analyses. Fol-
lowing their procedure, we randomly selected one child
from families with multiple eligible children. We drew 10
random samples from the multiple-child families to match
their total sample size of 807. We then dropped any cases
with missing data on either grounding, privilege removal,
or sending children to their room, so that comparisons
among these disciplinary enforcements would be based on
identical cases. This yielded a final sample size of 785 for
the primary analyses. We ranked the effect sizes of spank-
ing and of the three alternative disciplinary tactics in pre-
dicting subsequent antisocial behavior in the 10 random
samples, controlling for all variables in the original study.
We then selected the sample for which the effect of spank-
ing was above its median effect size and most closely
approximated the average ranking of the three alternative
Larzelere et al.BMC Pediatrics 2010, 10:10
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/10/10
Page 4 of 17
tactics. The selected sample had the fourth strongest effect
for spanking among the 10 samples (p= .010), and the
rankings for grounding (4th), privilege removal (5th), and
sending to their room (1
st
) averaged 3.3. For all 10 sam-
ples, the median Fvalues were F(3, 741) = 3.63, p= .013
for spanking; F(3, 741) = 1.95, p= .12 for grounding; F(3,
741) = 1.80, p= .15 for privilege removal; and F(3, 741) =
2.49, p= .06 for sending children to their room. This
study was exempt from review by a research ethics com-
mittee because it used publicly available data with no iden-
tifying information.
Measures
We used the same variables from the Child Supplement
of the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY) as
reported by Straus et al [1]. The primary outcome was
the 1990 NLSY Antisocial subscale from the Behavior
Problems Index [58]. These maternal-report items
included the extent to which the child “cheats or tells
lies,”“bullies or is cruel or mean to others,”“does not
feel sorry after misbehavior,”“breaks things deliber-
ately,”“is disobedient at school,”and “has trouble get-
ting along with teachers.”The three item responses
were “not,”“sometimes,”or “often”true. In contrast to
Straus et al., [1] we used a natural log transformation of
the 1990 antisocial scale to reduce its skewness, so that
the comparisons would not be overly influenced by out-
liers. Then we scaled the log-transformed 1990 antiso-
cial scale so that it would have the same mean of 50
and the same standard deviation of 20 that was used by
Straus et al [1].
The 1988 Antisocial subscale was categorized as being
high (top quartile), medium, or low (minimum possible
score), as in Straus et al [1]. We also categorized the
1988 log-transformed Antisocial subscale as dichoto-
mous and continuous to determine whether changes in
the comprehensiveness of that covariate would influence
the size of residual confounding as reflected in increases
(for dichotomization) and decreases (for continuous) in
the apparent effects of spanking and the nonphysical
punishments. To improve the adequacy of the statistical
covariate further, we also used the 16-item measure of
Externalizing Problems, which included 5-item subscales
for Hyperactivity and Headstrong as well as the Antiso-
cial subscale from the Behavior Problems Index [58].
We also used a log transformation to eliminate its skew-
ness. For analyses of simple change scores in the latent
factor for Externalizing Behavior Problems, we used the
same metric for both waves before calculating gain
scores on its three subscales.
As in Straus et al., [1] spanking was measured by
mothers’answers to the question, “About how many
times, if any, have you had to spank your child in the
past week?”This was immediately followed with parallel
questions about how many times, if any, she had “[to]
ground him/her,”“taken away TV or other privileges,”
and “sent the child to his/her room”during the past
week. Following Straus et al., we combined three or
more times into the most frequent category. Finally, to
compare the results with another corrective action that
a parent might resort to, we used a Yes-No item that
asked whether the child had “seen a psychiatrist, psy-
chologist, or counselor about any behavioral, emotional
or mental problem during the past 12 months.”
Other maternal qualities were measured with the
NLSY subscales of cognitive stimulation and emotional
support from a short version of the Home Observation
for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) [58,59].
Items on the cognitive stimulation scale included mater-
nal reports about reading to the child, taking the child
to museums, and the orderliness of the home. Emo-
tional support included items on whether the mother
introduced the child by name,kissedorhuggedthe
child, or showed a positive feeling toward the child dur-
ing the home visit. Following Straus et al., we recalcu-
lated the emotional support scale after dropping two of
its items about spanking.
Finally, following Straus et al., [1] socioeconomic sta-
tus (SES) was measured as the mean of standardized z-
scores for (1) the occupational status of the mother’s
occupation, (2) the total family income, and (3) the
mother’s educational level. The mean z-score was used
even if one of the three components were missing. Eth-
nicity was coded as ethnic minority or Caucasian, fol-
lowing the original article.
Results
Table 1 shows the frequencies of the four disciplinary
tactics during the week preceding the 1988 interviews
and the prevalence of psychotherapy during the previous
year. Sending children to their room was the only tactic
used more frequently than spanking with these 6- to
9-year-old children.
Table 2 shows the inter-correlations among the four
disciplinary tactics, psychotherapy, continuous measures
of antisocial behavior in 1988 and 1990, and other vari-
ables used in the structural equation models described
Table 1 Frequencies of Four Disciplinary Tactics and
Prevalence of Psychotherapy
Corrective Action 0 1 2 3+
Spanking 449 158 111 67
Grounding 581 109 57 38
Privilege removal 573 117 53 42
Sending to room 389 183 98 115
Psychotherapy
a
748 34 ––
a
Dichotomous, i.e., whether child had seen a psychotherapist in the past year.
Larzelere et al.BMC Pediatrics 2010, 10:10
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/10/10
Page 5 of 17
later. The frequencies of the disciplinary tactics were
moderately correlated with each other (mean r=.29
below the diagonal), but less so after dropping children
receiving none of these disciplinary tactics in the past
week (mean r= .15 above the diagonal). A substantial
part of the overlap between disciplinary-tactic frequen-
cies is thus due to the 27% of the sample who received
none of the four disciplinary tactics in this study.
Table3showsthere-analysisofStrausetal[1].Like
the original study, antisocial behavior in 1990 was sig-
nificantly higher for those spanked more in 1988, P <
.05, and for boys, P < .05, controlling for antisocial
behavior in 1988, P < .001. The results from the re-
analysis differed from the original results in the follow-
ing ways: First, the effect of spanking was significant at
only the .05 level, instead of the .01 level [1]. The drop
in significance level was due to our log transformation
of antisocial behavior in 1990 which reduced its skew-
ness and the influence of extreme outliers. Socioeco-
nomic status and emotional support each predicted
lower subsequent antisocial behavior, P < .05, although
they were not significant in Straus et al [1]. Two
interactions for Spank X Ethnicity and Spank X Gen-
der were significant in the original study but not in
our re-analysis.
Identical analyses that substituted one of the alterna-
tive disciplinary tactics or psychotherapy yielded similar
patterns of results (see Figure 1 and Table 4). Ground-
ing and psychotherapy were associated with significantly
higher antisocial behavior in 1990 in the parallel ana-
lyses, P < .05. Sending children to their room and privi-
lege removal showed similar trends, which was
marginally significant for sending children to their
room, P < .10, but was not significant for privilege
removal. Figure 1 shows the predicted level of antisocial
behavior in 1990 for different frequencies of each disci-
plinary tactic, assuming mean values on all other pre-
dictors.Zerouseofanydisciplinarytacticor
psychotherapy was associated with the lowest level of
subsequent antisocial behavior. If anything, spanking
was associated with lower subsequent antisocial behavior
than were alternative disciplinary tactics except when
used three times a week or more. None of those differ-
ences were significant, however.
Table 2 Inter-Correlations for Disciplinary Tactics, Psychotherapy, Control Variables, Antisocial Behavior, Hyperactivity,
and Headstrong Subscales
Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.
1. Spank 1. .14 .09 .09 -.00 -.21 -.12 -.07 -.07 .08 .15 .16 .21 .22 -.03 -.01 .02
2. Grounding .27 1. .35 .07 .04 -.13 -.07 -.08 -.04 .18 .20 .14 .18 .22 -.07 -.05 .04
3. Priv. removal .22 .42 1. .16 .02 .06 -.06 -.05 -.02 .14 .03 .01 .04 .08 -.03 -.02 .05
4. Sent to room .31 .22 .30 1. .03 .10 -.01 .03 .00 -.12 .04 .12 .08 .01 .05 -.02 -.07
5. Therapy .01 .04 .03 .04 1. .00 -.04 -.11 .05 -.06 .16 .13 .11 .14 .02 -.01 .03
6. Cogntv stim -.17 -.11 .04 .07 -.01 1. .24 .03 .24 -.26 -.13 -.10 -.22 -.23 -.04 .01 -.01
7. SES -.10 -.07 -.06 -.02 -.02 .22 1. .02 .14 -.09 -.08 -.01 -.14 -.12 -.05 -.08 .01
8. Female -.10 -.09 -.08 -.03 -.13 .02 .01 1. .06 .00 -.13 -.09 -.12 -.16 -.02 .02 -.05
9. Emot. support -.07 -.05 -.04 -.02 .03 .25 .15 .04 1. -.16 -.06 -.03 -.10 -.17 -.03 -.01 -.07
10. Non-White .09 .16 .13 -.06 -.07 -.25 -.07 .05 -.17 1. -.04 -.16 .05 .08 .03 .03 .03
[1988 Behavior Problem Index subscales]:
11. Hyperactivity .19 .21 .08 .12 .15 -.12 -.08 -.13 -.05 -.02 1. .55 .44 .39 -.41 -.13 -.04
12. Headstrong .23 .19 .09 .21 .11 -.07 -.06 -.11 -.04 -.11 .56 1. .47 .37 -.16 -.41 -.09
13. Antisocial .27 .22 .11 .18 .10 -.19 -.15 -.15 -.09 .07 .44 .49 1. .49 -.13 -.15 -.49
[1990 Behavior Problem Index subscale]:
14. Antisocial .27 .25 .14 .13 .12 -.21 -.15 -.17 -.15 .09 .41 .39 .49 1. .16 .25 .52
[Gain in Behavior Problem Index subscales from 1988 to 1990]:
15. Hyperactivity -.04 -.06 -.04 .02 .00 -.02 -.04 -.01 -.03 .02 -.42 -.15 -.12 .15 1. .39 .28
16. Headstrong -.03 -.06 -.03 -.04 .00 .01 -.04 .03 .00 .01 -.13 -.40 -.16 .26 .39 1. .39
17. Antisocial .01 .03 .04 -.05 .03 -.02 -.01 -.03 -.06 .02 -.03 -.09 -.49 .53 .26 .41 1.
Full sample statistics
Mean .74 .43 .44 .92 .04 .06 .07 .49 .03 .59 1.68 1.71 50.29 50.17 -.05 .01 -.12
SD .994 .826 .839 1.096 .204 .733 .677 .500 .785 .492 .364 .364 18.99 19.55 .338 .339 19.52
Subsample statistics
Mean 1.02 .59 .61 1.27 .05 .06 .05 .46 .00 .61 1.71 1.76 53.09 52.93 -.06 .00 -.16
SD 1.038 .918 .931 1.102 .213 .733 .665 .499 .790 .489 .361 .351 18.84 19.30 .335 .341 19.26
Note: N= 785 below diagonal for full sample (782 for therapy). N= 571 above diagonal for subsample with some use of at least one tactic (570 for therapy).
Cogntv stim = Cognitive stimulus. P< .05 if |r| > .08.
Larzelere et al.BMC Pediatrics 2010, 10:10
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/10/10
Page 6 of 17
Effect sizes were calculated by contrasting the mean
antisocial score predicted by zero usage with the
weighted mean score predicted by one or more uses of
each tactic, because the most debated issue is whether
to tolerate any use of spanking whatsoever [60]. The
formula for this comparison is: Cohen’s
dA A
sA
=−
+
()/
10 ,where A1+is the weighted mean
antisocial outcome score predicted by one or more uses
of a disciplinary tactic, A
0
is the mean antisocial out-
come predicted by zero usage, and s
A
is the standard
deviation for antisocial behavior. Both means were
adjusted for all other predictors in the analysis. To com-
pare the effect sizes more directly with the standardized
regression coefficients (bs) used to estimate linear asso-
ciations in the latent-variable analyses, dwas trans-
formed to an estimated b(b≈d/2 for ds < .50). Dstat was
used to calculate the effect sizes from the two means
and the mean error sum of squares [61]. Controlling for
a trichotomous measure of initial antisocial behavior,
the estimated effect sizes were b= .10 for spanking, .12
Table 3 Antisocial Behavior in 1990 by Spanking Frequency in 1988 and Six Other Covariates for Children from 6 to
9 Years Old in 1988
Main Effects and Interactions Degrees of Freedom Mean Sum of Squares FRatio
Predictors from 1988
Main Effects
Spanking frequency 3 798.4 2.87*
Gender 1 1576.2 5.66*
Cognitive Stimulation 2 383.3 1.38
Emotional Support 2 1271.3 4.56*
Ethnicity 1 0.8 .00
Socioeconomic status 2 1170.6 4.20*
Antisocial behavior (zero, low, high) 2 12460.2 44.72***
2-Way Interactions With Spanking
Gender 3 386.4 1.39
Cognitive Stimulation 6 183.4 0.66
Emotional Support 6 375.8 1.35
Ethnicity 3 371.8 1.33
Socioeconomic status 6 190.3 0.68
Antisocial behavior 6 115.5 0.42
Residual 741 278.6
Note. A natural log transformation of 1990 antisocial behavior was used to reduce skewness. The original 807 cases were reduced to N= 785 for this analysis
due to missing values on grounding, privilege removal, or sending child to room.
*P< .05. ***P< .001.
50
52
54
56
58
60
Antisocial
Therapy
Spank
Few Pr ivi leges
To Ro o m
Grounding
48
0123
Frequency/Week
Grounding
Figure 1 1990 Antisocial Behavior by Weekly Frequency of Disciplinary Tactics in 1988 (or by Psychotherapy) Controlling for the
Same Variables as the Original Study.
Larzelere et al.BMC Pediatrics 2010, 10:10
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/10/10
Page 7 of 17
for grounding, .10 for removing privileges, .09 for send-
ing to room, and .24 for psychotherapy (see Table 5).
The result for psychotherapy indicates that this is a gen-
eral pattern for corrective actions for disruptive behavior
problems, whether used by parents or professionals.
The next set of analyses investigated whether these
effect sizes and their significance varied by the adequacy
of the measure of initial antisocial behavior. Two overall
patterns stand out in Table 5. First, the zero-order cor-
relations indicate that each corrective action, whether by
parents or psychotherapists, was significantly associated
with higher antisocial behavior two years later, Ps<.01.
Second, all effect sizes decreased in magnitude and
changed from apparently detrimental to small, non-sig-
nificant effects with the addition of increasingly compre-
hensive measures of pre-existing antisocial behavior
(from the top to the bottom of Table 5).
When based on unadjusted correlations, the effect size
between spanking and antisocial behavior was identical
to the effect size estimated by Gershoff [5] for Straus
et al. [1] (i.e., her d= .56 corresponds to our r=.27for
spanking in the top row of Table 5). The strongest causal
evidence against corporal punishment in her meta-analy-
sis was based on this type of unadjusted longitudinal cor-
relation. However, the top row in Table 5 shows that all
disciplinary tactics and psychotherapy were also corre-
lated significantly with antisocial behavior two years
later, Ps < .01, although to a smaller degree. Thus, longi-
tudinal correlations do not discriminate between effective
and counterproductive corrective actions, but are biased
against all corrective actions [20,48].
Table 4 Effects of Alternative Disciplinary Tactics and
Psychotherapy in 1988 on Antisocial Behavior in 1990
When Substituted for Spanking in the Analysis
Summarized in Table 3
Corrective
Action
Degrees of
Freedom
Mean Sum of
Squares
FValue
Spanking 3 798.4 2.87*
Grounding 3 893.1 3.20*
Privilege removal 3 435.4 1.53
Sending to room 3 632.6 2.20
a
Psychotherapy 1 1116.5 3.93*
N= 785, except 782 for Psychotherapy.
a
P< .10.
*P< .05.
Table 5 Standardized Regression Coefficients (bs) Predicting 1990 Antisocial Behavior from Four 1988 Disciplinary
Tactics and Psychotherapy by Covariate for Pre-Existing Behavior Problems
Covariate for Initial Behavior Problems Spank Grounding Remove Privileges Send to Room Psychotherapy
None
Zero-order r.27***
a
.25*** .14*** .13*** .12**
Controlling for other predictors
b
.18*** .20*** .11 .14** .39**
Antisocial Behavior 1988
b
Dichotomous .13** .17** .11 .10* .28*
Trichotomous .10*
c
.12* .10 .09
f
.24*
Continuous .10 .14
f
.09 .07 .23
Externalizing Behavior 1988
b
Continuous (measured variable) .09 .10 .07 .07 .19
Continuous (latent variable)
d
.04 .04 .04 -.03 .02
Gain in latent externalizing
e
-.04 -.07 -.04 -.05 .01
Note. N= 785 for the disciplinary tactics; 782 for psychotherapy. A positive bindicates that those receiving the disciplinary tactic in 1988 averaged higher 1990
antisocial behavior than those not receiving that disciplinary tactic, after controlling for the variables indicated. The bs are based on linear associations for the
first row and the last 2 rows. The other bs are based on the effect size contrasting the weighted marginal mean antisocial behavior for one or more occurrences
of the disciplinary actions (or seeing a psychotherapist) vs. the mean antisocial behavior associated with no occurrences of the disciplinary actionor
psychotherapy.
a
This equals the effect size estimated from Straus et al. [1] in Gershoff’s meta-analysis,[5] since she based effect sizes on zero-order correlations. (r= .27 is
equivalent to d= .56, using the DSTAT program used by Gershoff)[61]
b
The “other predictors”were those in the ANCOVA in Straus et al.[1]: gender, ethnicity, SES, cognitive stimulation, emotional support, and the 2-way interactions
of the disciplinary tactic with each of those predictors. The 2-way interactions were not included in the structural equation modeling.
c
Our best re-analysis of Straus et al. [1] Our estimate of bfrom their graph is .23, but the estimated bs from our 10 samples ranged from .10 to .13, before
applying the natural log transformation to 1990 antisocial. In contrast, the Fvalues for spanking in our 10 samples ranged from 3.0 to 5.3, which included the
original Fvalue (4.4) within its range.
d
The latent structural equation modeling analyses estimate linear associations between the frequency of each corrective action and Antisocial behavior in 1990,
controlling for the other predictors in the model, including latent Externalizing problems, which has three indicators (Antisocial, Hyperactivity, and Headstrong),
with correlated residuals between the latter two subscales. Fit indices: c
2
s(13,N= 785) from 35.05 to 40.50, ps from .0001 to .0008; CFIs from .971 to .976;
RMSEAs from .046 to .052.
e
This row summarizes the only analyses predicting the 16-item Externalizing score in 1990, in this case in terms of gain scores in that latent score from 1988 to
1990 (see Figure 2). Fit indices: c
2
s(12,N= 785) from 7.65 to 13.06, ps from .36 to .81; CFIs from .996 to 1.000; RMSEAs from .000 to .011.
f
P< .10.
*P< .05. **P< .01. ***P< .001.
Larzelere et al.BMC Pediatrics 2010, 10:10
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/10/10
Page 8 of 17
The association between spanking and subsequent
antisocial behavior became smaller and non-significant
as the covariate for initial antisocial behavior was mea-
sured more comprehensively and reliably, thereby redu-
cing residual confounding. The mean regression
coefficient for the other three disciplinary tactics was
almost identical to the coefficient for spanking. The
standardized coefficients for spanking rarely differed by
more than .03 from the parallel coefficient for any alter-
native disciplinary tactic after initial differences on anti-
social behavior were controlled for statistically.
Beginning with the third row in Table 5, initial antiso-
cial behavior was statistically controlled with increas-
ingly comprehensive measures. Rows 3 through 6 show
that the apparently detrimental effects of disciplinary
tactics became nonsignificant when initial antisocial
behavior was measured with a continuous measure
rather than the less discriminating distinction among
low, medium, and high antisocial behavior. The signs of
the estimated regression coefficients remained positive
for all disciplinary tactics, indicating a nonsignificant
tendency for each tactic in 1988 to be associated with
higher antisocial behavior in 1990 (see Figure 1).
The last two rows of Table 5 summarize results from
structural equation modeling, controlling in two distinct
ways for initial differences on the 16-item measure of
externalizing problems. The next-to-last row minimizes
measurement error in the covariate by modeling exter-
nalizing problems as a latent factor, with three indica-
tors corresponding to the three component subscales
(antisocial, headstrong, and hyperactivity). The final row
predicts change from 1988 to 1990 in the latent factor
for externalizing behavior problems. The indicators for
the change score in latent externalizing were gain scores
for each of the three component subscales from 1988 to
1990 (see Figure 2).
The structural equation models (SEMs) differed from
the other statistically controlled analyses in several ways.
First, they predicted linear trends, whereas the other
standardized regression coefficients in Table 5 con-
trasted the mean outcomes for usage vs. non-usage of
disciplinary tactics. Second, the SEM analyses did not
include any interactions between spanking and the other
predictors. Third, the SEM analyses minimized measure-
ment error in the covariate for externalizing problems,
which approximates a crucial assumption for making
unbiased estimates of causal effects, namely that covari-
ates must be measured without error. Finally, the SEM
analyses controlled for the broad measure of externaliz-
ing rather than only the 6-item antisocial subscale. It
should be noted that only the last SEM analyses of
change scores in latent externalizing problems used all
16 items of externalizing behavior problems for the out-
come variable in 1990. All other analyses in Table 5
used the 6-item antisocial subscale as the outcome vari-
able, varying only the comprehensiveness with which
initial differences in antisocial behavior or externalizing
problems were controlled for statistically.
Controlling for the latent externalizing factor in the
next-to-last row of Table 5 reduced the effect size
Spankings
Emotional Support
Cognitive Stimulation
Gender
African-American
SES
Gain in
Externalizing
Antisocial
Gain
Headstrong
Gain
Hyperactive
Gain
Figure 2 Structural Equation Model of Latent Gain Scores in Externalizing Behavior Problems from 1988 to 1990.
Larzelere et al.BMC Pediatrics 2010, 10:10
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/10/10
Page 9 of 17
further. In these analyses, none of the disciplinary tactics
nor psychotherapy was significantly related to antisocial
behavior two years later. Moreover, when predicting
gain scores in the latent externalizing factor in the last
row, the coefficients changed signs so that all disciplin-
ary tactics predicted greater reductions in latent externa-
lizing problems, albeit non-significantly so.
Accounting for Covariations in Use of Tactics
Because mothers who used one disciplinary tactic were
more likely to use other tactics, the analyses were
repeated in two ways to take that covariation into
account. First, all the analyses were repeated for the
73% of the families who reported using at least one of
these tactics in the reporting week (see Table 6). Thus
these analyses investigated the apparent effects of these
disciplinary tactics only for those mothers who saw a
need to use at least one of them. The adverse effects of
spanking, privilege removal, and sending children to
their room then became non-significant after controlling
for any measure of pre-existing differences on antisocial
behavior. Grounding and psychotherapy showed signifi-
cantly adverse effects for some measures of initial anti-
social behavior, but not when controlling for the more
comprehensive measure of externalizing behavior
problems.
A second way to account for the covariation of disci-
plinary methods was to include all disciplinary tactics
and psychotherapy in the same analyses for the full sam-
ple, thereby controlling for each other. Because this
greatly expands the number of cells in the ANOVAs or
ANCOVAs, this set of analyses did not include any
interactions of other covariates with the disciplinary tac-
tics (see Table 7). When controlling for each other,
spanking, grounding, and psychotherapy all showed sig-
nificantly adverse effects, except when controlling for a
latent factor for externalizing behavior problems. In
contrast, privilege removal and sending children to their
room never predicted subsequent antisocial behavior
after controlling for the other three corrective actions.
The differences in adverse effects by corrective action
did not vary as much by covariate comprehensiveness,
except when minimizing measurement error by control-
ling for a latent factor for externalizing behavior pro-
blems. This implies that, by controlling for the other
corrective actions, the analyses are already controlling
for initial child differences, so that adding or improving
measures of initial behavior problems does not modify
Table 6 Standardized Regression Coefficients (bs) Predicting 1990 Antisocial Behavior from Four 1988 Disciplinary
Tactics and Psychotherapy by Covariate for Pre-Existing Behavior Problems After Dropping Cases Using No
Disciplinary Tactics of Any Kind
Covariate for Initial
Behavior Problems
Spank Grounding Remove Privileges Send to Room Psychotherapy
None
Zero-order r.22*** .22*** .08
d
.01 .14**
Controlling for other predictors
a
.11
d
.15*** .04 .03 .38**
Antisocial Behavior 1988
a
Dichotomous .09 .14** .06 .02 .30*
Trichotomous .08 .11** .08 .05 .23
Continuous .08 .13* .06 .03 .24
Externalizing Behavior 1988
a
Continuous (measured variable) .08 .08 .05 .05 .24
Continuous (latent variable)
b
.03 .04 .04 -.05 .02
Gain in Latent Externalizing
c
-.03 -.07 -.02 -.02 .01
Note. N= 571 for the disciplinary tactics; 570 for psychotherapy. A positive bindicates that those receiving the disciplinary tactic in 1988 averaged higher 1990
antisocial behavior than those not receiving that disciplinary tactic, after controlling for the variables indicated. The bs are based on linear associations for the
first row and the last 2 rows. The other bs are based on the effect size contrasting the weighted marginal mean antisocial behavior for one or more occurrences
of the disciplinary actions (or seeing a psychotherapist) vs. the mean antisocial behavior associated with no occurrences of the disciplinary actionor
psychotherapy.
a
The “other predictors”were those in the ANCOVA in Straus et al. [1]: gender, ethnicity, SES, cognitive stimulation, emotional support, and the 2-way interactions
of the disciplinary tactic with each of those predictors. The 2-way interactions were not included in the structural equation modeling or the gain in latent
externalizing problems.
b
The latent structural equation modeling analyses estimate linear associations between the frequency of each disciplinary tactic and Antisocial behavior in 1990,
controlling for the other predictors in the model, including latent Externalizing problems, which has three indicators (Antisocial, Hyperactivity, and Headstrong),
with correlated residuals between the latter two subscales. Fit indices: c
2
s(13,N= 571) from 34.67 to 37.49, ps from .0003 to .0010; CFIs from .964 to .968;
RMSEAs from .054 to .057.
c
This row summarizes the only analyses predicting the 16-item Externalizing score in 1990, in this case in terms of gain scores in that latent score from 1988 to
1990 (see Figure 2). Fit indices: c
2
s(12,N= 571) from 10.88 to 15.65, ps from .19 to .54; CFIs from .980 to 1.000; RMSEAs from .000 to .024.
d
P< .10.
*P< .05. **P< .01. ***P< .001.
Larzelere et al.BMC Pediatrics 2010, 10:10
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/10/10
Page 10 of 17
the apparent effects of the corrective actions as much as
in the previous analyses. The distinctive pattern of the
results in Table 7 is due partly to the tendency for small
differences in associations with the outcome to be exag-
gerated when two correlated predictors are included as
predictors in the same multiple regression analysis. [
[62], pp. 309-312] When controlling for other disciplin-
ary tactics, corrective actions that parents resort to for
more difficult behavior problems appear more detrimen-
tal than disciplinary tactics used for milder misbehavior
(e.g., grounding vs. sending to room). This suggests that
the differences in outcomes among disciplinary tactics
may be due to differential selection biases among them.
Like psychotherapy, spanking and grounding tend to get
selected for more difficult misbehavior than privilege
removal or sending children to their room. Differential
selection bias would explain why psychotherapy appears
as detrimental as spanking and grounding and why
these adverse effects became non-significant, sometimes
with reversed signs in the latent-variable analyses.
Discussion
The present study reanalyzed the strongest causal evi-
dence against customary spanking [1] in order (a) to
investigate which alternative forms of discipline would
reduce antisocial behavior more than spanking, and (b)
to determine whether these apparent causal effects
could be attributed to residual confounding due to a
selection bias. The results varied somewhat by whether
the analyses considered one disciplinary tactic at a time
in the full sample, whether the analyses were limited to
a misbehaving subsample, or whether the tactics were
all included as simultaneous predictors in the analyses.
All three types of analyses yielded similar findings when
controlling for the most valid and reliable measure of
initial differences in externalizing behavior problems,
however. The results for the first type of analysis (one
disciplinary tactic at a time on the full sample) will be
discussed first because it was used in the original study
[1]. This will be followed by a brief consideration of the
similarities and differences in the alternative types of
analyses, which are summarized in Tables 6 and 7.
Independent Analyses of Disciplinary Tactics in the
Full Sample
The first purpose of this study was to compare the child
outcomes of spanking with outcomes for alternative
disciplinary actions that parents could use instead of
spanking. When analyzed one at a time, more frequent
use of all three types of nonphysical punishment was
associated with higher subsequent antisocial behavior,
with effect sizes similar to spanking, as shown in Table 5.
Table 7 Standardized Regression Coefficients (bs) Predicting 1990 Antisocial Behavior from Four 1988 Disciplinary
Tactics and Psychotherapy by Covariate for Pre-Existing Behavior Problems When Entered Simultaneously (and
Without Interactions)
Covariate for Initial Behavior Problems Spank Grounding Remove Privileges Send to Room Psychotherapy
None
Control only for other tactics .23*** .21*** .02 -.00 .27**
Controlling for other predictors
a
.19*** .18*** .01 .05 .24**
Antisocial Behavior 1988
a
Dichotomous .15*** .17** .02 .02 .22*
Trichotomous .12** .14* .01 .01 .19*
Continuous .12* .15** .02 .00 .19*
Externalizing Behavior 1988
a
Continuous (measured variable) .12* .12
d
.02 .01 .13
Continuous (latent variable)
b
.04 .03 .04 -.05 .02
Gain in Latent Externalizing
c
-.02 -.06 .00 -.03 .02
Note. N= 782, except N= 785 for the structural equation models. A positive bindicates that those receiving the disciplinary tactic in 1988 averaged higher 1990
antisocial behavior than those not receiving that disciplinary tactic, after controlling for the variables indicated. The bs are based on linear associations for the
last 2 rows. The other bs are based on the effect size contrasting the weighted marginal mean antisocial behavior for one or more occurrences of the disciplinary
actions (or seeing a psychotherapist) vs. the mean antisocial behavior associated with no occurrences of the disciplinary action or psychotherapy. In contrast to
Tables 5 and 6, all results control for the other four corrective actions.
a
The “other predictors”were those in the ANCOVA in Straus et al.[1]: gender, ethnicity, SES, cognitive stimulation, and emotional support as well as the other
four corrective actions. The 2-way interactions were not included in any analyses in this table.
b
The latent structural equation modeling analysis estimates linear associations between the frequency of each disciplinary tactic and Antisocial behavior in 1990,
controlling for the other predictors in the model, including latent Externalizing problems, which has three indicators (Antisocial, Hyperactivity, and Headstrong),
with correlated residuals between the latter two subscales. Fit indices: c
2
(22, N= 785) = 47.69, p= .0008; CFI = .974; RMSEA = .040.
c
This row summarizes the only analysis predicting the 16-item Externalizing score in 1990, in this case in terms of gain scores in that latent score from 1988 to
1990 (see Figure 2). Fit indices: c
2
(21, N= 785) = 22.06, p= .34; CFI = .993; RMSEA = .011.
d
P< .10.
*P< .05. **P< .01. ***P< .001.
Larzelere et al.BMC Pediatrics 2010, 10:10
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/10/10
Page 11 of 17
No alternative disciplinary tactic was associated with
significantly lower antisocial behavior, even after
improving the covariate measures. Grounding and psy-
chotherapy were associated with significantly higher
antisocial behavior as often as spanking was. Removing
privileges and sending children to their room did not
have as many significant associations with antisocial
behavior, but their effect sizes were similar to those of
spanking. The effect size (b)forspankingwaswithin
.03 of the mean effect size for the three disciplinary
alternatives when controlling for initial antisocial beha-
vior in various ways. Psychotherapy had consistently
more adverse effect sizes than spanking and the other
disciplinary tactics, except for unadjusted correlations
and the first structural equation model (see the next-to-
last row of Table 5).
Thesecondpurposeofthestudywastoseewhether
the apparent causal effects would remain significant
after improving the covariate measure of pre-existing
antisocial behavior. Consistent with a residual confound-
ing explanation, the apparently adverse effects of all dis-
ciplinary tactics and psychotherapy became non-
significant as the covariate measure of antisocial beha-
vior became more comprehensive and reliable. The non-
significant coefficients changed signs when predicting
simple gain scores in a latent externalizing variable in
the final analysis, consistent with residual confounding
due to selection biases [48,56].
Analyses of the Subsample Receiving Some Disciplinary
Correction
Part of the selection bias occurred because the zero-use
group for each disciplinary tactic included the best-
behaved children whose behavior never led to any of
these disciplinary corrective actions in the referent
week. To evaluate the role of this part of the bias, all
the analyses were repeated for the subsample that
required at least one disciplinary tactic during the refer-
ent week (Table 6). After removing the 27% of the chil-
dren who received no disciplinary tactics, spanking
never predicted significantly greater subsequent antiso-
cial behavior after controlling for initial antisocial beha-
vior. Grounding and psychotherapy showed generally
more adverse effects than spanking, whereas privilege
removal and sending children to their room had smaller
non-significant effect sizes than spanking.
Analyzing All Corrective Actions Simultaneously in the
Full Sample
A second alternative to the original type of analysis was
to include all disciplinary tactics and psychotherapy as
simultaneous predictors in analyses of the full sample.
These analyses accentuated the small differences in
effect sizes, resulting in near-zero effect sizes for
privilege removal and sending children to their room in
all of the analyses (see Table 7). In contrast, spanking,
grounding, and psychotherapy were associated with sig-
nificantly higher subsequent antisocial behavior in most
of the analyses, except when controlling for the most
comprehensive measure of externalizing behavior pro-
blems, especially in its more reliable latent form.
Regardless of the type of analysis, all disciplinary tac-
tics and psychotherapy showed small non-significant
associations with antisocial behavior when the measure
of pre-existing differences maximized comprehensive-
ness and minimized measurement error in the latent
variable analyses in the last two rows of Tables 5, 6, and
7. Moreover, the non-significant associations generally
reversed signs when predicting simple gain scores in the
latent variable of externalizing behavior problems, con-
sistent with small residual selection biases [44,48,56].
These results suggest that the findings of all three types
of analyses are due to residual selection biases that are
minimized by controlling for a latent variable for exter-
nalizing behavior problems to reduce measurement
error and to maximize the comprehensiveness of the
proxy for the selection process.
Differential Selection Biases: Mild vs. Other Corrective
Actions
Why do sending children to their room and privilege
removal appear to have less adverse effects than spank-
ing, grounding, and psychotherapy when using covari-
ates of intermediate adequacy in the latter two types of
analyses (Tables 6 and 7)? The simplest explanation is
that the selection bias is smaller for the two mildest dis-
ciplinary tactics, creating a differential selection bias in
the latter two types of analyses. When each disciplinary
tactic is investigated by itself in the full sample, the
selection bias is enhanced by well-behaved children
requiring no corrective actions in the reporting week.
After removing those best-behaved children, the remain-
ing selection bias is minimal for mild disciplinary tactics.
Grounding and psychotherapy retained some signifi-
cantly adverse effects after dropping the best behaved
children, probably because they tend to be selected for
more problematic misbehavior than are the milder
tactics.
Allowing for each disciplinary tactic to be a statistical
control for the other disciplinary tactics (and psy-
chotherapy) proved to be similar to controlling for
initial antisocial behavior, so that improving the ade-
quacy of the covariate for initial antisocial behavior did
not change the effect sizes orsignificanceasmuchin
Table7asintheoriginalstudy’stypeofanalysesin
Table 5. In fact, privilege removal and sending children
to their room never significantly predicted subsequent
antisocial behavior even when controlling only for the
Larzelere et al.BMC Pediatrics 2010, 10:10
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/10/10
Page 12 of 17
other three corrective actions. In one sense, these results
illustrate the main point of this study, namely that fre-
quencies of disciplinary tactics are confounded with the
behavioral difficulty causing mothers to select those tac-
tics more often. Controlling for the frequency of disci-
plinary responses to more oppositional misbehavior
eliminated the smaller selection bias for the two mildest
disciplinary tactics. In contrast, the generally significant
effects for spanking, grounding, and psychotherapy indi-
cate that, at any level of using the other tactics, more
frequent use of each of those three corrective actions is
associated with greater subsequent antisocial behavior
than is less use of that corrective action. In other words,
given the same degree of behavioral difficulty as indexed
by the other disciplinary tactics, greater use of spanking,
grounding, and psychotherapy is associated with higher
levels of antisocial behavior two years later. But these
adverse effects also seem to be due to residual con-
founding due to selection biases.
There are other indications of a differential selection
bias for the two milder tactics compared to the other
corrective actions. Sending children to their room, for
example, was probably selected for milder behavior pro-
blems than was the typical case for grounding. Sending
children to their room was the most frequently used
tactics, grounding the least used. Sending children to
their room had smaller correlations with antisocial
behavior in 1990 and 1988 than did grounding, although
the difference was smaller for 1988 antisocial behavior.
The most important evidence of a differential selection
bias is that all significant effects disappeared after con-
trolling for a latent variable for externalizing behavior
problems, which maximized the comprehensiveness,
validity, and reliability of the covariate.
In sum, the apparently adverse effects of all these dis-
ciplinary tactics and psychotherapy seem to be due to
selection biases that are stronger for spanking, ground-
ing, and psychotherapy than they are for the two milder
disciplinary tactics. Accordingly, the originally adverse
effects of spanking replicate for grounding and psy-
chotherapy and are marginally adverse for sending chil-
dren to their room (Table 5). Across all analyses,
grounding and psychotherapy showed as many signifi-
cantly adverse effects as spanking. The adverse effects of
all of these corrective actions became smaller and non-
significant when the adequacy of the covariate for pre-
existing antisocial behavior was improved.
Implications
The general failure of spanking to show more adverse
effects than grounding and psychotherapy in our closest
re-analyses in Table 5 is remarkable because the original
study produced the largest estimate of an adverse causal
effect for customary spanking to date [1]. First, the
unadjusted longitudinal correlation in this cohort was
larger than Gershoff’s [5] average for longitudinal stu-
dies of corporal punishment and antisocial outcomes
(d=.56[r= .27] compared to a mean of d=.37[r=
.18]) [63]. Second, this cohort had the largest longitudi-
nal correlation between spanking and subsequent antiso-
cial behavior out of the five NLSY cohorts considered by
Straus et al [1]. Third, the Straus et al. study had stron-
ger and more consistent causal evidence against spank-
ing than any of the other six prospective studies that
have predicted antisocial behavior from customary
spanking of children under the age of 13. Therefore the
generally similar outcomes for grounding, psychother-
apy, and spanking are not due to selecting a sample
with a weak effect for spanking.
These results are all consistent with the conclusion
that the apparent effects of all of these corrective
actions are due to residual confounding from the ten-
dency of more oppositional children to be selected
more often for disciplinary corrective actions and for
professional corrective actions. Statistically controlling
for pre-existing differences reduces this selection bias
confound, but fallible covariate measures do not elimi-
nate it. When initial differences in levels of externalizing
behavior problems were measured more comprehen-
sively and reliably with latent variables, no corrective
action predicted significantly higher antisocial behavior
two years later. This result and the similar pattern of
results for all corrective actions by parents and profes-
sionals are what would be expected if these results were
due to residual confounding with a selection bias.
When we changed the direction of the bias by predict-
ing latent change scores, then the apparent effects of all
of these disciplinary tactics were not only non-signifi-
cant, but reversed the signs of their coefficients. This is
because the usual analyses of residualized gain scores in
net-effects regression is biased against corrective
actions, but analyses of simple gain scores are biased in
favor of them [48,51,64].
Overall, this is the same pattern of evidence found in
a major early evaluation of Head Start, [43] which con-
cluded that the summer version of Head Start was detri-
mental. Similar to Straus et al., [1] the Head Start
evaluation controlled statistically for the major con-
found, which was socioeconomic status. Fortunately,
Campbell and others recognized what has been illu-
strated in the present study - that matching and statisti-
cal controls are only partially adequate in correcting for
this confound - leaving residual confounding, which
Campbell called the under-adjustment bias [44,65].
Similar to the present study, subsequent re-analyses
showed that the apparently detrimental effects of Head
Start disappeared with improved covariate measures, but
the re-analyses never reversed the effect of summer
Head Start into a significantly beneficial effect [66-68].
Larzelere et al.BMC Pediatrics 2010, 10:10
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/10/10
Page 13 of 17
Other research has shown that most of the corrective
actionsinthisstudycanbeusedskillfullytoreduce
behavior problems in children. Beneficial effects have
been demonstrated from more causally conclusive
designs for some psychotherapies, [27,28], time out, [69]
privilege removal, [70] and spanking when used to
enforce time out in clinically defiant 2- to 6-year-olds
[23].
In addition to residual confounding, three other meth-
odological aspects of this type of longitudinal analysis
may suppress the detection of effective corrective
actions. The first aspect that might suppress evidence of
effectiveness is that overly frequent use of any disciplin-
ary tactic reflects less effective ways of implementing it.
Themoreeffectivelyanydisciplinarytacticisused,the
less the child will misbehave and the less often a parent
will need to resort to that disciplinary tactic again.
Therefore more effective use of any disciplinary tactic
will be associated with a lower frequency of using it,
other things being equal. This would be particularly true
of last-resort tactics, such as spanking or psychotherapy.
Frequent use of a last-resort tactic is a symptom of dys-
function in the entire disciplinary system as well as a
symptom of the challenge to that system by the child’s
oppositional behavior.
A second factor that might suppress evidence of effec-
tiveness is that two years is too long an interval to
detect a causal effect of the frequency of any disciplinary
tactic during one week. Many events may occur in the
course of two years that influence antisocial behavior in
the life of a child, including genetic effects, peer effects,
and other parenting effects. These other causal influ-
ences may account for almost all of the development of
antisocial behavior over the next two years, leaving little
more to be explained by how often disciplinary punish-
ments were used during a single week two years earlier.
A third suppressor of effectiveness might be exclusive
reliance on maternal report, which has limited reliability
and some likely biases. It is well known that parental
reports of child behavior problems have low positive
correlations with reports from teachers, children, and
observers (e.g., rs from .25 to .27), although mothers’
and fathers’reports correlate more highly with each
other (r= .59) [71]. By asking how often each disciplin-
ary tactic was used in the past week, the reports about
disciplinary tactics minimize problems of recall and of
subjective generalizations. Limiting parental reports to
specific behaviors in a very recent time period has been
shown to increase the validity of parental reports in
other measures [72]. However, the frequency of use in
one week may not be typical of other weeks. In addition,
there is some evidence that reliance on maternal reports
for all data tends to inflate the evidence of adverse
effects of all disciplinary punishments [73].
Finally, the near-zero effects may represent the aver-
age of effective and ineffective use of these disciplinary
tactics in reducing antisocial behavior. The failure to
find between-tactic differences in effectiveness raises the
possibility that within-tactic differences in how and
when a disciplinary tactic isusedmaybemoreimpor-
tant than which tactic is used. From this perspective,
different ways that parents use these forms of punish-
ment may counterbalance each other, yielding the over-
all non-significant coefficient. This view is consistent
with anecdotes from behavioral parent trainers, who
train parents how to use time out consistently, even
though many referred parents say they have tried time
out previously without success.
Consistent with this last possibility, the meta-analysis by
Larzelere and Kuhn [9] found that the outcomes of physi-
cal punishment compared differently with outcomes of
alternative disciplinary tactics depending upon how physi-
cal punishment was used. Child outcomes of physical pun-
ishment compared unfavorably with alternatives only
when it was used too severely or as the primary discipline
method. The outcomes of customary physical punishment
(e.g., spanking frequency) were equivalent to those of
alternative disciplinary tactics, consistent with the closest
replication of Straus et al. [1] in this study. The meta-ana-
lysis also found that spanking could be more effective than
alternatives when it was used nonabusively to back up
milder disciplinary tactics when 2- to 6-year-olds defiantly
refused to cooperate with them. Such back-up spanking
led to greater reductions in defiance or antisocial behavior
than 10 of 13 alternatives it had been compared with
directly. One advantage of back-up spanking is that it
enhances the subsequent effectiveness of milder disciplin-
ary tactics, such as time out, so that spanking can be
phased out in a matter of weeks [23].
Future research needs to discriminate between effec-
tive and counterproductive ways of implementing all
disciplinary tactics, so that advice to parents can recom-
mend the mildest effective disciplinary tactics for each
situation. Statistically controlled studies of the outcomes
of frequency of usage fail to provide those discrimina-
tions because frequency measures include no informa-
tion about how disciplinary tactics were implemented or
the disciplinary situations for which they were used.
Limitations
Some limitations of this study should be noted. First, all
the data were based on maternal report, identical to the
original study by Straus et al. [1] and all other statisti-
cally controlled longitudinal studies with consistent evi-
dence against customary spanking. It has been shown
that evidence based on a single source of information is
biased against disciplinary tactics [73]. Second, this
study had no data on disciplinary tactics used by fathers,
which was also a limitation in the original study.
Larzelere et al.BMC Pediatrics 2010, 10:10
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/10/10
Page 14 of 17
A third limitation is that we have not duplicated the
original study exactly, although we re-analyzed it as clo-
sely as possible. In contrast to the original study, we
used a log transformation for the antisocial behavior to
reduce the influence of extreme outliers in its skewed
distribution. We also dropped 22 cases (2.7%) because
they had missing data on one or more of the nonphysi-
cal consequences in order to ensure that the compari-
sons among disciplinary tactics were based on exactly
the same sample and types of analyses.
Conclusions
Notwithstanding these limitations, the present study has
shown that the strongest causal evidence against cus-
tomary spanking seems to be due to residual confound-
ing because behaviorally difficult children cause parents
to use all disciplinary corrective actions more frequently.
When the measure of initial child differences is
improved, the evidence against customary spanking
becomes non-significant, as does similar evidence
against grounding and psychotherapy. The apparently
adverse effects become nonsignificant more readily for
the two milder disciplinary tactics, most likely because
of a differential selection bias, because they tend to be
selected more often for milder types of misbehavior
than the other corrective actions.
What are the implications for pediatric advice about
disciplinary guidance for parents of young children? The
disciplinary goal of parents should be to rely as much as
possible on the mildest disciplinary response that will be
effective for maintaining age-appropriate levels of coop-
eration. Verbal correction and reasoning can be effective
for children as young as two years of age, especially if it
is used emphatically and backedupwithnonphysical
consequences when necessary [21,74]. Milder disciplin-
ary consequences, such as sending children to their
room or the more precise version of time out taught by
psychologists, have been consistently recommended for
young children. Time out is a key component of the
most scientifically established parenting treatments for
young children with oppositional defiant disorder, con-
duct disorder, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
[27,28,75]. The only use of spanking that has been
demonstrated to be more effective than alternatives is
when it is used to enforce time out when 2- to 6-year-
olds refuse to comply with it [9]. Parents or pediatri-
cians who are opposed to the spank back-up should be
aware of the one-minute forced room isolation, which is
only alternative shown to be as effective as the spank
back-up for enforcing time out on a chair [23]. Other
enforcements for time out have also been used, but no
other enforcement has been shown to be as effective as
the above two back-ups for time out.
Even though our results do not show spanking to be
causally linked to subsequent antisocial behavior, they
should not be understood as an unqualified endorse-
ment of spanking. In the larger debate on whether or
not governments should prohibit a parent’srightto
retain spanking as one disciplinary option, other factors
outside of the scope of the present study should be con-
sidered, such as relevant moral values and when they
are sufficiently compelling to impose non-spanking
values on all parents. Parents should choose from the
mildest disciplinary tactics that will be effective in any
disciplinary situation, but defiant children need stronger
tactics to enforce milder tactics to achieve that goal [23].
Although non-empirical considerations may support a
ban on spanking, the present study suggests that the
strongest causal evidence against non-abusive spanking
relies on methods that are inadequate for supporting a
general prohibition against spanking or for identifying
alternative disciplinary tactics that parents should use
instead. Future studies need to use improved research
methods to discriminate between effective and counter-
productive disciplinary enforcements of all types to pro-
vide a stronger scientific basis for disciplinary
recommendations, whether parents choose to include
spanking as one of their disciplinary options or not.
List of Abbreviations Used
NLSY: National Longitudinal Survey of Youth; HOME:
Home Observation for Measurement of the Environ-
ment; SES: Socio-Economic Status; SEM: Structural
Equation Modeling.
Acknowledgements
We thank the Center for Human Resource Research, Ohio State University for
permission to use data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. We
gratefully acknowledge financial support from Oklahoma State University for
the final revisions of this manuscript.
Author details
1
Department of Human Development and Family Science, 233 HES Bldg.,
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA.
2
Girls and Boys Town,
Boys Town, NE 68010, USA.
Authors’contributions
REL planned, designed, and implemented the study. RBC had a major role in
working with REL in revising and finalizing the manuscript. GLS did most of
the initial analyses under the supervision of REL. The final manuscript was
read and approved by all authors.
Authors’information
REL is Associate Professor in the Dept. of Human Development and Family
Science (HDFS) at Oklahoma State University. He was a member of the
recent Task Force on Physical Punishment of the Child Maltreatment section
of Division 37 of the American Psychological Association. RBC is an Assistant
Professor in the Dept. of HDFS at Oklahoma State University. GLS is a Senior
Research Analyst at Girls and Boys Town, Boys Town, NE, USA.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Larzelere et al.BMC Pediatrics 2010, 10:10
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/10/10
Page 15 of 17
Received: 10 April 2009
Accepted: 22 February 2010 Published: 22 February 2010
References
1. Straus MA, Sugarman DB, Giles-Sims J: Spanking by parents and
subsequent antisocial behavior of children. Archives of Pediatrics and
Adolescent Medicine 1997, 151:761-767.
2. Straus MA, Stewart JH: Corporal punishment by American parents:
National data on prevalence, chronicity, severity, and duration, in
relation to child and family characteristics. Clinical Child and Family
Psychology Review 1999, 2:55-70.
3. Center for Effective Discipline: Legal reforms 2010http://www.stophitting.
com/index.php?page=laws-main.
4. McCormick KF: Attitudes of primary care physicians toward corporal
punishment. Journal of the American Medical Association 1992,
267:3161-3165.
5. Gershoff ET: Corporal punishment by parents and associated child
behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review.
Psychological Bulletin 2002, 128:539-579.
6. Gershoff ET: Report on physical punishment in the United States: What
research tells us about its effects on children Columbus, OH: Center for
Effective Discipline 2008.
7. Larzelere RE: A review of the outcomes of parental use of nonabusive or
customary physical punishment. Pediatrics 1996, 98:824-828.
8. Larzelere RE: Child outcomes of nonabusive and customary physical
punishment by parents: An updated literature review. Clinical Child and
Family Psychology Review 2000, 3:199-221.
9. Larzelere RE, Kuhn BR: Comparing child outcomes of physical punishment
and alternative disciplinary tactics: A meta-analysis. Clinical Child and
Family Psychology Review 2005, 8:1-37.
10. Horn IB, Joseph JG, Cheng TL: Nonabusive physical punishment and child
behavior among African-American children: A systematic review. Journal
of the National Medical Association 2004, 96:1162-1168.
11. Paolucci EO, Violato C: A meta-analysis of the published research on the
affective, cognitive, and behavioral effects of corporal punishment.
Journal of Psychology 2004, 138:197-221.
12. Friedman SB, Schonberg SK: Proceedings of a conference on “The short-
and long-term consequences of corporal punishment”.Pediatrics 1996,
98:803-860.
13. Baumrind D: A blanket injunction against disciplinary use of spanking is
not warranted by the data. Pediatrics 1996, 98:828-831.
14. Polite K: Response: The medium/the message: Corporal punishment, an
empirical critique. Pediatrics 1996, 98:849-851.
15. Cohen P: How can generative theories of the effects of punishment be
tested?. Pediatrics 1996, 98:834-836.
16. Hyman IA: Using research to change policy: Reflections on 20 years of
effort to eliminate corporal punishment in the schools. Pediatrics 1996,
98:834-836.
17. Friedman SB, Schonberg SK: Consensus statements. Pediatrics 1996,
98:852-853.
18. Bollen CW, Hoekstra MO, Arets HGM: Pooling of studies in meta-analysis
of observational research leads to precise but spurious results
[correspondence]. Pediatrics 2006, 117:261-262.
19. Egger M, Schneider M, Smith CD: Spurious precision? Meta-analysis of
observational studies. British Medical Journal 1998, 316:140-144.
20. Larzelere RE, Kuhn BR, Johnson B: The intervention selection bias: An
underrecognized confound in intervention research. Psychological Bulletin
2004, 130:289-303.
21. Larzelere RE, Sather PR, Schneider WN, Larson DB, Pike PL: Punishment
enhances reasoning’s effectiveness as a disciplinary response to
toddlers. Journal of Marriage and the Family 1998, 60:388-403.
22. Tennant FS Jr, Detels R, Clark V: Some childhood antecedents of drug and
alcohol abuse. American Journal of Epidemiology 1975, 102:377-385.
23. Roberts MW, Powers SW: Adjusting chair timeout enforcement
procedures for oppositional children. Behavior Therapy 1990, 21:257-271.
24. Bean AW, Roberts MW: The effect of time-out release contingencies on
changes in child noncompliance. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology
1981, 9:95-105.
25. Day DE, Roberts MW: An analysis of the physical punishment component
of a parent training program. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 1983,
11:141-152.
26. Roberts MW: Enforcing chair timeouts with room timeouts. Behavior
Modification 1988, 12:353-370.
27. Eyberg SM, Nelson MM, Boggs SR: Evidence-based psychosocial
treatments for children and adolescents with disruptive behavior.
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 2008, 37:215-237.
28. Pelham WE Jr, Fabiano GA: Evidence-based psychosocial treatments for
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology 2008, 37:184-214.
29. Straus MA: New evidence for the benefits of never spanking. Society
2001, 38:52-60.
30. Lansford JE, Criss MM, Pettit GS, Dodge KA, Bates JE: Friendship quality,
peer group affiliation, and peer antisocial behavior as moderators of the
link between negative parenting and later adolescent externalizing
behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence 2003, 13:161-184.
31. Lansford JE, Deater-Deckard K, Dodge KA, Bates JE, Pettit GS: Ethnic
differences in the link between physical discipline and later adolescent
externalizing behaviors. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry 2004,
45:801-812.
32. Brendgen M, Vitaro F, Tremblay RE, Wanner B: Parent and peer effects on
delinquency-related violence and dating violence: A test of two
mediational models. Social Development 2002, 11:225-244.
33. Fine SE, Trentacosta CJ, Izard CE, Mostow AJ, Campbell JL: Anger
perception, caregivers’use of physical discipline, and aggression in
children at risk. Social Development 2004, 13:213-228.
34. Lau AS, Litrownik AJ, Newton RR, Black MM, Everson MD: Factors affecting
the link between physical discipline and child externalizing problems in
Black and White families. Journal of Community Psychology 2006,
34:89-103.
35. Lengua LJ: Anxiousness, frustration, and effortful control as moderators
of the relation between parenting and adjustment in middle-childhood.
Social Development 2008, 17:554-577.
36. Pardini DA, Lochman JE, Powell N: The development of callous-
unemotional traits and antisocial behavior in children: Are there shared
and/or unique predictors?. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent
Psychology 2007, 36:319-333.
37. Schmitz MF: Influences of race and family environment on child
hyperactivity and antisocial behavior. Journal of Marriage and Family 2003,
65:835-849.
38. Eamon MK: Poverty, parenting, peer, and neighborhood influences on
young adolescent antisocial behavior. Journal of Social Service Research
2001, 28:1-23.
39. Hao LX, Matsueda RL: Family dynamics through childhood: A sibling
model of behavior problems. Social Science Research 2006, 35:500-524.
40. Mulvaney MK, Mebert CJ: Parental corporal punishment predicts behavior
problems in early childhood. Journal of Family Psychology 2007,
21:389-397.
41. Gunnoe ML, Mariner CL: Toward a developmental-contextual model of
the effects of parental spanking on children’s aggression. Archives of
Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 1997, 151:768-775.
42. Rothman KJ, Greenland S: Modern epidemiology Philadelphia: Lippincott-
Raven, 2 1998.
43. Westinghouse Learning Corporation & Ohio University: The impact of Head
Start: An evaluation of the effects of Head Start on children’s cognitive and
affective development Athens, OH: Authors 1969.
44. Campbell DT, Boruch RF: Making the case for randomized assignment to
treatments by considering the alternatives: Six ways in which quasi-
experimental evaluations in compensatory education tend to
underestimate effects. Evaluation and experiment: Some critical issues in
assessing social programs New York: Academic PressBennett CA, Lumsdaine
AA 1975, 195-296.
45. Heckman JJ: Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica
1979, 47:153-161.
46. Freedman DA: Statistical models and shoe leather. Sociological
methodology Oxford, England: BlackwellMarsden PV 1991, 21:291-313.
47. Campbell DT, Kenny DA: A primer on regression artifacts New York: Guilford
Press 1999.
48. Larzelere RE, Ferrer E, Kuhn BR, Danelia K: Differences in causal estimates
from longitudinal analyses of residualized vs. simple gain scores:
Contrasting controls for selection and regression artifacts. International
Journal of Behavioral Development .
49. Bollen KA: Structural equations with latent variables New York: Wiley 1989.
Larzelere et al.BMC Pediatrics 2010, 10:10
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/10/10
Page 16 of 17
50. Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT: Experimental and quasi-experimental
designs for generalized causal inference Boston: Houghton Mifflin 2002.
51. Lambert EW, Bickman L: Risk adjusted mental health outcomes: Ritual or
solution. 14th annual research conference, A System of Care for Children’s
Mental Health: Expanding the Research Base, University of South Florida;
March; Tampa University of South Florida 2001.
52. Allison PD: Change scores as dependent variables in regression analysis.
Sociological methodology 1990 Oxford, UK: BlackwellClogg C 1990, 93-114.
53. Maris E: Covariance adjustment versus gain scores –Revisited.
Psychological Methods 1998, 3:309-327.
54. Rogosa DR, Willett JB: Understanding correlates of change by modeling
individual differences in growth. Psychometrika 1985, 50:203-228.
55. Haviland AM, Nagin DS, Rosenbaum PR: Combining propensity score
matching and group-based trajectory analysis in an observational study.
Psychological Methods 2007, 12:247-267.
56. Berger LM, Bruch SK, Johnson EI, James S, Rubin D: Estimating the ‘impact’
of out-of-home placement on child well-being: Approaching the
problem of selection bias. Child Development 2009, 80:1856-1876.
57. Capaldi DM: Reviewers’report. BMC Pediatrics 2009.
58. Baker PC, Keck CK, Mott FL, Quinlan SV: NLSY Child handbook: A guide to the
1986-1990 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: Child data. Rev. edn
Columbus, OH: Center for Human Resource Research, Ohio State University
1993.
59. Caldwell BM, Bradley RH: Home Observation for Measurement of the
Environment. Rev. edn Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas at Little Rock
1984.
60. Straus MA: Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in American
families and its effects on children New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2 2001.
61. Johnson BT: DSTAT: Software for the meta-analytic review of research
literatures Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum 1989.
62. Pedhazur EJ: Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and
prediction Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 3 1997,
309-312.
63. Baumrind D, Larzelere RE, Cowan PA: Ordinary physical punishment: Is it
harmful? Comment on Gershoff (2002). Psychological Bulletin 2002,
128:580-589.
64. Lord FM: A paradox in the interpretation of group comparisons.
Psychological Bulletin 1967, 68:304-305.
65. Campbell DT, Erlebacher AE: How regression artifacts in quasi-
experimental evaluations can mistakenly make compensatory education
look harmful. Disadvantaged child: Compensatory education: A national
debate New York: Brunner/MazelHellmuth J 1970, 3:185-210.
66. Magidson J: Toward a causal model approach for adjusting for
preexisting differences in the nonequivalent control group situation: A
general alternative to ANCOVA. Evaluation Quarterly 1977, 1:399-420.
67. Magidson J: On models used to adjust for preexisting differences.
Research design: Donald Campbell’s legacy Thousand Oaks, CA: SageBickman
L 2000, 181-194.
68. Wu P, Campbell DT: Extending latent variable LISREL analyses of the
1969 Westinghouse Head Start evaluation to Blacks and full year Whites.
Evaluation & Program Planning 1996, 19:183-191.
69. Brantner JP, Doherty MA: A review of timeout: A conceptual and
methodological analysis. The effects of punishment on human behavior
New York: Academic PressAxelrod S, Apsche J 1983, 87-132.
70. Pazulinec R, Meyerrose M, Sajwaj T: Punishment via response cost. The
effects of punishment on human behavior New York: Academic PressAxelrod
S, Apsche J 1983, 71-86.
71. Achenbach TM, McConaughy SH, Howell CT: Child/adolescent behavioral
and emotional problems: Implications of cross-informant correlations for
situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin 1987, 101:213-232.
72. Chamberlain P, Reid JB: Parent observation and report of child
symptoms. Behavior Assessment 1987, 9:97-109.
73. Yarrow MR, Campbell JD, Burton RV: Child rearing: An inquiry into research
and methods San Francisco: Jossey-Bass 1968.
74. Zahn-Waxler C, Radke-Yarrow M, King R: Child rearing and children’s
prosocial initiations toward victims of distress. Child Development 1979,
50:319-330.
75. American Academy of Pediatrics: Guidance for effective discipline.
Pediatrics 1998, 101:723-728.
Pre-publication history
The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.
biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/10/10/prepub
doi:10.1186/1471-2431-10-10
Cite this article as: Larzelere et al.: Do nonphysical punishments reduce
antisocial behavior more than spanking? a comparison using the
strongest previous causal evidence against spanking. BMC Pediatrics
2010 10:10.
Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central
and take full advantage of:
• Convenient online submission
• Thorough peer review
• No space constraints or color figure charges
• Immediate publication on acceptance
• Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar
• Research which is freely available for redistribution
Submit your manuscript at
www.biomedcentral.com/submit
Larzelere et al.BMC Pediatrics 2010, 10:10
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/10/10
Page 17 of 17
