Spanking and child outcomes: old controversies and new meta-analyses
75 studies, 111 effect sizes, 160,927 children; spanking defined as hitting a child on the buttocks or extremities with an open hand; 13 of 17 mean effect sizes significant and all detrimental, overall d = .33; immediate defiance d = .14, CI -.19 to .47; spanking and physical abuse both detrimental in 7 studies measuring both (d = .25 against .38); authors note randomised designs are not ethical and longitudinal links do not rule out child elicitation effects.
75 studies, 111 effect sizes, 160,927 children; spanking defined as hitting a child on the buttocks or extremities with an open hand; 13 of 17 mean effect sizes significant and all detrimental, overall d = .33; immediate defiance d = .14, CI -.19 to .47; spanking and physical abuse both detrimental in 7 studies measuring both (d = .25 against .38); authors note randomised designs are not ethical and longitudinal links do not rule out child elicitation effects.
Written from the full text read 2026-10-15.
What our sources record
Reproduced as it was written when this source was checked, figures and all.
doi:10.1037/fam0000191. Full text read (PMC7992110): 75 studies, 111 effect sizes, 160,927 children; spanking defined as hitting a child on the buttocks or extremities with an open hand; 13 of 17 mean effect sizes significant and all detrimental, overall d = .33; immediate defiance d = .14, CI -.19 to .47; spanking and physical abuse both detrimental in 7 studies measuring both (d = .25 against .38); authors note randomised designs are not ethical and longitudinal links do not rule out child elicitation effects.