Surprise, surprise: Kids beaten by their parents show more aggressive behaviour.

Now researchers at Tulane University provide the strongest evidence yet against the use of spanking: of the nearly 2,500 youngsters in the study, those who were spanked more frequently at age 3 were more likely to be aggressive by age 5. The research supports earlier work on the pitfalls of corporal punishment, including a study by Duke University researchers that revealed that infants who were spanked at 12 months scored lower on cognitive tests at age 3.

“I’m excited by the idea that there is now some nice hard data that can back up clinicians when they share their caution with parents against using corporal punishment,” says Dr. Jayne Singer, clinical director of the child and parent program at Children’s Hospital Boston, who was not involved in the study.

I’m secretly excited too.

“The odds of a child being more aggressive at age 5 if he had been spanked more than twice in the month before the study began increased by 50%,” says Taylor. And because her group also accounted for varying levels of natural aggression in children, the researchers are confident that “it’s not just that children who are more aggressive are more likely to be spanked.”

I’ve got a couple of great boys who I really respect as people, and who themselves are respectful. They’re not great at all of life’s tasks yet, but I’m not either. I’m not exactly sure how they turned out the way they have, but I do know that I’ve never hit them.

We all want our kids to know that there are consequences for their actions, but hitting them is a lousy consequence. It harms the relationship between parent and child, and a strong relationship is a major way to have input and influence on the child’s life.

There are better consequences than hitting. Good consequences are related to the behaviour. If toys aren’t put away, then the toys go away for a while, after a warning. And we need to let kids enjoy the good consequences of their actions: if they get ready for bed quickly, it’s more story-time.

It’s also good to play “What Happens Next”. “What might happen if we don’t lock the car?” “What do you think would happen if we left the milk out of the refrigerator?” This gets them thinking about the natural consequences of actions, instead of the artificial consequences that come from beatings.

I’ve heard parents respond to this in various ways:

“If they do something dangerous, like run into the road, they need a smack to tell them it’s not okay.

If the child is doing something dangerous, then we as parents need to control the environment so they can’t hurt themselves. We’re the big people; we can make the choices about the environment. We can make sure that doors are locked, that enticing delicate objects are out of reach. It’s hard to do, but good parenting is effortful.

“But children can’t reason at that age, and a smack is a direct way to communicate to the child.”

I suppose it’s true that children aren’t good at reasoning. This is why we teach them. We slowly and laboriously teach them all the things they need to do in their lives, including tying shoes, long division, toilet training, and riding a bike. Why do parents take an easy way out instead of teaching reasoning and logic, which is a skill more important than all those others? Perhaps because it’s the parenting we got, or perhaps because it’s considered acceptable by some.

But hopefully, as we get more knowledge about how violence against children affects their lives and their behaviour, it will become less and less acceptable.