The Efficacy and Acceptance of Corporal Punishment of Boys:
Differences in 'Aloof' vs. 'Affectionate' Modalities
By Grace Bracken, Ph.D.
University of Dixieland

PURPOSE: Corporal punishment (CP) of children remains controversial,
with many studies indicating negative long-term impact: low
self-esteem, aggression, alcoholism, substance abuse, and sexual
fetishes (e.g., masochism). Nevertheless, over 90% of American parents
use CP. This study investigated modality of CP (aloof vs. affectionate)
on boys' attitudes, behavior, and acceptance of punishments.

METHOD: Thirty women's studies graduate students at a U.S. southeastern
university served as childcare providers (CCPs) for six months in
households of single-parent mothers working outside the home. During
the study, CCPs administered all punishments in the households.
Households were randomly assigned to three treatment (T) conditions. In
T1, the no-CP control treatment, CCPs used scoldings and time-outs
instead of CPs. In T2, the aloof-CP treatment, CCPs administered CP to
the bare gluteus maximus ('pantsdowners') on boys (aged 5-14) with
standardized paddles (18" X 6" X 1/4") coupled with no other physical
contact. In T3, the affectionate-CP treatment, CCPs administered
pantsdowners on boys with standardized paddles, coupled with physical
affection (hugs and kisses) before and after CP.

RESULTS: CCPs administered 3,881 CP episodes over six months (mean =
6.22 CPs/week/subject). T3 subjects received significantly more
punishments (mean=9.73 CPs/subject/week) than T2 subjects (mean=3.07
CPs/subject/week), t = 12.37, d.f. = 22, p < .01. CCPs and mothers used
the standardized Punishment Outcome Profile (POP) index to evaluate
impact. The Behavior, Attitude, and Discipline (BAD) sub-index (1-100
points) measures subjects' undesirable behaviors and attitudes that
require discipline (punishments). Boys in T2 (mean=29.7) and T3
(mean=19.1) posted significantly lower BAD scores than those in T1
(mean=79.9), F (2, 33) = 173.42, p < .01. However, when comparing the
Personal Acceptance of Discipline (PAD) sub-index (degree to which
subjects considered their punishments 'fair' and 'necessary'), boys in
T3 posted the highest PAD scores whereas boys in T2 posted the lowest
PAD scores; T1 boys posted scores in the middle. Differences were
statistically significant, F (2, 33) = 8.32, p < .05.

POST HOC ANALYSIS: Several subjects in T2 and T3 engaged in CP
Involuntary Urination (CPIU) at the outset of the study. This behavior
was fully extinguished by more intensive follow-up CP, as consequences
for CPIU. Unexpectedly, older subjects (mean age = 10.9 years) in T3
reported false misconduct, resulting in CP. When detecting false
reports, T3 CCPs reduced such aberrant behavior somewhat by very
intensive follow-up CP. However, half of T3 subjects (n=6) continued
reporting false misconduct over six months, despite frequent follow-up
CP for each subject (mean = 12.87 CPs/subject/week). T3 CCPs also
reported Involuntary Erectile Responses (IER) of subjects during pre-
and/or post-CP affection, mitigating this response for some boys with a
sharp fingernail flick against the IER. However, T3 subjects who
falsely reported misconduct continued to exhibit IERs during CP
episodes, despite corrections (fingernail flicks).

DISCUSSION: Affectionate-CP seems most efficacious; subjects readily
accept this punishment modality. However, affectionate-CP required 300%
more CP episodes to achieve impact and resulted in certain undesired
side effects (e.g., IER, false misconduct reports). Clearly, further
research is needed.