The Science and Statistics Behind Spanking Suggests that

11-FULLER_FINAL_AFTERPROOF.DOC 2/17/2009 8:50 AM
314 AKRON LAW REVIEW [42:243
Throughout Dr. Baumrind’s study, children in authoritative families
had the highest optimism, highest academic achievement, and highest
self-esteem. 390 By contrast, children that were given high demands but
not much love didn’t turn out as well. 391 And children from permissive
homes that were given a lot of love but not much responsibility didn’t
turn out as well either. 392 These generalizations applied regardless of the
child’s gender, and regardless of whether the family was separated or
intact. 393
Dr. Baumrind’s study validates the authoritative parenting model
that balances love and firm guidance. 394 This is virtually the same model
to which Dr. Spock dedicated most of his career. 395 To him, good child
development depended largely on the “clarity and consistency of the
parents’ leadership [and on] whether the spanking parent was generally
kind and devoted. . . .” 396 He believed that the “[i]nability to be firm
[was] the commonest problem of parents in America.” 397
390. See, e.g., Baumrind, Influence, supra note 337, at 62 (“Children from authoritative homes
have consistently been found to be more instrumentally competent—agentic, communal, and
cognitively competent—than other children . . . .”); id. at 69-71 (showing that children of
authoritative parents overall showed the greatest maturity, optimism, self-esteem, cognitive
motivation, and academic achievement, among other things).
391. See, e.g., BAUMRIND, OPTIMAL CAREGIVING, supra note 388, at 70 (saying that for
preadolescents in Baumrind’s middle-class population, “[p]arents who were highly demanding but
not responsive (the restrictive pattern and the authoritarian prototype) were likely to have daughters
who were socially assertive and not highly socially responsible, but sons who did not differ from
other boys.” As those children reached adolescence, they “had more internalizing problem
behaviors and were more likely to engage in heavy drug use.”).
392. See, e.g., Baumrind, Influence, supra note 337, at 63 (“Preschool and primary school girls
from permissive homes, compared to those from authoritative homes, were markedly less selfassertive,
and preschool children of both sexes were less cognitively competent.”); Spock, Bratty
Child, supra note 25, at 31 (“[P]arental submissiveness doesn’t avoid unpleasantness; it makes it
inevitable.”).
393. See BAUMRIND, OPTIMAL CAREGIVING, supra note 388, at 70 (saying these
generalizations regarding adolescents’ drug use, behavior, and competence “applied to both sexes,
and to intact and separated families.”).
394. See, e.g., Baumrind, Discipline Controversy, supra note 157, at 405 (saying the
authoritative model “rejects both extremes of the authoritarian-permissive (or conservative-liberal)
polarity, representing instead an integration of opposing unbalanced childrearing positions.”).
395. See, e.g., supra note 24 and accompanying text.
396. See, e.g., id.
397. Spock, Bratty Child, supra note 25, at 29 (also saying, “The commonest reason . . . why
parents can’t be firm is that they’re afraid that if they insist, their children will resent them or at
least won’t love them as much . . . . [O]ne basic reason—conscious or unconscious—why these
parents are afraid of their children is that they don’t want to stir up the same kinds of arguments and
disagreeableness that used to occur between them and their own parents . . . . A firm, calm approach
makes the child much more likely to co-operate—politely, promptly and completely . . . I know this
is true. I’ve seen it work not just hundreds but thousands of times. Parental firmness also makes for