Here are some problems with this study. First of all, I didn’t see a definition of “smacking” which could be a little tap or a bash on the face—we don’t know. The variable that makes up this study is faulty. The second big problem with this study is that it seems to depend on people remembering if they were hit, and how and when—how dependable is that?. Thirdly, even the results of this study are negative about “smacking” if you read what the results show. Those children “smacked” between (their memory) ages between 2 and 6, were not damaged. But the results of older children were not good if they remembered being hit from seven up.
Unfortunately, the headlines, and lack of critical reading of the “study” will give people the idea that “smacking” is fine. Too bad. It’s not. Penelope Leache is completely correct.
Here’s what the study said:
“Teenagers who had been smacked only when they were aged two to six performed slightly better on almost every positive measure and no worse on the negative measures than those who had never been smacked.
“The results were less clear for a separate group of teenagers who had been smacked until they were slightly older — aged seven to 11. They fared slightly worse on negative behaviour scores — they reported being involved in more fights, for example — but were also likely to be more academically successful than those who had not been smacked.
“Teenagers who were still being smacked, however, scored significantly worse than every group on all the measures. Gunnoe found little difference in the results between boys and girls and between racial groups.”