Department of Human Development and Family Science, Oklahoma State University.
Department of Psychology, Calvin College.
Am Psychol. 2019 May-Jun;74(4):497-499. doi: 10.1037/amp0000461.
Gershoff et al. (2018) recently summarized the scientific evidence against disciplinary spanking, using epidemiological and psychological criteria for causal validity. Unfortunately, the evidence they cited would make most actions to correct serious problems to be harmful, whether implemented by parents (e.g., timeout) or professionals. The reason is that the type of evidence that Gershoff et al. consider adequate is insufficient for establishing a causal connection between any disciplinary response to persistent defiance and problem behaviors in children, whether that response is spanking or an effective alternative to spanking. Before opposing a widespread practice such as spanking, researchers need to document stronger causal evidence against it and identify an alternative demonstrated to be more effective. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
格斯霍夫等人（2018 年）最近根据因果有效性的流行病学和心理学标准，总结了反对纪律性打屁股的科学证据。不幸的是，他们引用的证据表明，大多数纠正严重问题的行为都是有害的，无论是由父母（例如，罚站）还是专业人士实施的。原因是，格斯霍夫等人认为足够的证据类型不足以在任何针对持续反抗和儿童问题行为的纪律性反应（无论是打屁股还是打屁股的有效替代方法）与儿童的问题行为之间建立因果关系。在反对打屁股等普遍做法之前，研究人员需要记录更有力的反对此类做法的因果证据，并确定一种被证明更有效的替代方法。（APA，2019 年，所有权利保留）。
