This article was downloaded by: [University of New Hampshire]On: 24 November 2014, At: 14:29Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Social Work in Health CarePublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wshc20

Parenting Online and LayLiterature on Infant Spanking:Information Readily Availableto ParentsDaphne S. Cain PhD aa Louisiana State University , Baton Rouge, LouisianaPublished online: 11 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Daphne S. Cain PhD (2008) Parenting Online and Lay Literature onInfant Spanking: Information Readily Available to Parents, Social Work in Health Care,47:2, 174-184, DOI: 10.1080/00981380801970343

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00981380801970343

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or

indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

14:

29 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Social Work in Health Care, Vol. 47(2) 2008Available online at http://swhc.haworthpress.com

© 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.174 doi:10.1080/00981380801970343

WSHC0098-13891541-034XSocial Work in Health Care, Vol. 47, No. 2, May 2008: pp. 1–19Social Work in Health Care

Parenting Online and Lay Literature on Infant Spanking: Information Readily

Available to ParentsDaphne S. CainSOCIAL WORK IN HEALTH CARE Daphne S. Cain, PhD

ABSTRACT. Professional consensus exists against the spanking ofinfants based on the risk of escalation and injury. Moreover, infants areunable to recognize connections between their behavior and punishmentand to modify their behavior in response. However, pediatricians and otherhealth care professionals do not frequently discuss the issue of infantspanking with parents. Meanwhile, parents are increasingly seeking parent-ing information from other sources including the Internet and lay parentingbooks. Using content analysis methodology, online parenting sites andpopular “how to” parenting books were reviewed with regard to the advis-ability of corporal punishment with infants. Results reveal that although thevast majority of online and popular print literature on infant parenting isdevelopmentally sound, a small constituency of spanking advocates doesexist. Given that some of the information available to parents contradictsprofessional consensus against the spanking of infants, it seems importantfor professionals concerned with the well being of infants to address thegaps in information and inherent dangers of infant spanking.

KEYWORDS. Infant spanking, online parenting sites, popular parentingliterature

Daphne S. Cain is an Assistant Professor at Louisiana State University, BatonRouge, Louisiana.

The author thanks Terri Combs-Orme, PhD, for reviewing an earlier versionof this article.

Address correspondence to: Daphne S. Cain, PhD, Louisiana State University,311 Huey P. Long Field House, Baton Rouge, LA 70803 (E-mail: dscain@lsu.edu).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

14:

29 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Daphne S. Cain 175

INTRODUCTION

Pediatricians and other health care professionals disagree about corpo-ral punishment—used here to refer to non-abusive “ordinary” physicalpunishment that does not cause injury—of children (Benjet & Kazdin,2003; Trumbull, Larzelere, Wolraich, & Trumbull, 1999). Indeed, untilthe 1920s and 1930s and the advent of Freudian psychiatry and the childdevelopment field, pediatrics appeared to consider the subject to be out-side their professional arena (Evans & Fargason, 1998). Even up until thepopularity of Dr. Benjamin Spock’s child-rearing advice in the 1950s(Spock, 1955), corporal punishment was not questioned. However, withthe “discovery” of child abuse in the 1960s, discussion began about thenegative emotional and relationship effects of corporal punishment, andEvans and Fargason (1998) noted that the pediatric literature began to dis-cuss the “permissible administration of physical discipline” (p. 365).

At this time there is no consensus among pediatricians about the advis-ability of corporal punishment, particularly for children from toddlerhoodup to adolescence, and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) hasdeclined to issue a universal recommendation against it (American Acad-emy of Pediatrics Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and FamilyHealth, 1998). Research on the effects has been mixed, with some indica-tions that corporal punishment may lead to aggressiveness and otherundesirable outcomes in children (Flynn, 1996); but contradictory find-ings and inherent methodological issues (Benjet & Kazdin, 2003) thatmake the research difficult to interpret support Baumrind’s (1996) decla-ration that, “A blanket injunction against disciplinary use of spanking isnot warranted by the data” (p. 828).

Professional consensus does exist, however, against the spanking ofinfants. The American Academy of Pediatrics specifically warns againstcorporal punishment with infants (Consensus Statements, 1996) basedon the risk of escalation and injury and the fact that infants are unable torecognize connections between their behavior and punishment and tomodify their behavior in response. Others also cite risks associated withphysical discipline to infants’ sense of security and attachment to theirparents (Slade & Wissow, 2004). Indeed, the AAP’s Committee onPsychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health (1998) recommendsthat early discipline be based on the structuring of routines and the envi-ronment to keep infants safe: “A firm ‘no’ helps prepare an infant forreasoning, but parents should not expect it to control infants’ and tod-dlers’ behavior” (p. 723).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

14:

29 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

176 SOCIAL WORK IN HEALTH CARE

Perhaps due to the controversies over the appropriateness of corporalpunishment, pediatricians and other health care professionals do not fre-quently discuss the issue with parents. Olson et al. (2004) surveyed bothparents and physicians about the content of well-child visits for childrenfrom 4 to 36 months of age. For all ages of children, “guidance and disci-pline” was the second most infrequently discussed topic (ranging from43.2% according to parents of 10–18-month- old children to 63.7%according to pediatricians for that same age group). And, guidance and dis-cipline was not even included among the list of topics for parents of infantsfrom 4 to 9 months. Similarly, Wissow (2002) reported from the Common-wealth Survey of Parents with Young Children that only 23% of parentsreported ever talking to a health professional about discipline. Moreover,Bethell, Reuland, Halfon, and Schor (2004) utilized data from the NationalSurvey on Early Childhood Health (N = 2068) to calculate composite per-formance measures that represented 23 topics included in the AmericanAcademy of Pediatrics health supervision guidelines. Their resultsrevealed that while performance was high in the areas of family-centeredcare (i.e., pediatrician takes time to understand the needs of the child, pedi-atrician respects the parent as the expert about his or her child, and pedia-trician asks parent how he or she is feeling as a parent) and screening forsmoking and drug and alcohol use in the home, performance was lowest inthe areas of anticipatory guidance and parental education, including disci-pline techniques, and assessment for family psychosocial risks.

Although they do not frequently speak with their pediatricians andhealth care professionals about these issues, parents may seek informationfrom other sources, including the Internet and lay parenting books. Indeeda recent news article revealed the advent of “mommy blogs” designed forparents to swap tales of parenting and parenthood, and the growing popu-larity of online parenting and news sites (Gold, 2007). Indeed, a review ofTechnorati, an Internet search engine for searching blogs reveals 13,972active “mommy blogs” (Technorati, 2007), and the sheer number ofparenting books suggests a vast paying clientele for the material. Thus,pediatricians and other health professionals, including social workers,should be aware of the information parents may be receiving.

METHODOLOGY

Using content analysis methodology, a Google Internet Web searchrevealed over 127,000 links in association with the combinations of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

14:

29 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Daphne S. Cain 177

words “infants and corporal punishment” and “infants and spanking.”When the key words were changed to “babies and corporal punishment”and “babies and spanking,” over 1,400,000 links were revealed.

Google uses PageRankTM to rank Web pages (Google Technology,2007). PageRank “relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web byusing its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page’s value”(p. 1). More than just the sheer volume of votes cast for a page, PageRankanalyzes the Web page that voted for the Web page hit, thus, pages thatare “important” weigh more heavily and add influence. In this way Googleprovides more important pages’ relative to a search first (Google Tech-nology, 2007). Thus the Web pages displayed first are consideredby PageRank as the most important and relevant to the search so thathigh-quality websites relevant to the search are provided first (GoogleTechnology, 2007). For this content analysis, the first 100 Web pageslisted in each of the Google searches were analyzed.

RESULTS

A review of the online parenting sites reveals that most parenting infor-mation is developmentally sound (73%): Infants should never be spankedbecause they cannot make the connection between their actions and thepunishment (Reagan, 2002); spanking an infant is developmentally inap-propriate (Baker, n.d.); and spanking can cause serious injury or death(UCSF Children’s Hospital Patient Education, 2002). Alternative disci-pline techniques for infants include preventing the “misbehavior” (includ-ing child proofing the home so an infant can explore safely), ignoringbehavior, distracting or redirecting the child, and positive reinforcement fordesired behavior (Banks & Guillen, 2002; Civitas, n.d.; Warm ConsistentDiscipline, n.d).

However, a small constituency of spanking advocates—27% of thewebsites reviewed—also exists on the Internet. These self-identifiedChristian child-rearing experts advise that all children emerge from thewomb as sinners and must be “trained” from infancy to submit to authority(Mohler, 2004). Such training is designed to prepare children to makeproper decisions as adults (Pearl, 2000). Rooted in fundamentalist Christianconvictions and using Biblical references, these advocates speak of thevirtues of using the “rod” from birth to 7 years of age to produce a con-trolled learning environment for children, contending that God commandsparents to use the rod in child training and that the rod assures a child of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

14:

29 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

178 SOCIAL WORK IN HEALTH CARE

his or her parent’s love (Pearl, 2000). Hyles (n.d.—b) states that parentsmust inflict pain of some kind, including physical pain, when a child mis-behaves, and that spanking should begin by the time a child can walk.Moreover, Mohler (2004) advises that parents should inflict sufficientpain to make certain the child fears punishment.

Specific acts of corporal punishment are also outlined by Christianchild rearing “experts.” Pearl and Pearl (2002) write that “one or twostinging licks (applied with a small flexible switch to the {7-month-old}child’s leg” (p. 2) is appropriate punishment for an infant who cries whenput down for bed. And, Hyles (n.d.—a) writes that as early as 9 months aninfant can be disciplined by spanking “using the open hand on the child’slittle bottom” (p. 4). Of course, Pearl and Pearl (2002), Hyles (n.d.–a,b),and Mohler (2004) all state that spanking should be used as a last resort,and not as injurious abuse. Instead they argue that spanking should befirm, gentle, and loving.

To counter these Christian advocates of infant spanking, several Christianwebsites disavow the use of corporal punishment with infants in particu-lar (Narramore, n.d.; Reagan, 2002), and one Christian site advocates forthe discontinuation of corporal punishment altogether, arguing that theview of children in ancient Proverbs as chattel that needed to be con-trolled is antiquated (Gillogy, 1981).

Another popular source of parenting information comes from “howto” parenting books. A search on the most popular online bookseller—Amazon.com—(Internet Retailer, 2000; The Motley Fool, 1998) revealed639 books on infant parenting ranging in price from approximately $5used to $125 new. Due to the expense of purchasing infant-parentingbooks for review, an exhaustive review of infant-parenting books in thelocal public library was conducted.

A review of the popular press, and mostly secular, print literaturefound in the local public library on infant spanking was nearly universalin its sentiment that spanking infants was developmentally inappropriate(Curtis & Schuler, 2000; Gerber, 1998; Leach, 1989; Sears & Sears,2003) and can harm healthy parent–infant relationships (Hunt, 2001;Pantley, 1996). Indeed, infants do not have the memory span necessary toconnect their behavior to outcomes until around the seventh month, andthus, they are not old enough to misbehave intentionally (Shelov, 2004).After about the seventh month, behavioral modification techniques suchas reward through tone of voice for desired behaviors and the use of afirm “no” for undesired behaviors are recommended (Curtis & Schuler,2000; Hyman, 1997; Keough, 1998; Leach, 1989; Ramey & Ramey,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

14:

29 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Daphne S. Cain 179

1999; Shelov, 2004; Spock, 1988; Spock & Parker, 1998; Stoppard,1995). Additional behavioral techniques include ignoring, distraction(Church, 1973; Shelov, 2004; Stewart & Ungerleider, 2001), natural con-sequences such as removal from play or removal of toys (Gerber, 1998;Keough, 1998; Leach, 1989; Spock, 1955; Stoppard, 1995) and redirec-tion (Shelov, 2004; Whitehurst, 2003). Practical suggestions regarding“babyprofing” the home are also recommended (Altman, 2004; Sears &Sears, 2003; Spock, 1955). Additionally, some print literature outlines theeffective use of social learning theory, consisting of parental modelingand infant copying of desirable behaviors (Altman, 2004; Leach, 1989;O’Brien, 2002; Spock, 1988), and discusses the dangers of spanking,smacking and shaking an infant (burst eardrums, whiplash and concus-sion, and death) (Hunt, 2001; Leach, 1989).

The popular Christian print literature also disavows the use of spankingaltogether (Pantley, 1996; Whitehurst, 2003), or at least for childrenyounger than 15 to 18 months of age. Dobson (1992, 2004) specifies,however, that at 10 months of age an infant can be thumped on the fingersjust enough to sting, or slapped on the hand to stop serious misbehavior,and specifically recommends that spanking (after 15 months of age) beconfined to the buttocks or upper legs where permanent damage isunlikely, and that a neutral object or a switch or paddle be used.

DISCUSSION

It is clear there is no shortage of information available to parents fromthe Internet and popular print literature on infant parenting (Gold, 2007;Technorati, 2007). At the same time, pediatricians and other health careprofessionals have been relatively reluctant to offer advice on the topic ofinfant discipline (Bethell, et al., 2004; Olson et al., 2004; Wissow, 2002).Given that some of the information available to parents contradicts theAAP’s stance on the physical punishment of infants, it seems importantfor professionals concerned with the well-being of infants to address thegaps in information and inherent dangers of infant spanking. Professionalreluctance to provide empirically based information regarding appropriateinfant parenting could potentially place some infants at risk of maltreat-ment by virtue of readily available, yet faulty parenting informationonline and in popular parenting literature.

When discipline is inconsistent with AAP guidelines, parents need pro-fessional guidance and can be referred to AAP literature, or even more

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

14:

29 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

180 SOCIAL WORK IN HEALTH CARE

advantageously, to a professional who will discuss age appropriate disci-pline with them. Indeed, cultural, religious, and generational parentingpractices can and should be validated when possible. There are vast dif-ferences philosophically and practically with regard to parenting; how-ever, there is professional consensus against the spanking of infants dueto the risk of escalation and injury and the fact that infants are unable torecognize connections between their behavior and punishment, and thusare unable to modify their behavior in response. Parents need to be edu-cated about what discipline is and how to age appropriately “discipline”an infant. There is a wealth of information on effective infant guidanceavailable by the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics, n.d.); the goal isto get this information to the parents who need it most.

Pediatricians should use established procedures of detection, reporting,and remediation established by civil or criminal court processes fromtheir jurisdictions when determining if potentially dangerous disciplinarytechniques are being used. Physical evidence, medical history and priorhospitalization, and emergency room visit records are frequently valuabletools in the assessment/discovery process. Moreover, the American Academyof Pediatrics provides guidance for pediatricians on how to discuss disci-pline practices (AAP Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child andFamily Health, 1998) that includes beginning the discussion by makingan observation about the child’s behavior during the health care visit, andasking about the child’s behavior at home. Guidance recommendationssuggest that pediatricians ascertain information on behavior severity,examples of disciplinary encounters, the parents’ childhood experienceswith discipline, and decisions regarding how they as parents will disci-pline and what other key individuals in their lives say about discipline(AAP Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health,1998). Additionally, radiology and imaging studies—to detect commonsigns of physical abuse including skeletal abnormalities, fractures, andmultiple fractures (AAP Diagnostic Imaging of Child Abuse, 2000)—areoften critical in the assessment of dangerous disciplinary practices espe-cially with infants.

When a pediatrician suspects that a parent or caregiver is using poten-tially dangerous disciplinary practices, she or he may refer that parent/caregiver to a hospital social worker or other social service professionalfor guidance and/or evaluation. In making decisions regarding referral forpotentially dangerous disciplinary practices, the pediatrician must beculturally sensitive, but not at the expense of the infant’s well-being.Particularly with regard to child discipline, parents may hold very strong

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

14:

29 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Daphne S. Cain 181

religious or philosophical beliefs that lead to practices that could poten-tially cause physical harm. The AAP’s policy statement on religiousexemptions from child abuse is clear that when parental practices havepotentially harmful consequences for the child, state intervention may bewarranted because the constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion donot sanction harming another person in the practice of one’s religion(AAP Committee on Bioethics, 1988). Moreover, when inappropriate dis-cipline is suspected or substantiated, individual or family counseling witha competent professional, including social workers, is one effective tech-nique to teach parents appropriate discipline (AAP Committee on Psycho-social Aspects of Child and Family Health, 1998).

The role of social work intervention in cases of suspected dangerousdisciplinary practices is somewhat unclear due to a lack of universallyagreed-on definitions of what constitutes “dangerous discipline prac-tices.” However, professional consensus does exist against the spankingof infants based on risk of escalation and injury and the developmentalinappropriateness of corporal punishment with infants (ConsensusStatements, 1996). Thus the social work role is to gather informationthrough an assessment-interview process to determine the risk to theinfant, intervene directly in emergency situations, formulate individual-ized case plans to ameliorate any threat to the infant, provide or contractfor social services including educational services for families, providecase management, and make “reasonable efforts” to keep familiestogether (Crosson-Tower, 2005). In some instances, family values and/or cultural and religious beliefs are in conflict with professional consen-sus and established legal criteria for what constitutes abuse and neglect.The social work profession is rooted in the beliefs of client self-determination and culturally and ethnically sensitive practice, except incases where clients’ rights to self-determination and cultural/ethnicexemption pose serious, foreseeable, and imminent risk to self or others(National Association of Social Workers [NASW] Code of Ethics,1999). The harm and/or potential harm of an infant falls within theparameters where social workers not only rightfully intervene, but aremandated to protect. In these situations, cultural and religious consider-ations are outweighed by the social work responsibility to protect theinfant. By becoming aware of the information (and misinformation)about infant “discipline” that surrounds parents in our complex mediaenvironment, pediatricians and other health care workers can moreeffectively educate families, protecting infants before rather than afterpotentially harmful discipline occurs.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

14:

29 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

182 SOCIAL WORK IN HEALTH CARE

REFERENCES

Altman, S. J. (2004). The kidfixer baby book. New York: Ballantine Books.American Academy of Pediatrics. (n.d.) American Academy of Pediatrics website.

Retrieved June 25, 2007, from: http://www.aap.org/American Academy of Pediatrics Consensus Statements. (1996). The short- and long-term

consequences of corporal punishment. Pediatrics. 98 (Supplement), 853.American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics. (1988). Religious exemptions

from child abuse statutes. Pediatrics, 8(1), 169–171.American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Fam-

ily Health. (1998). Guidance for effective discipline. Pediatrics, 101(4, Supplement),723–728.

American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Radiology. (2000). Diagnostic imaging ofchild abuse. Pediatrics, 105(6), 1345–1348.

Baker, K. (n.d.). Parenting web information and interaction for nurturing parents: Generaldiscipline concepts: A parenting web tip sheet. Retrieved February, 26, 2007, from:http://www.parentingweb.com/discipline/pw_disc.htm

Banks, J. B., & Guillen, J. H. (2002). Childhood discipline: Challenges for clinicians andparents. American Family Physician, 66, 1447–1452. Retrieved February 26, 2007,from: http://www.aafp.org/afp/20021015/1447.html

Baumrind, D. (1996). A blanket injunction against disciplinary use of spanking is not war-ranted by the data. Pediatrics, 828–831.

Benjet, C., & Kazdin, A. E. (2003). Spanking children: The controversies, findings, andnew directions. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 197–224.

Bethell, C., Reuland, C. H. P., Halfon, N., & Schor, E. L. (2004). Measuring the quality ofpreventive and developmental services for young children: National estimates andpatterns of clinicians’ performance. Pediatrics, 113(6), 1973–1983.

Church, J. (1973). Understanding your child from birth to three. New York: Random House.Civitas (n.d.). Spanking children—good or bad? Retrieved February, 26, 2007, from:

http://www.civitas.org/spanking.htmlCrosson-Tower, C. (2005). Understanding child abuse and neglect (6th edition). Boston,

MA: Pearson Books.Curtis, G. B., & Schuler, J. (2000). Your baby’s first year week by week. Tucson, AZ:

Fisher Books.Dobson, J. (2004). The new strong-willed child: Birth through adolescence. Wheaton, IL:

Tyndale House Publishers.Dobson, J. (1992). The new dare to discipline. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.Evans, H. H., & Fargason, C. A. (1998). Pediatric discourse on corporal punishment: A

historical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3(4), 357–368.Flynn, C. P. (1996). Normative support for corporal punishment: Attitudes, correlates, and

implications. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1(1), 47–55.Gerber, M. (1998). Your self-confident baby. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Gillogy, R. R. (1981, January). Spanking hurts everybody. Theology Today, 37(4).

Retrieved February 26, 2007, from: http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/jan1981/v37-4-article1.htm

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

14:

29 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Daphne S. Cain 183

Gold, M. (2007, February 20). Bad sun rising: Women are tuning out morning TV, andthat spells trouble for network news. The Times-Picayune, p. E1.

Google Technology (2007). Google searches more sites more quickly, delivering the mostrelevant results. Retrieved June 20, 2007, from: http://www.google.com/technology/

Hunt, J. (2001). The natural child: Parenting from the heart. Gabriola Island, BC: NewSociety Publishers.

Hyles, J. (n.d.—a). Disciplining an infant. Retrieved February 26, 2007, from: http://www.jesus-is savior.com/Books,%20Tracts%20&%20Preaching/Printed%20Books/Dr%20Jack%20Hyles/how_to_rear_infants.htm

Hyles, J. (n.d.—b). Questions and answers: Expressing love to your child. RetrievedFebruary 26, 2007, from: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Books,%20Tracts%20&%20Preaching/Printed%20Books/Dr%20Jack%20Hyles/how_to_rear_infants.htm

Hyman, I. A. (1997). The case against spanking: How to discipline your child without hit-ting. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Internet Retailer (2000). Amazon tops in popularity, but not in average sale. RetrievedJune 20, 2007, from: http://www.internetretailer.com/internet/marketing-conference/40973-amazon-tops-popularity-but-not-average-sale.html

Keough, C. (1998). Better homes and gardens new baby book. Des Moines, IA: MeredithPublishing Group.

Leach, P. (1989). Your baby & child: From birth to age five. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Mohler, R. A. (2004, June 23). Should spanking be banned? Parental authority under

assault. The Christian Post. Retrieved February 26, 2007, from: http://www. christianpost.com/article/20040623/6115_Should_Spanking_Be_Banned%3F_Parental_Authority_Under_Assault.htm

Narramore, B. (n.d.). Discipline or child abuse? Retrieved August 9, 2005, from: http://narramore.gospelcom.net/ins_discipline.htm

National Association of Social Workers (1999). National Association of Social Workerscode of ethics. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved August 6, 2007, from: http://www.naswdc.org/pubs/code/code.asp

O’Brien, M. (2002). Watch me grow: I’m one-two-three. New York: Harper CollinsPublishers.

Olson, L. M., Inkelas, M., Halfon, N., Schuster, M. A., O’Connor, K.G., & Mistry, R.(2004). Overview of the content of health supervision for young children: Reportsfrom parents and pediatricians. Pediatrics, 113, 1907–1916.

Pantley, E. (1996). Kid cooperation: How to stop yelling, nagging and pleading and getkids to cooperate. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications.

Pearl, M. (2000, January). No greater joy ministries on-line resource: In defense ofbiblical chastisement, Part 1. Retrieved February 26, 2007, from: http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/index.php?id=84&tx_ttnews[swords]=in%20defense%20of%20biblical%20chastisement&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=88&tx_ttnews[backPid]=118&cHash=9f9e8f85bc

Pearl M., & Pearl, D. (2002, May). No greater joy ministries on-line resource: Spanking a7-month-old? Retrieved February 26, 2007, from: http://nogreaterjoy.org/index.php?id=86&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=144

Ramey, C. T., & Ramey, S. L. (1999). Right from birth. New York: Goddard Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

14:

29 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

184 SOCIAL WORK IN HEALTH CARE

Reagan, D. F. (2002). Learn the bible; child discipline: Proper use of spanking. RetrievedFebruary 26, 2007, from: http://www.learnthebible.org/spanking.htm

Sears, R., & Sears, J. (2003). The baby book: Everything you need to know about yourbaby from birth to age two. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Company.

Shelov, S. P. (Ed.). (2004). The American academy of pediatrics complete and authorita-tive guide: Caring for your baby and your child birth to age 5. New York: BantamBooks.

Slade, E. P., & Wissow, L. S. (2004). Spanking in early childhood and later behavior prob-lems: A prospective study of infants and young toddlers. Pediatrics, 1321–1330.

Spock, B. (1955). A baby’s first year. New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce.Spock, B. (1988). Dr. Spock on parenting. New York: Simon & Schuster.Spock, B., & Parker, S. J. (1998). Dr. Spock’s baby and child care (7th edition).

New York: Pocket Books.Stewart, D. D., & Ungerleider, L. S. (2001). Best start: Your baby’s first year. Boulder,

CO: Bull Publishing Co.Stoppard, M. (1995). Complete baby and child care. New York: Dorling Kindersley.Technorati (2007). Mommy blogs: Blogs, photos, videos and more on Technorati.

Retrieved June 25, 2007, from: http://technorati.com/posts/tag/mommy+blogsThe Motley Fool (1998). Dueling Fools: Amazon or Slamathon? Retrieved June 20, 2007,

from: http://www.fool.com/DuelingFools/1998/DuelingFools980211AMZN000.htmTrumbull, D. A., Larzelere, R. E., Wolraich, M., & Trumbull, D. A. (1999). To spank or

not to spank. Pediatrics, 103, 696–698.UCSF Children’s Hospital Patient Education (2002). Your baby at 2 weeks. Retrieved

February 26, 2007, from: http://www.ucsfhealth.org/childrens/edu/wellBaby/week2.html

Warm Consistent Discipline (n.d.). Discipline. Retrieved February 26, 2007, from: http://people.bu.edu/pstring/children/discipline.htm

Whitehurst, T. (2003). Jesus on parenting. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.Wissow, L. S. (2002). Child discipline in the first three years of life. In K. T. Halfon, M.

A. McLearn & N. Schuster (Eds.), Child rearing in America. Challenges facing par-ents with young children (pp. 146–177). New York: Cambridge University Press.

DATE RECEIVED: March 12, 2007ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION: August 3, 2007

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

14:

29 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014