Physical and emotional punishment of children is highly prevalent in the Asia-Pacific region. These actions predict a range of physical and emotional harms, prompting a worldwide effort to eliminate them. A key strategy in this effort is to change parental beliefs regarding the acceptability of physical and emotional punishment. The Positive Discipline in Everyday Parenting (PDEP) program was designed to change those beliefs by teaching parents about child development and strengthening their problem-solving skills. A sample of 377 parents in the Asia-Pacific region completed the program: 329 mothers and 47 fathers of children ranging in age from infancy to adolescence. The parents lived in Australia (n = 135), Japan (n = 172) or the Philippines (n = 70). In all three countries, parents’ approval of punishment in general, and physical punishment specifically, declined and they became less likely to attribute typical child behavior to intentional misbehavior. By the end of the program, at least 75% of parents in each country felt better prepared to respond nonviolently to conflict with their children.

Physical punishment of children is linked to negative developmental outcomes. The widely used Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) promotes alternative responses to physical punishment. Data on the effectiveness of the Triple P Seminar Series is limited. In this study, Canadian parents’ reports of physical punishment, non-physical punishment, and non-punitive responses were compared before and after they attended the Triple P Seminar Series. Twenty-seven parents of children aged 2 to 6 years attended the Seminar Series and completed pre- and post-intervention questionnaires measuring the number of times they used various physical punishments, non-physical punishments, and non-punitive responses in the past month. Hypotheses were tested using univariate descriptive analyses, paired samples t tests, and Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests. Parents’ reports of physical punishment decreased on only one of the four physical punishment items (shaking/grabbing) from pre- to post-intervention. Over the course of the Seminar Series, parents became more likely to emphasise rules and to punish their children by taking things away from them. The findings suggest that the Seminar Series has limited effectiveness in reducing physical punishments or increasing non-punitive responses. Further research on this question is needed.

Although the physical punishment of children is overall an ineffective disciplining strategy, has adverse long-term psychological effects, and carries the risk of physical punishment escalating into child abuse, parental physical punishment is lawful in all Australian states and territories within the bounds of lawful correction or reasonable chastisement. What is considered to be reasonable is open to considerable interpretation, which further increases the risk of physical harm to children. Physical punishment of children also contravenes the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Australia has ratified. Although more effective disciplining strategies, such as cognitive-behavioural parenting strategies, are available and have been advocated by professional organisations, the vast majority of Australian parents condone parental physical punishment of children and are opposed to its prohibition. Predictors for this stance include perceived social norms, the belief that physically punishing children is an effective disciplining strategy and a parent's right, a perceived absence of alternative parenting strategies, and fear of prosecution if physical punishment were to be banned. Countries that have phased out the physical punishment of children have demonstrated that, to encourage a shift in parental attitudes and behaviours, public awareness about the detrimental effects of physical punishment and the effectiveness of alternative disciplining strategies needs to be raised. Additionally, parents require support through free and convenient access to evidence-based parenting programmes that promote alternative disciplining strategies; and the defence of lawful correction needs to be repealed, with the aim of setting a new standard, as well as education rather than prosecution.