THE POSITION OF DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGISTS WHO TAKE A FIRM STAND AGAINST VIOLENCE ON TELEVISION BUT WHO FAIL TO JOIN THEIR CLINICAL COUNTERPARTS IN ARGUING AGAINST THE INFLICTION OF PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT ON CHILDREN IS QUESTIONED. THE AUTHOR'S PERSONAL REASONS FOR OPPOSING PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT ARE NOTED: THE BASIC UNFAIRNESS INVOLVED WHEN AN ADULT STRIKES A CHILD; THE IDEA THAT THE SPECIES WITH THE MOST ADVANCED COMMUNICATION SYSTEM RELIES ON NONVERBAL MEANS TO TRAIN ITS YOUNG; THE PRIMITIVENESS AND LACK OF CIVILITY INVOLVED IN THE DELIBERATE INFLICTION OF PHYSICAL PAIN. THREE SOURCES OF EMPIRICAL SUPPORT FOR OPPOSITION TO CORPORAL PUNISHMENT ARE EXAMINED: (1) STUDIES OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF PUNISHMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF CHILD-REARING PRACTICES; (2) LABORATORY STUDIES OF THE EFFECTS OF PUNISHMENT; AND (3) STUDIES OF PERSONALITY CORRELATES OF AGGRESSION. THESE STUDIES SHOW THAT CORPORAL PUNISHMENT SIMPLY IS A POOR METHOD OF SOCIALIZING CHILDREN. IT IS UNRELIABLE AND CAN FACILITATE THE VERY BEHAVIOR IT IS DESIGNED TO INHIBIT. PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT IS A SOURCE OF FRUSTRATION AND PAIN AND AS SUCH MAY ACTUALLY STIMULATE ANGER AND AGGRESSION. IN ADDITION, THE PARENT WHO STRIKES A CHILD IS SERVING AS AN AGGRESSIVE MODEL. THE CHILD WHO IS BEATEN LEARNS THAT PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT IS THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE TO CONFLICT. OFTEN IT IS DIFFICULT FOR THE CHILD TO MAKE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE PAIN OF BEING PUNISHED AND THE REASON FOR THE PUNISHMENT. PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT ALSO TENDS TO HARDEN PARENTS, LIMITING THEIR ABILITY TO RESPOND TO THEIR CHILDREN'S NEEDS AND PRECLUDING EFFORTS TO FIND NONPHYSICAL WAYS OF DEALING WITH MISBEHAVIOR. IT APPEARS MORE REASONABLE TO CONCENTRATE ON REWARDING AND ENCOURAGING CHILDREN'S POSITIVE ATTITUDES AND ACTIONS THAN TO DWELL ON PUNISHMENTS. A LIST OF REFERENCES IS INCLUDED. (LKM)