[arymanth]

Because in the parent's mind, it is a comparatively small amount of pain that will supposedly prevent a much more serious amount of pain. (kind of like a vaccination) The idea is that if you can scare them enough to keep them out of the road, they won't get hit by a car. A parent in the situation you described is thinking "what can I do to make absolutely sure that my child will be too afraid to go into the road next time?" They want to do whatever they can think of to make sure their child is safe, and this is the first thing that springs to mind. Hitting the child is supposed to really impress upon them the importance of not going into the road, both from the pain of the spanking leaving a strong impression at the moment, and the memory of the spanking being a future deterrent.Same with touching stoves, outlets, etc. Better to smack them and have them learn to avoid these things than to let them get burned/shocked. It does not work very well... been there, tried that... but this is why people do it.

It was actually a very hard adjustment for me to get used to the idea that you didn't HAVE to do these things in order to teach a child, because that was how I was raised. When someone explained to me how to teach a child what "hot" means through demonstration, teaching and repetition, it was such a weird concept for me. Why not just smack them and get it over with, why go through all that trouble? Fortunately, I did try it, just to see if it would actually work, and I was so impressed by the results, I decided to see if the rest of this "gentle discipline" stuff worked, too. LOL

Most parents who react this way really do have their child's best interest at heart. You can be sincere and still be sincerely wrong.