Conservative Protestant Child Discipline:
The Case of Parental \elling*
JOHN
W.
:P.
BARTKOWSKI,
Mississippi State University
Princeton University
BRADFORD WILCOX,
Abstract
Conservative Protestant child discipline has recently become thesubject ofconsiderable
social research andpublic controversy. However, nosystematic empirical evidence has
been brought tobear onconservative Protestant rates ofparental yelling, which weview
as a keyindicator ofan authoritarian style ofparenting. We review parenting advice
offered by conservative Protestant elites, who articulate child-rearing schemata grounded
in both religious andpsychological rationales for the discipline ofyoungsters. Notably,
conservative Protestant family specialists advocate corporal punishment while
discouraging theparental use ofyelling at children. Data drawn from the 1987-88
National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH) indicate that conservative
Protestant parents ofpreschoolers andschool-age children are significantly less likely to
report yelling at their children. Moreover, the estimated effects of denominational
affiliation on the parental use ofyelling are partly mediated byconservative theological
views. We conclude by calling for research that analyzes the effects of the distinctive
conservative Protestant approach todiscipline on child well-being.
The distinctive disciplinary style of conservative Protestant parents has attracted
considerable scholarly attention over the past several years (Bartkowski 1995;
Bartkowski & Ellison 1995; Ellison 1996; Ellison & Bartkowski 1997; Ellison,
Bartkowski & Segal 1996a, 1996b; Ellison & Sherkat 1993a, 1993b; Grasmick,
Bursik & Kimpel 1991;Lienesch 1991;Wilcox 1998). This body of research suggests
*Both authors, whose names are listed in alphabetical order, contributed equally to this article,
whichwassupported in part by a grantfrom the Louisville Institute. Wegratefully acknowledge
advice from RobertWuthnow and Xiaohe Xu, as well as comments offered by the anonymous
reviewers. Please direct correspondence to ltv. Bradford Wilcox, Centerfor Research on Child
Well-being, 221 Wallace Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, N] 08544. E-mail:
wbwilcox@princeton.edu.
© The University of North Carolina Press
Social Forces, September 2000, 79(1):265-290
266 I Social Forces 79:1, September 2000
that conservative Protestants are more likely than other parents to value obedience
from their children and to support the use of corporal punishment to discipline
youngsters (Ellison & Sherkat 1993a, 1993b; Grasmick, Bursik & Kimpel 1991).
Moreover, conservative Protestant parents are more likely to spank their preschool
and school-age children (Ellison, Bartkowski & Segal 1996a, 1996b).
Although there has been a great deal of research on the use of and support for
corporal punishment among conservative Protestants, researchers have yet to
examine one critical dimension of conservative Protestant discipline that might
shed further light on child rearing within this religious subculture - verbal reproof
(i.e., yelling). Our study, which examines religious variations in parental yelling at
children, seeks to redress this gap in the scholarly literature on conservative
Protestant child rearing. We focus on parents' patterns of yelling at children for
three reasons.
First, sociologists of the family and child-development specialists have begun
to recognize that parental yelling is a key dimension of child discipline worthy of
scholarly attention. Previous research suggests that yelling has a negative,
independent effecton child well-being. Frequent yellingis linked to higher reported
rates of antisocial behavior, lower levels of self-esteem, and psychopathology in
children (Brenner & Fox 1998; Joubert 1991; Kazdin, Griest & Esveldt-Dawson
1984; Nagaraja 1984).
Second, our study enables us to evaluate scholarship and popular commentary
that has depicted conservative Protestant child discipline as an authoritarian form
of parenting (cf. Baumrind 1971) consisting of harsh punishment, arbitrary
assertions of power,and otherwise unresponsive child-rearing practices (Capps 1992,
1995; Gordon 1989;Greven 1990;Lifton & Strozier 1990;Maurer 1982;Maurer &
Wallerstein 1980; for reviews, see Bartkowski 1995; Ellison 1996).1 We speak to
this critical literature through the use of empirical data on patterns of parental
yelling. If such portrayals of an authoritarian parenting style are indeed accurate,
then the frequent use of corporal punishment among conservative Protestant parents
(Ellison, Bartkowski & Segal 1996a, 1996b) should be accompanied by high relative
rates of parental yelling and verbal intimidation. There may be some reason to
anticipate such findings. Studies suggest that "power-assertive" disciplinary tactics
such as corporal punishment and parental yelling are often highly correlated in
practice (Parke & Slaby 1983;see also Hemenway, Solnick & Carter 1994;Kelley &
Tsen 1992; Thomson, McLanahan & Curtin 1992). Moreover, a great deal of
scholarship has linked this constellation of disciplinary tactics - marked by
emotional outbursts, frequent recourse to corporal punishment, and minimal
parental affect- to aversive developmental outcomes for children. Power-assertive
discipline has been shown to increase the likelihood of antisocial behavior, poor
scholastic performance, and emotional problems for developing youngsters
(Baumrind 1971, 1997; Elder, Van Nguyen & Caspi 1985; Larzelere et al. 1989;
Parke & Slaby 1983; Straus, Sugarman & Giles-Sims 1997). However, if we find
Conservative Protestant Child Discipline / 267
that conservative Protestants are less likely to yell at their children despite their
frequent use of corporal punishment, we would have some evidence that the
disciplinary style in such homes is less authoritarian - and potentially less
harmful- than critics of this religious subculture contend.'
Finally, in turning our attention to religious variations in parental yelling, we
extend a handful of studies that suggest that positive parental "emotion work" (cf.
Hochschild 1979) is a key facet of conservative Protestant child rearing. Alongside
the endorsements for corporal punishment featured within many conservative
Protestant parenting manuals are equally strong affirmations for parental
expressions of love, concern, and affection toward their young children (Bartkowski
1995; Wilcox 1998). Moreover, recent empirical research has revealed that
conservative Protestant caregivers are significantly more likely than other parents
to display positive, nurturant emotions toward their children (Wilcox 1998).
Therefore, many of the same conservative Protestant parents who are more inclined
to spank their children are also more likely to express love and affection toward
them. In light of these empirical findings, we seek to assess the extent to which
conservative Protestant parents may practice another kind of emotion work by
regulating their own use of yelling as a means of child discipline.
In exploring this new empirical domain of conservative Protestant parenting,
we are guided by theoretical insights that reveal how family ideologies and practices
are influenced by the interplay between schemata and resources - what Sewell
(1992) calls the duality ofstructure (see also Sherkat 1998; Sherkat & Ellison 1997).
Brietly, schemata are ideological frameworks that prescribe courses of appropriate
action - in Sewell's terms, "recipes for group action." In the case of our study, the
schemata of interest are the parenting ideals recommended by conservative
Protestant family commentators as well as the child-rearing strategies embraced
and employed by caregivers affiliated with this religious subculture. Our
investigation, in part, aims to ascertain the degree of homology between these two
forms of schemata - that is, the generation of elite conservative Protestant childrearing "recipes') as well as the consumption and implementation of such
prescriptions by conservative religious parents.
According to Sewell's (1992) framework, resources are cultural products or
objects that actors with access to them can enlist "to enhance or maintain power"
(9). Because resources are defined as meaningful within a particular cultural
context, resource-rich actors are more capable of generating) disseminating, and
legitimating schemata among group members. Sewell calls researchers' attention
to different types of resources - including those that are animate versus inanimate
in character - and links power to the accumulation of resources by particular
factions of social actors. In the conservative Protestant context, the Bible serves as
the key cultural resource for producing parenting schemata. However, this
inanimate scriptural resource is made meaningful by animate networks of
conservative Protestant interpretive authorities (i.e., leaders of national and local
268/ Social Forces 79:1, September 2000
family ministries) who disseminate "legitimate" scriptural interpretations and
parenting schemata through their Christian child-rearing advice literature.
Finally, Sewell (1992) argues that schemata are capable of being applied outside
the social sphere in which they were originally generated. He terms this process the
"transposability" of schemata. Hence, schemata that are apparently religious in
character (e.g., theological beliefs that liken God to a parent) can have practical
implications in other spheres ofsocial interaction (e.g.,parent-child relations within
the home). Building on Sewell'sinsight, we contend below that the transposability
of conservative Protestant religious child-rearing schemata from "virtual" pastoral
discourse to «actual" family interaction is facilitated when these recipes for action
meld rationales from both religious and nonreligious structures (namely,
conservative theology and modern psychology).
Accordingly, our investigation begins with a brief review of the ways in which
elite conservative Protestant authors meld religious and psychological rationales
into a coherent parenting schema that endorses corporal punishment while
proscribing parental yelling. Next, we analyze data from the initial wave of the
National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH-1) to examine the extent to
which actual conservative Protestant caregivers adhere to the admonishments
against parental yelling prescribed in conservative Christian child-rearing manuals.
We conclude by outlining the implications of our study for scholarly
understandings of conservative Protestant child discipline.
The Religious and Psychological Determinants of Conservative Protestant
Approaches to Parenting and Child Discipline
Since the 1970s, conservative Protestantism has devoted increased pastoral and
political attention to family life in an effort to shore up the «traditional" family,
which is seen as a bulwark of religious faith and of the American way of life
(Bartkowski 1997,2000; Bartkowski & Ellison 1995;Bartkowski, Wilcox & Ellison
2000; Bartkowski & Xu 2000; Ellison & Sherkat 1993a;Hunter 1987;Sherkat 2000;
Wilcox 1998; Wuthnow 1988). Thousands of church and parachurch ministries
have sprung up in response to this concerted focus on family living. For instance,
the largest parachurch family ministry - James Dobson's Focus on the Familyoffers marriage and parenting schemata that reach an estimated 2.3 million people
each month through its daily radio show (broadcast on more than 4,000 radio
stations around the world), books, videos, and magazines. Thus, parachurch
ministries such as Focus on the Family, as well as countless congregational
ministries, provide resources - from books to support groups - that interact with
their family-oriented schemata in ways that «mutually imply and sustain each
other" (Sewell 1992:13).
Conservative Protestant ChildDiscipline I 269
Despitethe explicitly religious nature of resources such as the Bible and faithbased social networks, the key to understanding conservative Protestant family
schemata is to recognize how such ideologies at once engage and distinguish
themselves from mainstreamAmerican culture (d. Smith 1998). A carefulreading
of best-selling conservative Protestantfamily advice manualsreveals that this genre
is produced at the intersectionof two differentstructures - namely, conservative
Protestanttheologyand modern psychology. Given the "multiplicity of structures"
that characterize contemporary social life (Sewell 1992: 16-17), the melding of
religious and scientific structures into conservative Protestant family-oriented
schemata increases the transposability of such ideologies and gives this religious
subculture broader appeal than it might otherwiseenjoy.
Tobegin,conservative Protestantfamily ministries drawfrom a fundamentalist
tradition of biblical interpretationthat stresses "literal" understandings of scripture
(Bartkowski & Ellison 1995; Ellison & Sherkat 1993a, 1993b). The interpretive
strategies adopted by contemporary religious conservatives understand the Bible
as not onlyinfallible regarding supernaturalmattersbut also inerrant wherehuman
affairs and family relationships are concerned. Thus, conservative Protestantfamily
ministries, as well as conservative Protestant theologians and pastors, draw heavily
on the Bible - the primary religious resource in this subculture - to develop
and disseminate schemata for familyliving that are readily distinguishable from
mainstream American values.
Conservative Protestant elitesgenerally insist that these schemata follow selfevidently from a plain readingof scripture. However, closer inspection reveals that
elite interpretations of biblical texts are shaped by broader social and cultural
trends - particularly the rise of modern psychology and therapeutic culture which these commentators selectively appropriate into their family manuals." On
the one hand, the subjective, pietistictradition of conservative Protestantism has
leftit open to what Rieff (1966) calls the"triumph of the therapeutic" - manifested
most dearly in religious conservatives' appropriation of expressive and self-help
psychology. This facet of conservative Protestantism is marked by a preoccupation
with personalfulfillment and an expressive ethic of interpersonalrelations, usually
shored up by religious language and imagery(Griffith 1997; Hunter 1987). On the
other hand, the puritanicaland pragmaticroots of conservative Protestantism have
made it particularly susceptible to a behaviorist approach to child rearing.
Specifically, youngsters arethought to be bestsocialized through a stable, predictable
system of punishments (e.g., physical discipline) and rewards (e.g., verbalpraise)
(Lienesch 1991; Wilcox 1998). The ideological penetration of conservative
Protestantism by modern psychology isalso evidenced in the fact that manypopular
conservative Protestantfamily ministries are headed by trained psychologists (e.g.,
James Dobson, Gary Smalley, and John Trent). Even conservative Protestant elites
whodo not boastacademic trainingintegrate the"theory" and"methods" of modern
270 I Social Forces 79:1, September 2000
psychology- for example, temperament theory and personality inventories - into
their advice manuals for the edification of their Christian readership (see, e.g.,
LaHaye 1977; Littauer 1994).
Elite conservative Protestants' melding of psychological and religious meaning
systems is, in turn, supported by a wide array of pastoral resources generated from
within this religious subculture. Such resources include Christian counseling
services, books, videos, and educational institutions (most Christian colleges and
seminaries have large programs in psychology). These resources and the distinctive
family-oriented schemata they produce are then transposed into conservative
Protestant domestic lifethrough the network of grassroots ministries and local clergy
serving conservative religious parents. All of these experts - from elite to local
conservative religious authorities - give family and parenting issues a prominent
place in their preaching and counseling (Ellison & Sherkat 1993a; Hunter 1987;
Wilcox 1998). In what follows, we rely on a sample of family advice manuals
written by leading conservative Protestants to convey the general tenor of these
parenting schemata, with special attention to elite commentators' proscriptions
against yelling. We also seek to reveal how these manuals creatively legitimate a
distinctive orientation toward child discipline by melding together "recipes for
group action" from two otherwise competing structural sources - conservative
theology and modern psychology.
AGAINST VERBAL REPROOF: ELITE CONSERVATIVE PROTESTANT OPPOSITION TO PARENTAL
YELLING
Conservative Protestant child-rearing specialists are virtually unanimous in
discouraging the use ofyelling or verbal intimidation as a means of child discipline
(Christenson 1970; Dobson 1978, 1992; Fugate 1980; LaHaye 1977; Swindoll
1977).4 Conservative Protestant parenting experts who construe yelling as an
illegitimate disciplinary strategy do so on two religious grounds. First, drawing on
biblical passages that stress parental authority (Exod. 20:12;Eph. 6:1-2; 1 Tim. 3:45), these commentators argue that parents must demonstrate a spirit of self-control
in their child-rearing style.Yelling, these specialists contend, tells the child that the
parent has lost control of his or her faculties and that the youngster has emerged
victorious from a familial conflict. Consequently, conservative religious childrearing experts view the parental use of yelling as a threat to the family's divinely
ordained authority structure. According to these commentators, the youngster
perceives yelling as a sign that the ill-tempered parent has become unworthy of the
child's respect and obedience (Christenson 1970; Dobson 1978; Fugate 1980;
LaHaye 1977). Richard Fugate - widely considered to be one of the most ardent
conservative Protestant supporters of parental authority, child obedience, and the
corporal punishment ofyoungsters - is highly critical of verbal outbursts on the
part of the parent. Fugate (1980) argues: "Chastisement [i.e.,punishment] is not a
Conservative Protestant Child Discipline I 271
tongue lashing, threats, or screamingfits of anger; in other words, adult temper
tantrums.These [attempts at verbal intimidation] do nothingbut support the child's
disrespect for his parents' authorityand demonstratethe parents' inability to rule"
(154).
Utilizing a second form of religious reasoning, conservative Protestant
parenting specialists argue that yelling violates the divinely ordained dignity of
youngsters. Parents are supposedto treat their childrenwith respectboth because
their children are made in the image of God (Ps. 139:13-16) and becausethey are
charged with representing God to their children (Christenson 1992; Dobson 1978;
LaHaye 1977; Swindoll1977). According to these authors, parents who yell and
use verbal intimidation tactics are unable to model for their own youngsters the
love that God has for his children (Dobson 1978; LaHaye 1977; Swindoll1977).
Thus, yelling is construed by these child-rearing specialists as a moral affront to
the child, who may be emotionally and spiritually damaged from such abusive
encounters. Connecting themes of verbal intimidation with the emotional abuse
of children, popular conservative Protestant spokesman Chuck Swindoll (1977)
remarks,((I sayit again that it breaks my heart to think of how many children are
whipped blackand blue with a sharp, stingingtongue" (94).
Thesesame child-rearing specialists also oppose the parental use of yelling on
threegrounds strongly related to the penetration of modem psychological and childdevelopment schemata into contemporary conservative Protestantism. First, relying
on a behaviorist, pragmatic approachto childrearing, thesefamily specialists argue
that the parental use of yelling does not work (Christenson 1970; Dobson 1992;
LaHaye 1977). Many conservative Protestant parenting specialists contend that
verbal intimidation is,quite simply, ineffective at eliciting behavioralcompliance
from youngsters. According to these specialists, controlled corporal punishment
administered immediately in the face of willful defiance is a superior - and,
indeed, more effective - alternative to yelling. In this pragmatic vein, James
Dobson (1992) contends: "Parents often use anger to get action instead of using
action [spanking] to get action [compliance] .... Trying to control children by
screamingis as utterly futile as trying to steer a car by honking the horn" (36).
Second, many conservative Protestant parenting experts contend that verbal
intimidation is a dangerous first step on the slippery slopeto physical child abuse.
In the minds of many of these authors, yelling- rather than the judicious,
deliberate use of corporal punishment - indicates an unhealthy escalation of
parent-child conflict. When combined with the high likelihood of child
noncompliance to verbalreproof,yelling is believed to increase the chances that a
heated exchange may end in the physical abuse of the youngster by his or her
frustrated parent. It is in this vein that conservative Protestant parenting experts
articulate grave warnings against punishing children in anger. Beverly LaHaye
(1977) warnsher readers to "firstgetvictoryovertheir own angerand hot tempers"
before punishing a child, and she continues, "[Hot-tempered] parents need to
272 I Social Forces 79:1, September 2000
confess that angry spiritto God and askfor helpto change" (147). Gravitating deftly
between psychological and religious admonitions against yelling, LaHaye also
quotes a biblical passage designedto encouragea controlled parental responseto
childmisbehavior: "He who is slowto anger is better than the mighty, and he who
ruleshis spirit [is better] than he who capturesa city"(Prov. 16:32). And whileshe
clearly endorses physical punishment, LaHaye (1977) strongly admonishes against
administering such forms of discipline afteran angryescalation in conflict: "There
are rightand wrongspankings. A wrongspanking wouldbe a cruel, sadistic beating
that is given in a rage" (145).
Finally, conservative Protestant experts oppose yelling on the expressive grounds
that it harms the child's self-esteem. In their view, parentsmust be careful to respect
the child's spirit; consequently, they should avoid any harsh verbal remarks that
would do irreparable damage to that spirit (Dobson 1978, 1992; LaHaye 1977;
Swindoll1977). Dobson (1978) counsels parents to avoid saying anything that
implies that the "child is unwanted, unnecessary, foolish, ugly, dumb, [or] a burden"
(78). laHaye (1977) quotesa psychiatrist who insists that, in a disciplinary situation,
parents not give voice to disapproval of the child, onlythe child's behavior. Therefore,
despite the fact that they advocate the controlled use of corporal punishment,
conservative Protestant parenting specialists drawtogether forms of moralreasoning
associated with conservative religion and modern psychology to admonishparents
against the use of yelling or verbal reproof to discipline their maturing children.
Data, Guiding Hypotheses, and Key Variables
Guided by our review of conservative Protestant child-rearingspecialists' advice
on the parental use of yelling, we now proceed to examine several different
hypotheses using data from wave 1 of the National Survey of Families and
Households (NSFH-1).TheNSFH-1 isa cross-sectional national probability sample
of 13,017 adult men and women livingin the contiguous United States. Primary
respondents completed an in-person interview as well as a self-administered
questionnaire. Our subsample is restricted to two subsets of the overallNSFH-1
primary respondent sample: parents who have at leastone preschool child under
the ageof five (N = 1,051) and parents with at leastone childagedfive to eighteen
(N = 3,199).5 The statistics and analyses used for this study are based on weighted
data to adjust for NSFH-1 oversamples of minorities, single-parentfamilies, and
families with stepchildren.
Our analyses of these data enableus to assess the following hypotheses:
First,taking conservative Protestant affiliation as an indicator of respondents'
exposure to the family-oriented schemata and resources found in this
subculture, wepredictthat parentsclaiming a conservative Protestantaffiliation
willbe less likelythan other caregivers to yellat their children.
Conservative Protestant Child Discipline I 273
Second, given that much of the advice against yelling articulated in conservative
Protestant child-rearing literature is grounded in this subculture's distinctive
use of religious resources such as the Bible, we predict that theological
conservatism (gauged by respondents' attitudes about the inerrancy of the Bible
and beliefs that the Bible provides answers to human problems) will also be
linked to lower levels of parental yelling.
Third, given the conservative Protestant recourse to corporal punishment, we
seek to determine the extent to which conservative Protestant effects on yelling
are mediated by rates of corporal punishment (which has been associated with
parental yelling in the general population).
Fourth, we test the competing hypothesis that religious variations in yelling are
an artifact of distinctively low female labor-force participation patterns within
conservative Protestant families. We do so because the literature on conservative
Protestantism suggests that mothers in this subculture, especially mothers of
preschool children, are less likely to participate in the labor force
(Ammerman & Roof 1995;Bartkowski 1999;Sherkat 2000). Moreover, previous
research on conservative Protestant parenting suggests that female labor-force
patterns are related to distinctive patterns of parenting (Wilcox 1998).
Fifth, because conservative Protestant parents are encouraged to spank their
children and refrain from yelling at their youngsters, we also test the hypothesis
that the conservative Protestant parents who spank their children are
significantly less likely to yell at their youngsters - compared with other
parents who spank their children at similar rates.
Parents surveyed for the NSFH-1 were asked several questions about how they
interact with their children, including one item inquiring how often they "yell at
[their] child." Response categories to this frequency-of-yelling item include the
following: never (1), seldom (2), sometimes (3), and very often (4). Therefore, we
treat the parental use ofyelling as a continuous dependent variable. The placement
of this item on the actual survey (proximate to questions about the parental use of
corporal punishment as well as physical and verbal expressions of affection) gives
us confidence in its face validity and serves to limit the possibility for response
bias (Joubert 1991; Sudman & Bradburn 1982).
Many of our predictor and control variables follow closelyfrom previous NSFH1 analyses of religious differences in child discipline and parent-child interaction
(Ellison, Bartkowski & Segal 1996a, 1996b; Wilcox 1998). Conservative Protestant
affiliation is determined by a dummy variable that identifies respondents affiliated
with the following groups: Southern Baptist, fundamentalist Baptist, Assembly of
God, Missionary Alliance, Church of the Brethren, Evangelical Free Church,
Pentecostal, Holiness, and other fundamentalist or evangelical churches (see
Kellstedt & Green 1993; Roof & McKinney 1987). Consistent with the extant
274/ Social Forces 79:1, September 2000
research on conservative Protestant discipline) we do not includemeasures for other
religious affiliations (e.g., mainline Protestant) Catholic) Iewish)."
Our measure of theological conservatism is composed of a two-item index
(r = .74) P < .001) Cronbach's alpha = .85)measuredby the respondents) agreement
with the following statements: (1) "The Bible is God's word and everything happened
or willhappen exactly as it says," and (2) "The Bible is the answerto all important
human problems."We use the mean score from the responsesto each item (from
strongly disagree [1] to strongly agree [5]) to measure theologicalconservatism.
Parentswere alsoaskedhow often they "spank or slap [their] child," Responses
(never [1]) seldom [2]) sometimes [3]) or very often [4]) were used to measure
frequency of corporal punishment. We use this measure to indicate the broader
disciplinary contextwithin whichparentsmayyell or) conversely) refrainfrom doing
so.
We control for a variety of variables that previous research indicates might
otherwise confound the effect of religious involvement on parental yelling (see)
e.g.) Ellison) Bartkowski & Segal 1996a) 1996b): respondent's gender (l = female),
age of respondent (in years), race/ethnicity of parent (l = black) 1 = Hispanic)
0= white/Anglo), primary respondent's marital status (l = singleparent), parent's
education (from some high school [1] to Ph.D. [6]))total household income (in
tens of thousands of 1986 dollars) logged), and)for female respondents) their laborforce participation (l = mother works full-time [35 hours or more per week] or
part-time [1-34 hours per week], 0 = mother not employed). Wealsocontrol) where
appropriate) for the number of preschool children (birth through four years) and
total children (birth to eighteen years) in the household. Since our dependent
variable is not measured with referenceto a particular focalchild)we rely on two
sets of measures to control for biologicalties within the family (1 = all biological
children or a blend of biologicaland step- or adopted children)0 = all step- and/
or adopted children) and the genders of children in the family (1 = all male or
both genders) 0 = all female).
Findings
Descriptive statistics for all variables used in this study are provided in Table 1. Of
particular note are the means presentedfor our dependent variable - the reported
parental use of yelling. On average) parents of preschool children report yelling at
their youngsters a bit less frequently than parents of school-age children.
Nevertheless) the mean rates of yellingfor both of these subsamples lie near the
middleof the continuum for our dependentvariable - that is) somewhere between
"seldom" and "sometimes." Among parents of preschool children) 180/0 report a
conservative Protestant denominational affiliation; 21% of the parents of schoolage children are affiliated with a conservative Protestant denomination.
Conservative Protestant Child Discipline I 275
Table 2 presents zero-order religious differences in the parental use of yelling.
For parents of preschool children only, Table 2 provides tentative support for our
first and second hypotheses. Mean differences in yelling among parents of
preschool children (column 1) are marginally significant (p < .10), such that
parents who affiliate with conservative Protestant denominations and embrace
inerrantist theological views (with average scores of 4 or higher on our index of
theological conservatism) report lower overall rates ofverbal reproof. We note more
robust mean differences (p < .05) in reported rates of parental yelling among
caregivers of school-age children (column 2), such that parents affiliated with a
conservative Protestant denomination and theologically conservative respondents
report utilizing verbal reproof significantly less than other respondents in our
sample. Thus, for parents of school-age children, Table 2 provides stronger support
for our first and second hypotheses.
However, we can be confident of our findings only after controlling for a range
of potentially confounding sociodemographic predictors of parental yelling. We
rely on ordinary least squares (OLS) regression to estimate the effects of religious
affiliation, theological conservatism, and various control variables on the parental
use of yelling. In Table 3, we report the likelihood of parents yelling at their
preschool children. Model 1 indicates that parents who are affiliated with a
conservative Protestant denomination are significantly less likely to yell at their
preschool children than are nonconservative Protestant parents. The findings in
this model support our first hypothesis, which links conservative Protestant
affiliation to lower likelihoods of parental yelling.
Model 2 estimates the effect of theological conservatism on the frequency of
parental yelling. This model demonstrates that theologically conservative parents
are significantly less likely to use verbal reproof in disciplining their preschool
children. This finding lends support to our second hypothesis by revealing that
theological conservatism is related to a significantly lower incidence of yelling
among parents of preschool children. The addition of theological conservatism to
the model also reduces to insignificance the net effect of denominational affiliation
on our dependent variable. This result suggests that the denominational effect is
indirect for parents of preschoolers, operating primarily through this subculture's
use of religious resources - specifically, scriptural passages that are used to
discourage (and, it would seem, actually lessen) parents' use of yelling.
Models 3 and 4 explore the possible mediating effects of corporal punishment
and female labor-force participation rates, respectively, on the relationship between
our respondents' religious involvement and their reported use of yelling. Corporal
punishment is positively and significantly related to parents' use of yelling.Notably,
the inclusion of corporal punishment as an indicator of the disciplinary context
within homes more than triples our model fit. This pronounced increase in model
fit suggests an especiallyclose linkage between parents' use of corporal punishment
and yellingas means of disciplining their preschool children. However,the addition
276 I Social Forces 79:1, September 2000
TABLE 1: Means and Standard Deviations ofVariables
Dependent variable
Frequencyof yelling(continuous)
Religious factors
ConservativeProtestant affiliation
Theological conservatism
Disciplinarycontext
Corporalpunishment
Parent and householdcharacteristics
Female
Age
Black
Hispanic
Singleparent
Education
Householdincome (logged)
Preschoolchildren (aged0-4)
Children
Aged1-4 (Only)
Children
Aged5-18
2.39
(.85)
2.67
(.80)
.18
(.38)
2.82
(1.13)
2.92
(1.09)
2.17
(.85)
1.81
(.79)
.60
(049)
28.21
(5.79)
.10
(.30)
.08
(.28)
.17
(.38)
2.56
(1.26)
.22
(2.54)
1.38
(.58)
.57
(.50)
38.27
(8.07)
.13
(.34)
.09
(.29)
.16
(.37)
2.38
(1.21)
045
(2045)
Children (aged0-18)
Mother works full- time"
Mother workspart-time"
Familycharacteristics
Allbiological
Blend
.20
(040)
.09
(.29)
.96
(.19)
.01
(.06)
.21
(AI)
2.13
(1.08)
.24
(042)
.10
(.30)
.83
(.37)
.04
(.18)
Conservative Protestant Child Discipline / 277
TABLE 1: Means and StandardDeviations of Variables (Continued)
Children
Aged 1-4 (Only)
Family characteristics (cont'd)
Allmale
Bothgenders
a
.42
(.49)
.26
(.44)
.21
(.40)
(.50)
1,051
N
Children
Aged 5-18
.50
3,199
Refers to female respondentswhoareworking
of corporal punishment does not change the direction or significance of religious
effectson parental yellingat preschool children. Nevertheless,in line with hypothesis
3, the strength of theological conservatism increases once we control for corporal
punishment, which suggests that theologically conservative parents of preschool
children are even less likelyto yell at their children after controlling for their greater
propensity to spank.
Model 4 indicates that mothers who work in the labor force are more likely to
yell at their preschool children. It also reveals that the inverse relationship between
theological conservatism and yelling is reduced to marginal significance (compared
to model 2) when we add mothers' work-force participation rates into our model.
In line with hypothesis 4, this finding suggests that lower rates of yelling among
theologically conservative parents are partly an effect of lower labor-force
participation rates among conservative Protestant mothers of preschool children.
To test hypothesis 5, we divided the full sample into two subsamples - one
consisting of conservative Protestant parents and the other of nonconservative
Protestant respondents. We used this methodological strategy to determine if
conservative Protestants who spank their preschool children are significantly less
likely to yell at them when compared to other parents who spank their children at
similar rates. In so doing, we were able to ascertain if spanking is less predictive of
yelling for conservative Protestants than for other parents. Slope tests of corporal
punishment coefficients revealed no significant differences between the subsamples
(models are available upon request). This finding suggests that increased rates of
corporal punishment among parents of preschool children are associated with
increased rates of parental yelling without regard for religious tradition.
Turning briefly to our control variables, the models in Table 3 generally indicate
that Hispanic caregivers and more educated parents report yelling at their children
less frequently.Mothers are somewhat more likelyto yell at their youngsters, though
this relationship is no longer significant when we control for women's labor-force
278 I Social Forces 79:1, September 2000
TABLE 2: Religious Differences in Parental )flling Means
Religious affiliation
Conservative Protestant
Preschool Children
School-Age Children
2.29+
2.56*
(.81)
2.68
(.79)
(.84)
Nonconservative Protestant
2.40
(.86)
Religious ideology
Theologicallyconservative
Nontheologically conservative
2.32+
(.87)
2.57*
(.81)
2.41
2.70
(.84)
(.78)
1,051
N
3,199
Note: Standarddeviations arein parentheses.
+ p < .10
* P < .05 (differentfrom homogamous nonconservative couples)
participation. Finally,yelling is more likely to be reported in those families with a
greater number of preschool children.
Next, we estimate the effects of our predictor and control variables on the
frequency of yelling among parents who have at least one school-age child aged
five to eighteen. Table 4 lends further credence to our first hypothesis, as model 1
indicates that parents affiliated with a conservative Protestant denomination are
less likely than their counterparts to yell at their school-age children. As with
parents ofpreschoolers, the addition of theologicalconservatism (model 2) produces
a significant negative effect on the frequency ofyelling. Our second hypothesis is
again confirmed, although the findings on this score tell a somewhat different story
for parents of school-age children. The effects of these parents' affiliation with a
conservative Protestant denomination remain significant despite the addition of
theological conservatism to this model. 7
Model 3 indicates, once again, that corporal punishment is positivelyassociated
with yelling among parents of school-age children. Moreover, the inclusion of
corporal punishment more than doubles our model fit, which once again highlights
the close linkage between corporal punishment and yelling for parents in general.
For this group of parents, however, the addition of corporal punishment does not
alter the direction or overall strength of the effect associated with conservative
denominational affiliation or theological conservatism.
Mothers' work patterns in this group (model 4) do not produce significant
effects on the dependent variable and, for that matter, do not cause noteworthy
changes in our model (when compared with model 2). These findings for mothers
ConservativeProtestant Child Discipline /279
of school-age children contrast with the results of analyses of mothers of
preschoolers, in which the latter's labor-force participation reduces the significance
of theological conservatism in predicting yelling. The consistent significance of
conservative Protestant affiliation across all of our models in Table 4 suggests that
religious affiliation exerts a more enduring influence on the parents of school-age
children.
To test hypothesis 5, we again divided the full sample into two subsamples one conservative Protestant and the other nonconservative Protestant - to see if
spanking is less predictive ofyelling for conservative Protestant parents of schoolage children than for other parents. Slope tests of corporal punishment coefficients
indicated no significant differences between the subsamples (models are available
upon request). Thus, once again, increased rates of corporal punishment are
associated with increased rates of parental yelling without regard for religious
tradition.
Several other covariates in Table 4 also are related to statistically significantly
differences in parental yelling. Mothers are more likely to yell at their youngsters,
as are single parents. Also, parents with more children and!or all biological children
are significantly more likely to yell at their children. By contrast, older parents of
school-age children, Hispanic parents, and those with greater educational capital
are less likely to report yelling at their youngsters.
Discussion
We began this study by noting that the distinctiveness of conservative Protestant
child discipline has led some scholars, child-rearing specialists, and social
commentators to conclude that conservative Protestant parenting is marked by
arbitrary assertions of power and by harsh, abusive punishments (e.g., Capps 1992,
1995; Gordon 1989; Greven 1990; Lifton & Strozier 1990; Maurer 1982; Maurer &
Wallerstein 1980; for reviews of such critiques, see Bartkowski 1995; Ellison 1996).
Among our other aims in this study, we sought to evaluate such portrayals of
conservative Protestant child discipline by examining religious variations in
parental yelling. Our analyses of empirical data concerning this important
dimension of child discipline indicate that these portrayals of conservative
Protestant parenting are in need of modification. Specifically, our study suggests
that the disciplinary style of conservative Protestant parents is not as authoritarian
as has often been charged. Conservative Protestant parents, especially those
embracing theologically conservative beliefs, are less likely than other parents to
yell at their children. However, our investigation provides no evidence that the
conservative Protestant parents who use corporal punishment are particularly less
likely to yell at their children than are parents who use corporal punishment at
similar rates. Our study, combined with recent work that reveals conservative
280 I Social Forces 79:1, September 2000
TABLE 3: OL5 Regression Models for ~lling among Parents with Children
Aged 0-4 (Only)
Religious factors
Conservative Protestant
(1)
(2)
-.146*
(.068)
-.111
(.070)
-.096
(.059)
-.110
(.069)
-.049*
(.024)
-.127***
(.021)
-.047+
(.024)
Theological conservatism
Disciplinary context
Corporalpunishment
Parentand household
characteristics
Female
(3)
(4)
.551***
(.026)
.144**
(.055)
.148**
(.055)
.093*
(.047)
.034
(.066)
Age
.008
(.005)
.007
(.005)
.009*
(.005)
.007
(.005)
Black
-.083
(.089)
-.065
(.089)
-.002
(.075)
-.086
(.089)
Hispanic
-.395***
(.093)
.113
(.079)
-.090***
(.024)
.014
(.012)
-.373***
(.093)
.114
(.079)
-.096***
(.024)
-.202*
(.079)
.149*
(.067)
-.055**
(.020)
-.366***
(.093)
.098
(.079)
-.100***
(.024)
.014
(.012)
.012
(.010)
.005
(.012)
Single parent
Education
Household income (logged)
Motherworkspart-time"
.282**
(.096)
Motherworksfull- time"
.183*
(.075)
Family characteristics
Preschool children
.431***
(.056)
.437***
(.056)
.244***
(.048)
.453***
(.056)
Allbiological
-.169
(.140)
-.169
(.140)
-.052
(.141)
-.184
(.139)
Blend
-.537
(.427)
-.571
(.427)
-.296
(.366)
-.600
(.425)
Allmale
.076
(.057)
.078
(.057)
.072
(.048)
.073
(.056)
Bothgenders
.059
(.085)
.062
(.084)
.034
(.071)
.055
(.084)
Conservative Protestant Child Discipline I 281
TABLE 3: OLS Regression Models for ~lling among Parents with Children
Aged 0-4 (Only) (Continued)
Intercept
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.851 H*
2.666*H
1.046H*
2.048 H*
(.221)
(.233)
(.223)
(.232)
.107
.109
.372
.117
1,051
1,051
1,047
1,051
Adjusted R'
N
Note: Standarderrors arein parentheses.
a
Refers to female respondentswhoareworking
+ p
< .10
*
P < .05
H
P < .01
*** P < .001
Protestants are more likely than other parents to praise and hug their children
(Wilcox 1998), leads us to wonder if the unique cultural context of conservative
Protestant parenting may mitigate some of the adverse outcomes typically associated
with corporal punishment.
This hypothesis deserves further scholarly investigation. A growing body of
research on child discipline now suggests that contextual factors - that is, the
circumstances under which discipline and punishment are administered - often
act to mediate the relationship between disciplinary tactics and child outcomes.
This literature on parental discipline suggests that the restrained use of corporal
punishment - when combined with reasoned explanations and a warm, responsive
style of parenting - may not necessarily be harmful to children (Larzelere et al.
1989, 1996, 1998; Simons, Johnson & Conger 1994; for reviews, see Baumrind
1997; Larzelere 1996). The importance of disciplinary context is further underscored
by research that revealsvariations in the effectsof corporal punishment byethnicity,
family structure, and the age of the punished child. In one recent study (Gunnoe &
Mariner 1997), corporal punishment produced no discernible negative outcomes
for black children and youngsters aged four to seven; and, while physical
punishment was shown to be harmful for white children aged eight to eleven, these
effects were eliminated by controlling for household structure (with physically
punished children of single parents at greater risk of negative outcomes). When
interpreted in light of our findings, these studies underscore the need for future
research to examine how the context of conservative Protestant parenting may
mitigate some of the negative effects associated with conservative Protestant
caregivers' propensity to rely on corporal punishment.
282 I Social Forces 79:1, September 2000
TABLE 4: OLS Regression Models for ~lling among Parents with Children
Aged 5-18
Religious factors
Conservative Protestant
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
-.152***
(.035)
-.118**
(.036)
-.131***
(.035)
-.119**
(.036)
-.046**
(.014)
-.047***
(.013)
-.046**
(.014)
Theological conservatism
Disciplinary context
Corporalpunishment
Parentand household
characteristics
Female
.310***
(.018)
.070*
(.029)
.078**
(.029)
.073**
(.028)
.080*
(.038)
Age
-.012***
(.002)
-.012***
(.002)
-.003
(.002)
-.012***
(.002)
Black
-.017
(.044)
-.004
(.044)
-.044
(.043)
-.004
(.044)
Hispanic
-.381***
(.050)
.109**
(.042)
-.367***
(.050)
-.369***
(.051)
.102*
(.042)
-.325***
(.049)
.111**
(.040)
Education
-.019
(.012)
-.027*
(.012)
-.025*
(.012)
-.026*
(.012)
Household income(logged)
.007
(.006)
.006
(.006)
.012*
(.006)
.006
(.006)
Single parent
.099*
(.042)
Motherworkspart-time"
-.006
(.052)
Motherworksfull- time"
-.003
(.042)
Family characteristics
Children
.081***
(.018)
.085***
(.018)
.032*
(.015)
.068***
(.015)
Allbiological
.108**
(.037)
.110**
(.037)
.095**
(.035)
.117**
(.037)
Blend
.126
(.086)
.119
(.086)
.083
(.083)
.128
(.086)
Allmale
-.028
(.037)
-.025
(.037)
-.055
(.036)
-.026
(.037)
Bothgenders
.056
(.037)
.057
(.037)
.035
(.035)
.066
(.036)
Conservative Protestant Child Discipline / 283
TABLE 4: OLS Regression Models for Yelling among Parents with Children
Aged 5-18 (Continued)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Intercept
2.915***
(.106)
3.038***
(.112)
2.310***
(.115)
3.072***
(.110)
Adjusted R'
N
.067
3,199
.070
3,199
.146
3,178
.069
3,199
Note: Standarderrors are in parentheses.
a
Refers to female respondentswhoareworking
,.. p < .05
** P < .01
*** P < .001
Conclusion
Our study illuminates contextual issues of child discipline that have sustained the
interest of sociologists of the family for some time. A great deal of sociological
research has compared the contours of authoritarian and authoritative parenting
styles. Our investigation has taken verbal reproof (i.e, parental yelling) as an
indicator of the kind of erratic and irrational form of discipline flagged by
Baumrind (1997) and others as potentially harmful to children. At the same time,
we have noted that the extant research on conservative Protestant child discipline
has led some scholars and parenting commentators (e.g., Capps 1992; Maurer 1982;
Maurer & Wallerstein 1980) to assume that conservative Protestant caregivers
engage in authoritarian or abusive parenting. In an effort to evaluate such
assumptions, we analyzed conservative Protestant child-rearing discourse and
practice regarding parental yelling. Our analyses of NSFH -1 data were guided by
recent theoretical insights that examine the interplay between "schemata" (i.e.,
transposable recipes for social action) and "resources" (culturally meaningful
objects or products used to legitimate and disseminate normative schemata within
distinct social groups) (Sewell 1992; Sherkat 1998; Sherkat & Ellison 1997). This
perspective attuned us to the various structural rationales (i.e., conservative
interpretations of the Bible, selective tenets from expressive and behaviorist
psychology) that leading religious conservatives utilize to produce parenting
schemata that are at once distinct from and engaged with contemporary American
parenting standards.
More specifically, our analysis of best-selling conservative Protestant childrearing manuals revealedthat - for both theological and psychologicalreasons the same conservative Protestant parenting specialists who enthusiastically endorse
the corporal punishment of youngsters actuallyoppose the use of yellingas a means
of disciplining children. Mindful that the discourse of conservative Protestant
284 I Social Forces 79:1, September 2000
parenting might contradict the actual practice of child rearing in such homes, we
then turned our attention to national survey data that gauge the frequency with
which parents yell at their children to discipline them.
Our findings indicate that parents affiliated with a conservative Protestant
denomination are significantly less likely to report yelling at their preschoolers
and school-age children when compared with their nonconservative Protestant
counterparts. Our findings also reveal that theological conservatism mediates this
relationship between conservative Protestant denominational affiliation and
frequency of yellingfor parents of both preschoolers and school-age children (more
so for the former than the latter).
Our study has important implications for research on child discipline and
highlights several fruitful avenues for future research. First, our findings suggest
that emotionally controlled child discipline may be part of a distinctive conservative
Protestant orientation toward child rearing. It seems that parents from this
subculture discipline their children in a substantively different fashion than other
parents. The schemata that underlie this emotionally controlled child discipline,
as well as the conservative Protestant cultural resources that support this orientation
(e.g., religious ideologies, faith-based social networks), seem well worth pursuing
in light of our findings. Consequently, as scholars begin to explore subcultural
variations in disciplinary decision-making processes, we urge them to consider
parents' use of yelling as an important - yet heretofore understudieddimension of child discipline.f
Second, as noted previously in this study, we are left to wonder if the lower
rates of yelling found here among conservative Protestants may counteract some
of the negative effects of more frequent corporal punishment in this subculture.
Although a great deal of previous research has linked the use of corporal punishment
in general with short-term and long-term negative child outcomes (e.g., increased
aggression, poor academic performance, delinquent behavior) (Straus 1994), the
distinctive aspects of conservative Protestant child discipline highlighted both in
previous research (Bartkowski 1995; Wilcox 1998) and in our investigation might
buffer the otherwise adverse effects of physical punishment in conservative
Protestant homes. Although we have seen no published study to date that has
examined the potentially distinctive effects of child discipline (and specifically
corporal punishment) in conservative Protestant homes, this issue should become
a top priority for researchers interested in cultural variations in child discipline.
To the degree that researchers can take into account the distinctiveness associated
with other aspects of conservative Protestant child discipline (including lower
relative rates of parental yelling), such inquiries may help us adjudicate the
controversies that currently surround conservative Protestant parenting.
Using the concepts of schemata, resources, and social practice, our analysis has
sought to advance sociologicalunderstandings of the ways in which factors such as
elite discourse, theological convictions, and child-rearing ideals inform family
Conservative Protestant Child Discipline I 285
interaction within conservative Protestant homes (d. Bartkowski 1995, 1997, 1999;
McNamara 1985a, 1985b; Sherkat 1998, 2000). Yet it is important to recognize
that structures, schemata, and cultural resources are not static entities but rather
lend themselves to "transformation" and social change. Indeed, Sewell (1992)
argues that social transformations often emerge because: (1) divergent structures
can be melded to produce new social forms; (2) schemata are often altered when
transposed to a new social context; and (3) the accumulation of resources - and
the emergence of newfound resource bases - by social actors is an unpredictable
process. It is with this insight in mind that we call attention to the fact that the
child-rearing advice and theological justifications articulated in conservative
Protestant parenting manuals are consumed, evaluated, and implemented by
members of a religious subculture that is itself undergoing noteworthy
transformations. Conservative Protestants are increasinglylikelyto enjoy high levels
of human and cultural capital (i.e., greater educational achievement, rising
occupational status) (see Hunter 1987;Wuthnow & Lawson 1994), and previous
research reveals how structural changes occurring within this religious subculture
have altered many of its members' views on social, political, and familial issues
(Bartkowski 1998; Hunter 1983, 1987; Schmalzbauer 1993; Shibley 1996; Smith
1998). As research on this topic continues to add depth to scholarly portraits of
conservative Protestant parents, we urge social scientists to explore the full gamut
of dynamics - cultural and structural, ideological and practical, traditional and
progressive - that converge to produce what might best be described as a
"neotraditional," though not necessarily"authoritarian:' parenting style within this
distinctive religious subculture.
Notes
1. Donald Capps (1992) advanced these very claims in a provocative presidential address
to the Society for the ScientificStudy of Religion, titled "Religion and Child Abuse: Perfect
Together" (see also Capps 1995). Drawing on biographical accounts of conservative
Protestant leaders such as James Dobson and Billy Graham, Capps (1992) argued that
conservative Protestant parents have taken the notion of "breaking the will" of the child
as a license to "inflict severe physical punishment, usually with a leather belt or hickory
stick, and sometimes before the child is even able to crawl" (3). Capps and other critics
of conservative Protestant parenting are deeply concerned that child discipline within
such homes is harsher, more arbitrary, and hence potentially more harmful than the
forms of discipline favored by nonconservative Protestant parents.
2. This possibility is not altogether unfathomable. Despite the fact that some sociologists
continue to conflate the use of corporal punishment with authoritarian parenting, Diana
Baumrind (1997) has recently noted that virtually all of the parents in her classic
parenting study - including the caregivers she categorized as authoritative - used
corporal punishment. Moreover, recent studies (see Baumrind 1997;Larzelere 1996) reveal
that a variety of contextual factors may mitigate the negative child outcomes typically
286 / Social Forces 79:1, September 2000
associated with corporal punishment (Hotaling, Straus & Lincoln 1990; Straus 1994).
Such research underscores the importance of conceptualizing child discipline as a
multidimensional construct and highlights the need to ascertain the household context
within which discipline is administered.
3. Our reference to elite conservative Protestants' selective appropriation of modern
psychology is not necessarily at odds with other research that has revealed the greater
inclination for rank-and-file religious conservatives to be suspect of scientific
epistemologies and advanced educational pursuits (with the latter acting as a conduit
for the dissemination of the former) (Darnell & Sherkat 1997; Ellison & Musick 1995).
We argue here that elite religious conservatives bolster their prospective readership and
negotiate a collectiveidentity by strategically engaging (i.e., simultaneously rejecting and
invoking) various aspects of modern psychology on child rearing. These authors are, of
course, careful to enlist psychological approaches that affirm their primary
epistemological framework of scriptural inerrancy.
4. The manuals selected and analyzed for this study are written by best-selling
conservative Protestant advice authors who are highly visiblewithin conservative religious
circles. Many of these same manuals have been examined in previous studies that focus
on conservative Protestant parents' use of corporal punishment and their propensity
for affective child rearing (e.g., Bartkowski 1995; Ellison, Bartkowski & Segal 1996a;
Ellison & Sherkat 1993a;Wilcox 1998). However, previous scholarship has not analyzed
these authors' advice on the subject of parental yelling.
5. We divide the sample into subsets of parents of preschool children (only) and schoolage children because the NSFH poses parenting questions separately to these two groups.
6. Ancillary analyses (results not shown) revealed that the addition of other religious
affiliation measures into our models does not affect the direction or the significance of
the conservative Protestant coefficient. These analysesdemonstrate that (1) other religious
affiliations are insignificantly related to yelling among parents of preschool children, and
(2) Catholic and Jewish affiliations are positively related to yelling among parents of
school-age children.
7. Why would denominational affiliation have pronounced significant inverse effects on
the use of yelling for parents of school-age children but not for parents of preschool
children? Perhaps parents of school-age children are more tightly integrated into religious
networks that discourage using verbal reproof or intimidation as a means of discipline.
If these parents are more tightly integrated into such networks, their child-rearing behavior
might be more closely monitored (and more subject to social sanctions) than that of
parents who avoid yelling purely on theological grounds. Alternatively, these discrepant
findings could stem from the disparate number of cases across our two samples of
parents. Our sample of parents of school-age youngsters is over three times greater
than that for preschoolers.
8. Using a socialinformation processing model popular in child-development scholarship,
Ellison (1996) has hypothesized that conservative Protestant caregivers may engage in
culturally specificdecision-making processesduring the course of parent-child disciplinary
encounters. According to this model, social information is assimilated via four successive
cognitive processes: (1) appraisal (during which child behaviors are apprehended and
Conservative Protestant Child Discipline
I 287
categorized), (2) response search (during which parents may consider the range of
possible responses before them in the face of perceived child misbehavior), (3) response
decision (during which parents narrow the field of possible parental reactions and evaluate
that, or those, deemed most appropriate), and (4) implementation (the stage at which
cognitive decisions are enacted through social behavior). It may be at stages 2 and 3 that
prevailing conservative Protestant child-rearing schemata encourage conservative
Protestant parents to discount parental yelling as a viable disciplinary option even while
the merits of corporal punishment are considered.
References
Ammerman, Nancy Tatom, and Wade Clark Roof. 1995. "Introduction: Old Patterns, New
Trends,FragileExperiments." Pp. 1-20 in Work, Family, andReligion in Contemporary Society,
edited by Nancy T. Ammerman and Wade Clark Roof. Routledge.
Bartkowski, John P. 1995. "Spare the Rod ... , or Spare the Child? Divergent Perspectives on
Conservative Protestant Child Discipline." Review of Religious Research 37:97 -116.
- - - . 1997."Debating Patriarchy: Discursive Disputes overSpousalAuthority among Evangelical
Family Commentators." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 36:393-410.
- - - . 1998. "Changing of the Gods: The Gender and Family Discourse of American
Evangelicalism in Historical Perspective:' History of the Family 3:97-117.
- - - . 1999. "One Step Forward, One Step Back: 'Progressive Traditionalism'and the Negotiation
of Domestic Labor within Evangelical Families." Gender Issues 17:37-61.
- - - . 2000."BreakingWalls,Raising Fences: Masculinity,Intimacy, and Accountability among
the Promise Keepers." Sociology of Religion 61:33-53.
Bartkowski, John P.,and Christopher G. Ellison. 1995. "Divergent Perspectives on Childrearing
in Popular Manuals: Conservative Protestants vs. the Mainstream Experts." Sociology of
Religion 56:21-34.
Bartkowski, John P., W Bradford Wilcox, and Christopher G. Ellison. 2000. "Charting the
Paradoxes of Evangelical Family Life: Gender and Parenting in Conservative Protestant
Households." Family Ministry. In press.
Bartkowski,John P.,and Xiaohe Xu. 2000."Distant Patriarchs or Expressive Dads? The Discourse
and Practice of Fathering in Conservative Protestant Families." Sociological Quarterly 41:86585.
Baumrind, Diana. 1971. "Current Patterns of Parental Authority." Developmental Psychology
Monographs 4:1-1 02.
---.1997. "Necessary Distinctions." Psychological Inquiry 8:176-82.
Brenner, Viktor, and Robert A. Fox. 1998. "Parental Discipline and Behavior Problems in Young
Children." Journal of Genetic Psychology 159:251-56.
Capps, Donald. 1992. "Religion and Child Abuse: Perfect Together." Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion 31:1-14.
- - - . 1995. The Child's Song: The Religious Abuseof Children. Westminster/John Knox.
Christenson, Larry. 1970. The Christian Family. Bethany House.
Darnell, Alfred, and Darren E. Sherkat. 1997. "The Impact of Protestant Fundamentalism on
Educational Attainment." American Sociological Review62:306-15.
288 I Social Forces 79:1, September 2000
Dobson,James. 1978. The Strong-Willed Child: Birth through Adolescence. Living Books/Tyndale
House.
--.1992. TheNewDare to Discipline. Living Books/Tyndale House.
Elder, Glen, TriVanNguyen, and Avshalom Caspi. 1985. "LinkingFamily Hardship to Children's
Lives." Child Development 56:361-75.
Ellison, Christopher G. 1996. "Conservative Protestantism and the Corporal Punishment of
Children." Journal for theScientific StudyofReligion 35:1-16.
Ellison, Christopher G.,and John P. Bartkowski. 1997. "Religion and the Legitimation of Violence:
The Caseof Conservative Protestantismand Corporal Punishment." Pp. 45-67in TheWeb
ofViolence: From Interpersonal toGlobal, edited by Lester R. Kurtzand Jennifer1. Turpin.
Universityof IllinoisPress.
Ellison, Christopher G., John P. Bartkowski, and Michelle 1. Segal. 1996a."Conservative
Protestantism and the Parental Use of Corporal Punishment." Social Forces 74:1003-29.
- - - . 1996b. "Do Conservative ProtestantParentsSpankMore Often? Further Evidence from
the National Surveyof Families and Households." Social Science Quarterly 77:663-73.
Ellison, Christopher G., and Mark A. Musick. 1995. "Conservative Protestantism and Public
Opinion toward Science." Review of Religious Research 36:245-62.
Ellison, ChristopherG.,and Darren E.Sherkat 1993a. "Conservative Protestantism and Support
for Corporal Punishment."American Sociological Review 58:131-44.
- - - . 1993b. "Obedience and Autonomy: Religion and ParentalValues Reconsidered:' Journal
for the Scientific Studyof Religion 32:313-29.
Fugate, J. Richard. 1980. What theBible Says aboutChild Training. Alpha-OmegaPublications.
Gordon, Thomas. 1989. Discipline that Works: Promoting Self-Discipline in Children. Plume.
Grasmick,Harold, Robert Bursik,and M'lou Kimpel. 1991. "Protestant Fundamentalism and
Attitudes toward Corporal Punishment of Children." Violence and Victims 6:283-97.
Greven, Philip. 1990. Spare the Child: TheReligious Roots ofPunishment and thePsychological
Impact of Abuse. Alfred Knopf.
Griffith, R. Marie. 1997. God's Daughters: Evangelical Women and the Power of Submission.
Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Gunnoe,MarjorieLindner, and Carrie LeaMariner. 1997. "Toward a Developmental-Contextual
Model of the Effects of Parental Spankingon Children'sAggression." Archives ofPediatric
Adolescent Medicine 151:768-75.
Hemenway, D.,S.Solnick, and J.Carter. 1994. "ChildrearingViolence." Child Abuse andNeglect
18:1011-20.
Hochschild, Arlie R. 1979. "EmotionWork, Feeling Rules, and Social Structure:'American Journal
of Sociology 85:551-75.
Hotaling, Gerald T., Murray A. Straus, and Alan J. Lincoln. 1990. "Intrafamily Violence and
Crime and Violence outside the Family." Pp. 431-70 in Physical Violence in American
Families: Risk Factors and Adaptions in Violence in 8,145 Families, edited by Murray A.
Straus and RichardJ.Gelles. Transaction.
Hunter,JamesDavison. 1983. American Evangelicalism: Conservative Religion andtheQuandary
ofModernity. Rutgers University Press.
- - - . 1987. Evangelicals: TheComing Generation. Universityof ChicagoPress.
Conservative Protestant Child Discipline I 289
Joubert, Charles E. 1991. "Self-Esteemand Social Desirability in Relations to College Students'
Retrospective Perceptions of Parental Fairness and Disciplinary Practices." Psychological
Reports 69:115-20.
Kazdin, Alan E., Douglas 1. Griest, and Karen Esveldt-Dawson. 1984. "Perceptions of
Psychopathology among Psychiatric InpatientChildren." Journal of Clinical Child Psychology
13:147-56.
Kelley, Michelle 1., and Hui MeiTsen. 1992. "Cultural Differences in ChildRearing: A Comparison
of Immigrant Chinese and Caucasian American Mothers." Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology 23:444-55.
Kellstedt, LymanA, and John C. Green. 1993. "KnowingGod's ManyPeople: Denominational
Preference and Political Behavior:' Pp. 53-71 in Rediscovering theReligious Factor inAmerican
Politics, edited by David C. Leege and Lyman A Kellstedt. M.E.Sharpe.
LaHaye, Beverly. 1977. How to Develop Your Child's Temperament. Harvest House.
Larzelere, Robert E. 1996. "A Review of the Outcomes of Parental Use of Nonabusive or
Customary Physical Punishment." Pediatrics 98:824-28.
Larzelere, Robert E., Michael Klein, Walter R. Schumm, and Samuel A. Alibrando. 1989.
"Relations of Spanking and Other ParentingCharacteristics to the Self-Esteem and Perceived
Fairness of Parental Discipline." Psychological Reports 64:1140-42.
Larzelere, Robert E.,Paul R. Sather, William N. Schneider, DavidB.Larson, and Patricia 1. Pike.
1998.«Punishment Enhances Reasoning's Effectiveness as a Disciplinary Response to
Toddlers." Journal of Marriage and the Family 60:338-403.
Larzelere, Robert E.,William N. Schneider, David B. Larson, and Patricia 1. Pike. 1996. "The
Effects of Discipline Responses in Delaying ToddlerMisbehavior Recurrences." Childand
Family Behavior Therapy 18:35-57.
Lienesch, Michael. 1991. "Train Up a Child': Conceptions of Childrearing in Christian
Conservative Social Thought." Pp. 203-24 in Comparative Social Research. Vol. 13,edited
by CraigCalhoun. JAlPress.
Lifton, Robert J., and Charles B. Strozier. 1990. "Waiting for Armageddon." New York Times
Book Review, August12.
Littauer,Fred. 1994. Wake Up Men! Headship Doesn't Mean Lordship. Word.
Maurer, Adah. 1982. "Religious Values and Child Abuse." Pp. 57-63 in Institutional Abuse of
Children and Youth, edited by Ranae Hanson. Haworth Press.
Maurer,Adah,and James Wallerstein. 1980. TheBible and theRod. Committee to End Violence
against the Next Generation.
McNamara, Patrick. 1985a. "Conservative Christian Families and Their Moral World: Some
Reflections for Sociologists." Sociological Analysis 46:93-99.
- - - . 1985b. "The New Christian Right'sViewof the Familyand It's SocialScience Critics:
A Study in DifferingPresuppositions." Journal of Marriage and the Family 47:449-58.
Nagaraja, Iaya, 1984. "Non-Compliance- A Behavior Disorder." ChildPsychiatry Quarterly
17:127-32.
Parke,Ross D., and Ronald G. Slaby. 1983. "The Developmentof Aggression." Pp. 547-647 in
Handbook of ChildPsychology, edited by E. MavisHetherington. Wiley.
Rieff, Philip. 1966. The Triumph of the Therapeutic: Uses of Faith afterFreud. Harper and Row.
290 I Social Forces 79:1, September 2000
Roof, Wade Clark, and William McKinney. 1987. American Mainline Religion: Its Changing
Shape andFuture. RutgersUniversityPress.
Schrnalzbauer, John. 1993. "Evangelicals in the NewClass: Class versus SubculturalPredictors of
Ideology." Journal for theScientific Studyof Religion 32:330-42.
Sewell, William H., Jr. 1992. ''A Theory of Structure: Duality,Agency, and Transformation:'
American Journal ofSociology 98:1-29.
Sherkat, Darren E. 1998. "Counterculture or Continuity? Competing Influences on Baby
Boomers'Religious Orientations and Participation." Social Forces 76:1087-1115.
- - - . 2000. "That They Be Keepers of the Home': The Effect of Conservative Religion on
Earlyand LateTransitionsinto Housewifery." Review ofReligious Research 41:344-58.
Sherkat, Darren E., and Christopher G. Ellison. 1997. "The Cognitive Structure of a Moral
Crusade: Conservative Protestantism and Oppositionto Pornography." Social Forces 75:95782.
Shibley, Mark A. 1996. Resurgent Evangelicalism in the United States: Mapping Cultural Change
since 1970. Universityof South Carolina Press.
Simons, Ronald1., ChristineJohnson,and Rand D.Conger. 1994. "Harsh Corporal Punishment
versusQuality of Parental Involvement as an Explanationof Adolescent Maladjustment."
Journal of Marriage and theFamily 56:591-607.
Smith, Christian, with Michael Emerson, Sally Gallagher, Paul Kennedy, and David Sikkink.
1998. American Evangelicalism: Embattled and Thriving. Universityof ChicagoPress.
Straus, Murray A. 1994. Beating theDevil OutofThem: Corporal Punishment inAmerican Families
and Its Effects on Children. Lexington Books.
Straus, Murray A., David B. Sugarman, and Jean Giles-Sims. 1997. "Spankingby Parents and
Subsequent Antisocial Behavior of Children." Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine
151:761-67.
Sudman, Seymour,and Norman M. Bradburn. 1982. Asking Questions. Iossey-Bass,
Swindoll, Charles R. 1977. You and Your Child. Thomas Nelson.
Thomson, Elizabeth, Sara S. Mcl.anahan, and R.B. Curtin. 1992. "Family Structure, Gender,
and Parental Socialization." Journal of Marriage and theFamily 54:368-78.
Wilcox, W.Bradford. 1998. "Conservative ProtestantParenting: Authoritarianor Authoritative?"
American Sociological Review 63:796-809.
Wuthnow,Robert. 1988. The Restructuring ofAmerican Religion. Princeton University Press.
Wuthnow, Robert,and MatthewP. Lawson. 1994. "Sources of Christian Fundamentalismin the
United States." Pp. 18-56 in Accounting for Fundamentalisms: The Dynamic Character of
Movements, edited by Martin Marty and R. Scott Appleby. University of ChicagoPress.