THE RELATIONSHIP OF REPORTED PARENT DISCIPLINING PRACTICES TO
PHYSICALLY ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR AMONG PARENTS OF AFRICAN, ASIAN, LATINO,
AND WHITE AMERICANS
Bahareh Abhari
B.A., University of California, Davis, 2008
B.S., University of California, Davis, 2008
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
PSYCHOLOGY
at
California State University, Sacramento
SPRING
2011
THE RELATIONSHIP OF REPORTED PARENT DISCIPLINING PRACTICES TO
PHYSICALLY ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR AMONG PARENTS OF AFRICAN, ASIAN, LATINO,
AND WHITE AMERICANS
A Thesis
by
Bahareh Abhari
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Phillip D. Akutsu, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Second Reader
Gregory Kim-Ju, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Third Reader
Kelly Cotter, Ph.D.
____________________________
Date
ii
Student: Bahareh Abhari
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format
manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for
the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator ___________________
Jianjian Qin, Ph.D.
Date
Department of Psychology
iii
Abstract
of
THE RELATIONSHIP OF REPORTED PARENT DISCIPLINING PRACTICES TO
PHYSICALLY ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR AMONG PARENTS OF AFRICAN, ASIAN,
LATINO, AND WHITE AMERICANS
by
Bahareh Abhari
The current study examined mediation models to explain differences in sex and ethnicity
in retrospective reports of parental physically abusive behavior for Asian, African,
Latino, and White American college students. In addition, relationships between
parenting styles, mother and father authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting
and parent disciplining methods, nonviolent discipline, psychological aggression, and
four corporal punishment items were explored. One corporal punishment item, shaking,
partially mediated the relationship between ethnicity and reports of physically abusive
behavior.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Phillip D. Akutsu, Ph.D.
_______________________
Date
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude towards my thesis
committee chair and advisor, Dr. Phillip Akutsu, for his continued support, advice, and
mentorship not only during this project, but throughout my academic career at CSU
Sacramento. His encouragement and guidance have greatly assisted the completion of
this thesis.
I would also like to extend my thanks towards Dr. Kelly Cotter and Dr. Gregory
Kim-Ju for joining my thesis committee and providing helpful feedback throughout the
project. I owe a special thanks to Dr. Larry Meyers for his advice about statistical
analyses for my thesis.
In addition, I’d like to thank all of the past and current members of the research
lab, Ho Man Cheung, Timothy Fechter, Ting Ting Lee, Jeannie Scroggins, Brittany
Purdy, and Jennifer Wong for assistance with collecting data and especially their
continued moral support during this project. Finally, I’d like to thank my dance team,
friends, parents, siblings, and my cousins who have encouraged me to succeed in my
efforts.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. v
List of tables ...................................................................................................................... vii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
Negative Outcomes of Physical Abuse ....................................................................... 3
Factors Associated with Physical Abuse .................................................................... 7
Summary ................................................................................................................... 39
Present Study ............................................................................................................ 41
2. METHOD ..................................................................................................................... 46
Participants................................................................................................................ 46
Measures ................................................................................................................... 47
Procedure .................................................................................................................. 52
3. RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... 55
Demographic Information and Study Variables ....................................................... 55
4. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................. 134
Summary and Interpretation of Findings in the Context of Previous Literature .... 134
Limitations in the Current Study ............................................................................ 147
Clinical Implications ............................................................................................... 149
Future Directions in Research................................................................................. 152
References ....................................................................................................................... 155
vi
LIST OF TABLES
1. Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations of Mother and Father Authoritarian,
Authoritative, and Permissive Parenting Styles…………………………….. 60
2. Table 2 Descriptive Statistics per Ethnic Group for Total Sample, Participant
Sex, Family of Origin Socioeconomic Status, and Age…………………….. 61
3. Table 3 Estimated Marginal Means for Males and Females in Mother/Father
Parenting Styles……………………………….…………………………….. 62
4. Table 4 Estimated Marginal Means for Ethnic Groups in Mother/Father
Parenting Styles……………………………….…………………………….. 63
5. Table 5 Estimated Marginal Means for Males and Females in Nonphysical Forms
of Parent Discipline…………………….………………………………........ 68
6. Table 6 Estimated Marginal Means for Ethnic Groups in Nonphysical Forms of
Parent Discipline……………………………….…………………………..... 69
7. Table 7 Logistic Regression Results with Ethnicity Predicting Spanking with or
without Object……………………………….……………………………..... 75
8. Table 8 Logistic Regression Results with Ethnicity Predicting Pinching and
Shaking…………………………………….………………………………… 77
9. Table 9 Percentage of Each Sex and Ethnic Group Experiencing Spanking With
Bare Hand, Spanking with Object, Pinching and Shaking………………….. 79
10. Table 10 Estimated Marginal Means for Males and Females in Physically
Abusive Behavior……………………………….…………………………... 80
11. Table 11 Estimated Marginal Means for Ethnic Groups in Physically Abusive
Behavior…………………………………….………………………………. 81
12. Table 12 Multiple Regression Results with Mother and Father Parenting Styles
Predicting Nonviolent Discipline…………….…………………………….. 84
13. Table 13 Multiple Regression Results with Mother and Father Parenting Styles
Predicting Psychological Aggression…………….……………………….... 87
vii
14. Table 14 Logistic Regression Results with Mother and Father Parenting Styles
Predicting Spanking with Bare Hand…………….……………………….... 90
15. Table 15 Logistic Regression Results with Mother and Father Parenting Styles
Predicting Spanking with an Object…………….………………………….. 93
16. Table 16 Logistic Regression Results with Mother and Father Parenting Styles
Predicting Pinching……………………………….………………………… 94
17. Table 17 Logistic Regression Results with Mother and Father Parenting Styles
Predicting Shaking……………………………….………………………..... 97
18. Table 18 Multiple Regression Results with Mother and Father Parenting Styles
Predicting Physically Abusive Behavior…………….…………………….. 100
19. Table 19 Multiple Regression Results with Nonviolent Discipline Predicting
Psychological Aggression……………………………….……………….... 106
20. Table 20 Logistic Regression Results with Nonviolent Discipline and
Psychological Aggression Predicting Spanking with or without Object….. 107
21. Table 21 Logistic Regression Results with Nonviolent Discipline and
Psychological Aggression Predicting Pinching and Shaking…………….... 109
22. Table 22 Multiple Regression Results with Nonviolent Discipline and
Psychological Aggression Predicting Physically Abusive Behavior………. 111
23. Table 23 Multiple Regression Results with Corporal Punishment Predicting
Physically Abusive Behavior…………………….……………………….... 117
24. Table 24 Multiple Regression Results with Mother/Father Authoritarian
Parenting and Parent Discipline Predicting Physically Abusive Behavior… 121
25. Table 25 Multiple Regression Results with Mother/Father Authoritative
Parenting and Parent Discipline Predicting Physically Abusive Behavior… 129
26. Table 26 Summary of the Relationship between Mother/Father Authoritarian,
Authoritative, and Permissive Parenting Styles, Parent Discipline, and Physically
Abusive Behavior……………………………………….………………..... 141
viii
27. Table 27 Summary of the Relationships between Nonviolent Discipline,
Psychological Aggression, Corporal Punishment, and Physically Abusive
Behavior…………………………………….……………………………… 144
ix
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Physical abuse is the second most common form of maltreatment after neglect by
caregivers of children in the United States. As reported by the National Child Abuse and
Neglect Data System (NCANDS), the majority of these children were abused by their
biological parents and in recent years, most of the abused children were reported to be
first-time victims (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS], 2007). In
the Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-4), more than half
of the 835,000 children who were found to be abused by Child Protective Services (CPS)
were determined to be physically abused (Sedlak et al., 2010a). The negative experience
of physical abuse can have dire consequences for many children. For example, 61% of
child fatalities in the NCANDS study (U.S. DHHS, 2007) had experienced some form of
physical abuse. Unfortunately, only 62% of the referrals for suspected abuse made to
Child Protective Service agencies were officially investigated in 2007 (U.S. DHHS,
2007). Many children may be overlooked when such investigations take place. It is also
possible that many children who are being physically abused are never referred to CPS.
As such, possible risk factors for physical abuse need to be investigated to assist in
identifying which children may be at greater risk for physical abuse.
It is suggested that physical abuse may be associated with certain demographic
variables. For example, while most of the children who were physically abused are
relatively young in age, physical abuse has been reported for older children. Specifically,
2
22% of the children who were physically abused in the NCANDS study (U.S. DHHS,
2007) were young teenagers. The child’s sex may also be associated with physical abuse,
with boys being physically abused more than girls (Ackerman, Newton, McPherson,
Jones, & Dykman, 1998; Mathurin, Gielen, & Lancaster, 2006). Another trend that is
commonly discussed is the over-representation of certain ethnic groups in reported
physical abuse cases (Fluke, Yuan, Hedderson, & Curtis, 2003; Hughes, 2006; Klevens &
Leeb, 2010); Lee, Guterman, & Lee, 2008; Zolotor, Theodore, Chang, Berkoff, &
Runyan, 2008). The NIS-4 revealed that African American children had a greater risk of
experiencing physical abuse than White or Latino American children (Sedlak,
McPherson, & Das, 2010a). While socioeconomic status (SES) has previously been
found to be an important factor in predicting physical abuse (Fergusson, Boden, &
Horwood, 2008, Sedlak, McPherson, & Das, 2010b; Springer, Sheridan, Kuo, & Carnes,
2007; Strassberg, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1994), ethnic differences in SES have
diminished in recent years (Sedlak, McPherson, & Das, 2010b). Specifically, ethnic
differences only existed in two income categories in the most recent NIS, the very lowest
(<$15,000-24,999) and highest (>$100,000). It is possible that other factors besides SES
that are closely related to ethnic group membership may be associated with physical
abuse. One of these factors may be ethnic differences in parenting styles and the role
these differences play in parents’ decision to use specific types of parent practices such as
the use of nonviolent discipline, psychological aggression, and corporal punishment,
(Garbarino, 1977; Gershoff, 2002; Gil, 1970; Kadushin & Martin, 1981; Straus, 2000.
3
These ethnic differences in parenting styles may reflect different cultural norms and
beliefs that are espoused by various ethnic groups. These differences in styles could lead
to the use of different parent disciplining techniques.
In the following sections, a review of the mental health literature will be
conducted on the physical abuse of children, parenting styles, parent disciplining
practices, and the negative outcomes of such parent behaviors. This review will examine
possible risk factors for physical abuse, such as parent disciplining practices, that may
differ across the sexes and ethnic groups and how these relate to parents who may engage
in physically abusive behaviors. There will be a discussion of past definitions of these
constructs relating to physical abuse and corporal punishment to assist in comparing the
results of current and past studies on parent disciplining practices and physical abuse.
Finally, directions for future research in this field of study will be discussed.
Negative Outcomes of Physical Abuse
Previous studies have widely supported the short and long term negative
outcomes of physical abuse for children in substantiated cases of physical abuse and
physically abusive behaviors in general populations. The types of physically abusive
behaviors that were investigated varied from study to study so it is very important to note
what types of behaviors were examined in each study to determine any conclusive
findings pertaining to “physical abuse.”
Studies that focus on immediate or short term negative effects of physical abuse
reveal a number of negative consequences for children who experience this abuse.
4
Reports of physical abuse that have been identified by human service agencies, or are
defined by pushing, grabbing, or slapping by parents have been associated with increased
mental health problems such as delinquent and aggressive behaviors for child victims
(Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1990; Feldman, Salzinger, Rosario, Alvarado, Caraballo, &
Hammer, 1995; Johnsona et al., 2002; Maikovich, Jaffe, Odgers, & Gallop, 2008).
Physical abuse defined as behaviors ranging from verbal threat of physical punishment to
the actual use of a deadly weapon were associated with higher rates of posttraumatic
stress disorder among child populations (Ackerman et al., 1998; Kiser, Heston, Millsap,
& Pruitt, 1991). Child Protective Services and clinic referred children who were abused
were also found to report with internalizing problems such as depression (Allen &
Tarnowski, 1989; Litrownik, Newton, & Landsverk, 2005) and lower self-esteem (Allen
& Tarnowski, 1989; Kazdin, Moser, Colbus, & Bell, 1985).
Physical abuse in childhood seems to also have long term negative consequences
for many adults who were victims of child abuse. For adults who were abused as
children, physical abuse was defined as having marks on one’s body, having an object
thrown at them, being pushed, grabbed, slapped, or kicked, or reporting a high frequency
of physical punishment by their parents. The negative outcomes or consequences of
physical abuse as children for adult victims included increased mental health problems
such as posttraumatic stress disorder (Barbo, 2004), depression and anxiety (Edwards,
Holden, Felitti, & Anda, 2003; Fletcher, 2009; Wainwright & Surtees, 2002), substance
dependence, conduct/anti-social personality disorder, suicidal ideation and attempts
5
(Fergusson et al., 2008), and self-injurious behaviors (Yates, 2006). For physical abuse
defined as being slapped, shoved or having things thrown at them, adult survivors of such
child abuse were also found to report with increased physical health problems such as
high blood pressure, cancer, ulcers, and high cholesterol (Springer et al., 2007).
Representation of Sex in Physical Abuse Cases
The literature on physical abuse and sex differences seems to suggest there may
be a difference in the rates of physical abuse among boys and girls. While some studies
have found that boys and girls are equally represented in physical abuse cases (Mersky,
Berger, Reynolds, & Gromoske, 2009; Sedlak et al., 2010a; Springer et al., 2007), less
information is known about situations where children have experienced some physically
abusive behavior by their parents, that was not reported to child protective agencies. It is
suggested that in studies examining physically abusive behavior in general samples,
males may report experiencing higher levels in childhood than females (Thompson,
Kingree, & Desai, 2004). It is possible that certain parent disciplining practices may
increase the likelihood of physical child abuse. Since the child’s sex may be associated
with these disciplining techniques, this makes the child’s sex an important factor to
include in future studies.
Representation of Ethnicity in Physical Abuse Cases
One finding that has been detected in child abuse cases is the over-representation
of ethnic minorities in physical abuse cases reported to child protective agencies. The
NIS-4 study in 2010 found for the first time that African American children experienced
6
higher rates of physical abuse than White American children. However, studies
conducted before the NIS-4 found similar rates of physical abuse among ethnic groups
(Ackerman, et al., 1998; Fluke et. al., 2003; Hughes, 2006; Klevens & Leeb, 2010; U.S.
DHHS, 2007). The reasons for these inconsistent findings are unknown at this time. It is
possible that other factors that are highly correlated with physical abuse, such as low
socioeconomic status, may be overrepresented in ethnic minority groups. It could also be
that ethnic minority children are referred or investigated more frequently by CPS
agencies.
Over-representation of ethnic minorities has also been detected by researchers that
study physical abuse in the general population (Afifi, Brownridge, Cox, & Sareen, 2006;
Kennedy, 2003; Lee et al., 2008, Turner & Muller, 2004). For example, one study found
that ethnic minority status which was defined as being Asian, African, Latino, and Native
American, predicted a higher level of physical abuse (Zolotor et al., 2008). However, it
is important to recognize some of the limitations of these studies. For example, sample
sizes of ethnic minorities in these studies tend to be small so they are often grouped
together to represent a single aggregate group of “ethnic minority” or “non-White group.”
It may be useful to keep these ethnic groups separate when studying physical abuse to
better understand whether ethnic differences do exist in reported physical abuse and if
specific behaviors of parents, such as disciplining practices, may be contributing to
physically abusive behaviors.
7
Factors Associated with Physical Abuse
Detrimental outcomes for both children and adult children who are victims of
physical abuse have led researchers to seek possible predictors of physical abuse to
perhaps reduce the occurrences of physical abuse among children in the future. One
factor, parents’ use of corporal punishment, has been associated with child physical abuse
and has been frequently researched and debated in past literature. Unfortunately, less
attention has been given to how parents’ use of corporal punishment relates to the use of
nonphysical parent disciplining practices and how these alternative practices relate to
parents’ use of physically abusive behaviors. Comparative investigation of parent
discipline and how it may vary across different ethnic groups may help clarify the
relationship between ethnicity, parenting styles, parent discipline, and physical abuse.
Parenting Styles
Before a discussion of parenting disciplining practices can be initiated, some
contextual factors must be taken into consideration. A limitation of previous research is
the study of parenting disciplining practices without consideration of how parents may
come to the decision of using certain disciplining practices. One way of considering
these contextual factors for parental discipline, is to examine general parenting styles.
Three types of parenting styles based on the dimensions of parent warmth and
demandingness (Baumrind, 1984) have commonly been examined among child and
adolescent outcome studies (Buschgens, van Aken, Swinkels, Ormel, Verhulst, &
8
Buitelaar, 2010; Fletcher, Walls, Cook, Madison, & Bridges, 2008; Park & Bauer, 2002;
Simons & Conger, 2007). These parenting styles include authoritarian style (low
warmth, high demandingness), authoritative style (high warmth, high demandingness)
and permissive style (high warmth, low demandingness). A fourth parenting style was
developed by Maccoby & Martin (1983) which includes uninvolved/neglectful parenting
(low warmth, low demandingness). However, one limitation of the measurement of this
parenting style is that parents may be less likely to report that they are low on both of
these parenting dimensions. In addition, the uninvolved/neglectful parenting style is not
commonly researched. Examining these general parenting styles may give some insights
into how parents may choose particular disciplining practices to support the parenting
style that is preferred in the household. In addition, information about parenting styles
may facilitate a better understanding of possible ethnic differences in parent discipline.
Parenting styles and child sex. Studies have shown that parents may use
different parenting styles depending on their child’s sex. However, the results for studies
in the field have been somewhat mixed. For example, in a study of 10-12 year olds, girls
were found to experience higher levels of one dimension of parenting, warmth, which
may be associated with authoritative or permissive parenting styles (Buschgens et al.,
2010). A study of undergraduate college students supports this finding, with women
reporting more permissive parenting than men, in childhood (Dominguez & Carton,
1997). However, other studies suggest boys may be the recipients of greater parental
warmth. For example in a sample of adolescent children, boys reported a lower level of
9
authoritarian parenting than girls, suggesting higher parental warmth for boys
(Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts & Fraleigh, 1987). Similarly, among college
students, men reported higher level of permissive parenting as children than women,
(McKinney & Renk, 2008; Klein et. al., 1996). In contrast, others have reported that
adolescent boys and young men experience higher levels of both authoritarian and
authoritative parenting than adolescent girls or young women suggesting higher levels of
parental demandingness for boys (Furnham & Cheng, 2000; Flett et al., 1995; Klein et
al., 1996). Finally, some researchers have suggested that parents use similar parenting
styles with boys and girls (Simons & Conger, 2007). As such, the findings in the
preceding studies have not been clear about how parents may use different parenting
styles with their sons and daughters. However, these results suggest there may be some
sex differences in the mother’s and father’s parenting styles concerning the child’s gender
and this may be an important factor to consider when examining corporal punishment and
physical abuse by parents.
Parenting styles and ethnic group membership. Past studies have found that
ethnic groups may differ in the types of parenting styles that are practiced in the home.
For example, Asian and African American parents were found to report with higher
levels of authoritarian parenting than White or Latino Americans (Fite, Stoppelbein, &
Greening, 2009; Jackson-Newsom, Buchanan, & McDonald, 2008; Radziszewska,
Richardson, Dent, & Flay, 1996; Steinberg, Mounts, Lamborn, & Dornbusch, 1991).
Other studies also found that ethnic minority parents in general report a more
10
authoritarian style of parenting than White Americans (Dearing, 2004; Kaufman, Geston,
Santa Lucia, Salcedo, Rendina-Gobioff, & Gadd, 2000; Steinberg et al., 1991). While
some studies found that ethnic minority parents were less likely to support authoritative
parenting styles than White American parents (Radziszewska et al., 1996; Steinberg et
al., 1991), other studies found that authoritative parenting was the preferred method of
parenting reported by ethnic minority parents (Bluestone, Tamis-LeMonda, 1999;
Bradley, 1998). In contrast, other reports found that ethnic minority parents and White
American parents were similar in their support of authoritative parenting styles (Kaufman
et al., 2000; Mupinga, Garrison, & Pierce, 2002; Steinberg, Blatt-Eisengart, & Cauffman,
2006). Less information is known about possible ethnic differences in permissive
parenting. However, since the dimensions used to measure parenting styles, warmth and
demandingness, overlap across these three parenting styles (Baumrind, 1984), it may be
possible that ethnic differences in this type of parenting style may exist as well.
Parenting styles, discipline, and physical abuse. Researchers suggest that
parents who engage in a particular style of parenting may also make greater use of certain
types of disciplining techniques to support their preferred method of parenting. For
example, authoritarian parents were less likely to endorse the use of corporal punishment
to discipline a child than permissive parents, but they were more likely to support the use
of corporal punishment than authoritative parents (Paquette, Bolte, Turcotte, Dubeau, &
Bouchard, 2000). Some researchers have examined the use of parent corporal
punishment and psychological aggression in their definitions of authoritarian style
11
parenting (Frias-Armenta & McCloskey, 1998; Robinson, Mandleco, Olsen, & Hart,
2001). These findings are consistent with the idea that authoritarian parents often demand
strict compliance from their children, and such compliance is often achieved through
corporal punishment (Bean & Roberts, 1981; Day & Roberts, 1983; Gershoff, 2002;
Larzelere, & Kuhn, 2005). Since there is intolerance for misbehavior among these
parents, some researchers suggest this rigid type of thinking may lead to physical abuse
as well. For example, abusive and non-abusive parents in a meta-analysis of 33 studies
were found to significantly differ in their levels of authoritarian and authoritative
parenting (Wilson, Rack, Shi, & Norris, 2008).
Specifically, abusive parents showed
more authoritarian parenting characteristics, while non-abusive parents showed more
authoritative parenting characteristics. A similar finding was reported in another sample
of abusive parents of adolescents (Pelcovitz, 1984).
There is less information about the specific types of discipline used by
authoritative parents. Given that authoritative parents are higher in parental
demandingness and warmth, they may be less likely to use coercive disciplining methods
such as psychological aggression and corporal punishment and more likely to use
nonviolent disciplining methods such as time-out. However, there is little research which
has actually examined this relationship between authoritative parenting style and
disciplining practices. In contrast, permissive parents are characterized by high parental
warmth, and low demandingness and such parents may be less likely to use all forms of
discipline. However, there is a suggestion that permissive parents may be prone to
12
occasional impulsive attempts at controlling child behavior, which may be abusive in
nature (Pelcovitz, 1984).
In the psychology literature, parenting styles have been defined using two
dimensions, parental warmth and demandingness. As discussed previously, these two
parental dimensions may be related to the decision to use some disciplining practices
over others. Additionally, some studies have suggested that some parenting styles, such
as authoritarian or permissive parenting, may lead to attitudes that make it more likely for
parents to use physically abusive behaviors. As such, it may be important to include
parenting styles as a contextual factor in a study of parent discipline to facilitate a better
understanding of how parents choose from different disciplining techniques, particularly
among different ethnic groups. Information about parenting styles may also help explain
possible relationships between this factor and physically abusive behavior, particularly
among authoritarian and permissive parents.
Parent Disciplining Practices
Parents have a wide variety of disciplining techniques available to them when
deciding to discipline their children, which may be influenced by their general parenting
style. These techniques can include nonviolent forms of discipline such as verbal
reasoning, revoking of privileges, time-outs, and psychologically aggressive forms of
discipline such as yelling or threatening, and corporal punishment such as spanking with
a bare hand, spanking with an object, slapping, and pinching. It is suggested that lack of
success with the more positive or socially accepted forms of disciplining practices may
13
lead to progressively more intrusive disciplining practices such as psychological
aggression and corporal punishment (Gil, 1970). Finally, parents may engage in
physically abusive behaviors as an attempt to control child behavior. Many studies have
attempted to link parent corporal punishment use with physical abuse or have suggested
that physical abuse is on the extreme end of a continuum of all forms of physical
punishment (Gershoff, 2002; Gil, 1970; Giles-Sims, Straus, & Sugarman, 1995; Jaffe,
Caspi, Moffitt, & Taylor, 2004; Kadushin & Martin, 1981; Straus, 2000; Zolotor et al.,
2008), but these studies have failed to take into consideration that parents may use
alternative disciplining practices. It may be possible that access or use of nonphysical
disciplining practices may reduce the use of corporal punishment or the likelihood of
physically abusive behaviors. Previous studies have also failed to determine if culture or
ethnicity plays a critical role in determining what types of parent disciplining practices
are commonly accepted among parents of different ethnic groups. This information
would be useful in order to clarify the relationship between the disciplining practices that
parents decide to use and their association with physical abuse. It is possible that overrepresentation of ethnic minorities in physical abuse cases may be better explained by
ethnic group differences in parent disciplining practices.
Nonphysical forms of discipline. Nonphysical forms of discipline can include
both strategies that are commonly taught in parent training programs such as the use of
rewards, reasoning, and time-out and psychologically aggressive disciplining practices
such as yelling, the use of threats, and name-calling to control child behavior. It is
14
possible that success with the use of nonphysical forms of discipline may reduce the
occurrence of more physical disciplining practices or physically abusive behaviors.
Nonviolent discipline. Nonviolent discipline is commonly described in past
literature as parent behaviors such as verbal reasoning/explaining, sending a child to
his/her room, the use of time-out, grounding, and removing privileges (Amuwo, Fabian,
Tolley, Spence, & Hill, 2004; Barkin, Scheindlin, Ip, Richardson, & Finch, 2007; Caughy
& Franzini, 2005; Jackson et al., 1999; Trickett & Kuczynski, 1986). Outcomes of this
type of parent discipline are not well studied. Many effective parent training programs
tend to teach the use of nonviolent disciplining techniques in controlling child behavior
(Boyle, Sanders, Lutzker, Prinz, Shapiro, & Whitaker, 2010; Smagner & Sullivan, 2005;
Webster-Stratton, & Hancock, 1998). These programs have been found to be effective in
promoting more positive or socially accepted parenting practices. For example, the uses
of these positive parenting techniques in Parent-Child Interaction Therapy were found to
reduce physically abusive parenting in White, African, Latino, and Native Americans
(Hakman, Chaffin, Funderburk, & Silovsky, 2009). It is unclear, however, if using
nonviolent disciplining practices less is related to increased use of other psychologically
aggressive or physically violent disciplining practices. Some evidence suggests the use
of nonviolent discipline is positively associated with using psychological aggression
(Wissow, 2001). Studies that have examined the relationship between the use of
nonviolent discipline and more physical forms of punishment have provided mixed
findings (Gest, Freeman, Domitrovich, & Welsh, 2004; Jackson et al., 1999; Thompson
15
et al., 2009; Wissow, 2001). Some of these studies have shown the use of nonviolent
discipline is positively associated with using corporal punishment, while other studies
have shown the opposite or a negative relationship between these two parenting
behaviors. It is also uncertain whether the use of less nonviolent disciplining practices is
directly related to a greater risk of physically abusive parenting. One study showed that
verbal reasoning was used less by physically abusive parents compared to nonabusive
controls (Trickett & Kuczynski, 1986). However, some evidence suggests that a history
of physical abuse by parents is not significantly related to parent use of nonviolent
discipline (Jackson et al., 1999). Further research is needed to clarify the role of
nonviolent discipline for parents who are found to be physically abusive.
Nonviolent discipline and child sex. Previous studies have shown that parents
may use nonviolent discipline at different rates for boys and girls. Specifically, some
evidence suggests a gender difference (Barkin et al., 2007; Jackson et al., 1999) with
boys more likely to lose a privilege than girls. When considering sex differences in other
disciplining methods, this finding may suggest that, in general, boys are more likely to be
disciplined than girls regardless of the discipline type. However, the opposite finding
was shown in a study examining positive parenting, including the use of explaining what
the child did wrong. Women were found to report this disciplining technique more than
men (Gamez-Guadix, Straus, Carrobles, Munoz-Rivas, & Almendros, 2010). However,
there is also evidence that there may be no sex differences concerning this type of
discipline by parents (Padilla-Walker & Carlo, 2004). Nonviolent discipline is an
16
accepted and positive form of discipline however, less information is known about its use
among boys and girls. Considering the more definitive sex differences in other physical
disciplining methods, it may be beneficial to further explore this disciplining method as
an alternative technique.
Nonviolent discipline and ethnic group membership. There is some evidence to
suggest the use of nonviolent disciplining techniques may vary by ethnicity. For
example, African Americans and less acculturated Latino Americans were found to use
time out less than White Americans and that less acculturated Latinos use the revoking of
privileges in comparison with White Americans (Barkin et al., 2007). In contrast,
another study has reported that there were no ethnic differences between White, African,
and Latino Americans in their most preferred methods of parenting which were verbal
praise and reasoning with their children (Medora, Wilson, & Larson, 2001). Ethnic
differences in attitudes about nonviolent discipline show different results. For example,
African American parents did not differ in their endorsement of verbal explaining,
removing privileges, or using time out from White American parents, but Latino
American parents endorsed verbal explaining more and time out/removing privileges less
than African and White American parents (Caughy & Franzini, 2005). There is less
information about the rate of nonviolent discipline among Asian Americans, but some
evidence shows that Asian Americans may believe that practices such as time-outs and
revoking privileges are associated with Western styles of disciplining and not associated
with traditional Asian styles of disciplining (Kim & Hong, 2006). It may be that Asian
17
Americans are less willing to use nonviolent disciplining methods because of culturally
different norms concerning parenting and discipline. Overall, past literature seems to
support possible ethnic differences in nonviolent discipline, but it is unclear what specific
ethnic differences exist in parent disciplining techniques.
Psychological aggression. Psychological aggression has many different names in
the literature, but encompasses similar operational definitions across various studies.
Psychological aggression is often referred to as “verbal abuse,” “verbal aggression,” and
“verbal punishment,” and includes behaviors such as yelling/screaming, threatening
punishment or spanking, name-calling/insulting, and swearing to control child behavior
(Barkin et al., 2007; Berlin et al., 2009; Caughy & Franzini, 2005; Jackson et al., 1999;
Joiner, Sachs-Ericsson, Wingate, Brown, Anestis, & Selby, 2007; Moore & Pepler, 2006;
Padilla-Walker & Carlo, 2004; Straus & Field, 2003). The use of psychological
aggression has been associated with negative child outcomes such as increased
aggression and decreased emotional responsiveness (Berlin et al., 2009), and increased
depression, and anxiety (Miller-Perrin, Perrin, & Kocur, 2009). There may be some
association between psychological aggression and other parent disciplining practices. It
is not well known how psychological aggression is related to nonviolent discipline, but
there is some suggestion that they are negatively correlated (Padilla-Walker & Carlo,
2004). The relationship between psychological aggression and corporal punishment
seems to be clearer. The use of psychological aggression may be positively related to the
use of corporal punishment (Berlin et al., 2009; Fung & Lau, 2009; Jackson et al., 1999,
18
Miller-Perrin et al., 2009; Wissow, 2001). There is also some evidence to suggest that
use of psychological aggression by parents is associated with using physically abusive
punishment (Miller-Perrin et al., 2009; Thompson et al., 1999). Given the lack of
information about psychological aggression, it would be beneficial to investigate this
technique further when studying alternative disciplining practices and physical abuse.
Psychological aggression and child sex. Mixed findings have been reported
about sex differences in parents’ use of psychological aggression. Some studies of minor
children suggest that boys and girls are equally likely to receive psychological
aggression, including yelling, threats, and name-calling, from their parents (Barkin et al.,
2007; Jackson et al., 1999; Padilla-Walker & Carlo, 2004; Trickett & Kuczynski, 1986).
Alternatively, other studies suggest that men may report higher psychological aggression
in childhood than women (Gamez-Guadix et al., 2010). The use of psychological
aggression may be closely tied to the use of corporal punishment, and sex differences in
corporal punishment seem to be clearer. It may be possible that psychological aggression
is a precursor for corporal punishment use and this disciplining technique may be
important to consider in studies of sex differences in parent discipline.
Psychological aggression and ethnic group membership. Past research suggests
that psychological aggression may vary by ethnicity. For example, less acculturated
Latino Americans were found to yell at their children less often than White Americans,
but White Americans and African Americans were not found to differ in this parenting
practice (Barkin et al., 2007). A similar result showed White Americans and African
19
Americans using similar rates of psychological aggression, but both used more
psychological aggression than Latino Americans (Lee et al., 2008). Conversely, African
Americans tend to yell or use negative comments more than White or Latino Americans
(Berlin et al., 2009). In contrast, it was found that name-calling was used more by White
Americans than African Americans (Jackson-Newsom, Buchanan, & McDonald, 2008).
Others suggest that psychologically aggressive forms of discipline do not vary by
ethnicity (Straus & Field, 2003). Given these limited findings, it is difficult to discuss
any definitive conclusions about psychologically aggressive parenting behaviors among
different ethnic groups. Future research in this area may facilitate the investigation of
relationships between ethnicity, psychological aggression, and physical abuse.
Nonphysical parenting practices are important to consider because if they are not
available as disciplining alternatives in particular cultural groups, parents may use more
physical disciplining practices to manage child behavior. Past research has focused on
the association between corporal punishment and physical abuse. Little is known about
parents’ use of other disciplining practices in combination with their use of corporal
punishment. If there is an association between corporal punishment by parents and
physical abuse, future research in the field of physical abuse should attempt to consider
other forms of parent discipline in addition to corporal punishment use. It is possible the
use of nonviolent discipline or psychological aggression may be effective forms of
discipline and may reduce the use of more intrusive forms of punishment like corporal
20
punishment or parenting behaviors that are considered to be physically abusive by CPS
standards.
Corporal punishment. One limitation in the study of corporal punishment is that
it is not clearly differentiated from physically abusive behaviors by parents in past
research. These two variables do not have a consistent definition across studies in mental
health literature. Specifically, nonabusive forms of corporal punishment are often
included with physically abusive types of behaviors in operational definitions of corporal
punishment for some studies and the reverse is true for some studies on physical abuse.
For some researchers, this problem in developing better operational definitions for
corporal punishment versus physically abusive parenting behavior may be due to the use
of a very commonly employed measure, the Parent-Child version of the Conflict Tactics
Scale (CTSPC) (Straus, Hamby, Finkelhor, Moore, & Runyan, 1998). The CTSPC
contains a physical punishment subscale that includes both abusive and nonabusive
corporal punishment behaviors. While the authors have acknowledged the presence of
both abusive and nonabusive corporal punishment items in the subscale, they do not
specify a standardized way of determining or defining which of these items may be
categorized into an abusive and nonabusive component. They suggest that the subscale
may be divided into two components or may be used as a single, complete subscale. This
ambiguity has allowed each researcher in the past to interpret the scale differently and
define corporal punishment and abusive disciplining practices according to their own
operational definitions.
21
To help resolve this problem, it has been suggested that researchers should
examine previous reports on the frequency of a corporal punishment behavior such as
spanking to help differentiate between ordinary corporal punishment and corporal
punishment which is excessive and has become physical abuse. For example, Whipple &
Richey’s (1997) study on the specific rates of parental disciplining behaviors may help to
provide some direction in clarifying the difference between abusive and nonabusive
spanking by parents. They reported that physically abusive mothers spanked their
children more than nonabusive mothers. Specifically, what made a socially-accepted
corporal punishment technique such as spanking “physically abusive” behavior was the
excessiveness of its use. They also clearly defined that the difference between
nonabusive and abusive spanking in their study was the mother spanking a child more
than 5.73 times per day. However, a major limitation of this study was the use of an
abusive parent population to compare with a nonabusive parent sample to determine what
constituted abusive spanking. Another limitation of this study is that only spanking
behavior was measured in the definition of corporal punishment. It is possible that
parents who use corporal punishment may use multiple corporal punishment behaviors to
discipline their children.
Other researchers emphasize that specific behaviors may help to differentiate
corporal punishment from physical abuse. Most studies use a composite average of the
rates of several behaviors and these specific behaviors can vary from study to study. For
example, many studies investigating the use of corporal punishment include common
22
definitions such as spanking on the bottom with a bare hand, spanking on the bottom with
an object, shaking for children over the age of two, and pinching (Deater-Deckard et. al.,
1996; Dietz, 2000; Giles-Sims et al., 1995; Leary, Kelley, Morrow, & Mikulka, 2008;
Miller-Perrin et al., 2009; Straus & Stewart, 1999; Whipple & Richey, 1997; WhitesideMansell, Bradley & McKelvey, 2009). These disciplining behaviors have never been
used in any previous operational definitions of physical abuse in the mental health
literature. However, many studies investigating the outcomes of physical abuse have
used operational definitions of specific abusive behaviors such as hitting with a fist,
kicking, choking, beating up, and burning a child or adolescent (Afifi et. al., 2006;
Calder, McVean, & Wang, 2010; Maker, Shah, & Agha, 2009; Zolotor et. al., 2008).
These abusive behaviors have not usually been used in any definitions of corporal
punishment behaviors in the psychology literature. However, there is a list of other
parental behaviors that have been evenly categorized or defined as corporal punishment
(Amato & Fowler, 2002; Gershoff, 2002; Lansford, Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates, &
Pettit, 2004; Maikovich et al., 2008; Mathurin, et al., 2006; McCabe, Clark & Barnett,
1999; Strassberg et al., 1994) or physical abuse (Afifi et al., 2006; Edwards et al., 2003;
Fletcher, 2009; Johnsona et. al, 2002; Springer et al., 2007; Thompson et. al., 2009).
These behaviors include hitting on other parts of the body with an object, slapping of the
head/ears, slapping of the arms or legs, and throwing/knocking down a child.
Categorizing these behaviors sometimes as corporal punishment and sometimes as
physical abuse presents a problem for two reasons. One problem is that studies using
23
such inconsistent definitions about corporal punishment and physically abusive behaviors
would be very difficult to compare to one another. Another problem is that it would be
difficult to determine any conclusive information about whether corporal punishment is
related to physically abusive parenting if specific behaviors used to define these two
constructs are used interchangeably across these two definitions.
Future studies in the field of corporal punishment and physical abuse of children
should attempt to standardize definitions across these types of studies, especially with the
use of the CTSPC. This would allow studies in each field to be more easily compared
with one another and more conclusive results can be found in regards to the possible
negative outcomes of corporal punishment and physical abuse. A more standardized
definition would help future studies that attempt to find a relationship between corporal
punishment and physical abuse.
Corporal punishment and physical abuse. Common views about the use of
corporal punishment for disciplining have not been well established in the United States.
This may be due to general attitudes of parents that corporal punishment is sometimes
necessary to manage children’s behavior (Straus, 2000). Corporal punishment may be an
effective tool in decreasing noncompliance (Bean & Roberts, 1981; Day & Roberts,
1983; Gershoff, 2002; Larzelere, & Kuhn, 2005) which may contribute to these general
attitudes. It is possible that due to these attitudes and the effectiveness of corporal
punishment, it is a widely and frequently used disciplining technique. For example, it
was found that more than half of the mothers from the National Longitudinal Study of
24
Youth (NLSY) spank their 3-5 year old children (Giles-Sims et al., 1995). Ninety-four
percent of caregivers from the Gallup Organization survey (1995) use corporal
punishment with their young children and although this rate declines as a child becomes
older, a third of the parents were still using corporal punishment with their adolescent
children (Straus & Stewart, 1999).
Aside from parent attitudes and behavior, parents may not reject corporal
punishment as a disciplining technique because laws in the United States have been
somewhat unclear about what is acceptable discipline for parents to use. This is in
contrast to a growing trend in other countries that have passed laws to prohibit corporal
punishment to discipline children. For example, twenty-nine countries including
Norway, Croatia, Romania, and Costa Rica have instituted a ban on corporal punishment
by parents and twenty-three other countries are in the process of adopting similar laws
prohibiting the use of corporal punishment (Global Initiative to End All Corporal
Punishment of Children [GIEACPC], 2010). Although the passage of these laws may not
necessarily reflect the residents’ attitudes and behaviors on corporal punishment, it is a
legal action undertaken by these nations’ policymakers to eliminate the occurrence of this
behavior by parents. In these countries, protecting children from corporal punishment is
viewed as part of a larger human rights agenda to protect all people from interpersonal
violence (GIEACPC, 2009). To support this case, child advocates in these countries have
cited research on the negative physical and psychological consequences (e.g., increased
depression and posttraumatic stress disorder) for victims of interpersonal violence such as
25
intimate partner violence, violence experienced while incarcerated, and being physically
bullied (Abada, Hou, & Ram, 2008; Lee, Pomeroy, & Bohman, 2007; Wolff & Shi,
2010). It is suggested that corporal punishment by parents is a form of interpersonal
violence that can have negative physical and psychological outcomes. For example,
research has shown that recipients of corporal punishment reported with more depression
and externalizing behaviors (Eamon, 2001; Lansford et al., 2004; Larzelere, Klein,
Shumm, & Alibrando, 1989; Mulvaney & Mebert, 2007; Strassberg et al., 1994) than
those who have not received this form of punishment. This information may assist
policymakers in implementing appropriate and clearer laws in the U.S. regarding what
disciplining techniques are acceptable for parents to use.
Opposite to most parents’ views about corporal punishment, researchers have
often discouraged parents from using corporal punishment, citing the negative
psychological outcomes associated with this disciplining technique such as depression
and lower grades (Amato & Fowler, 2002; Bryan & Freed, 1982; Lynam, Loeber,
Stouthamer-Loeber, 2008), externalizing behavior problems (Deater-Deckard et al., 1996;
Gershoff, 2002; Strassberg et al., 1994), and socioemotional problems (Eamon, 2001),
for children and adult children. Others believe that the risks of using corporal
punishment for disciplining are even greater because they may increase the risk for
physical abuse by parents (Garbarino, 1977; Gershoff, 2002; Gil, 1970; Kadushin &
Martin, 1981; Straus, 2000). It is important to note that some researchers suggest that it
is unlikely for a parent to deliberately consider physically abusing their child to control
26
child behavior. They believe the decision to use corporal punishment by the parent as
punishment for a child may escalate into abusive practices when ordinary corporal
punishment is not found to be effective. In a study of child physical abuse in sixty-six
families, Kadushin and Martin (1981) concluded:
There is little evidence in these interviews that unwarranted malice, deliberate
sadism, or deep-rooted, persistent animosity toward the child prompted parental
abuse. Invariably, there was some behavior on the part of the child which served
to instigate an interactional, stimulus-response chain of interdependent actions
culminating in abuse. (p. 141)
In another investigation of 1,380 cases of child abuse, over half of these cases
involved an attempt to discipline the child by a parent or guardian. These findings
suggest that perhaps prior disciplining strategies by the parent may not have been
effective and that the discipline later became abusive (Gil, 1970). Non-abused samples
may show similar results. In a general sample of adult children, the use of corporal
punishment was related to also experiencing physical abuse (Miller-Perrin et al., 2009).
While these studies suggest a possible link between corporal punishment and
experiencing physical abuse, a causal relationship has not been determined.
Specific corporal punishment behaviors endorsed by a parent may give insight
into the possible occurrence of physical abuse by this same parent. It was found that
children who were spanked on the bottom with a bare hand were two times as likely to
have experienced physically abusive behaviors from their parents and children that had
27
experienced spanking on the bottom with a hard object were eight times more likely to
experience physically abusive behaviors from their parents (Zolotor et al., 2008).
Currently, it is not clear if the use of corporal punishment behaviors is a significant
predictor of physical abuse by parents. If there is a significant relationship between
corporal punishment and physical abuse, it is possible that certain types of corporal
punishment behaviors may be better predictors of physical abuse than other forms of
corporal punishment.
Corporal punishment and child sex. Differences in corporal punishment suggest
that more boys tend to be punished with spanking, slapping, pinching, shaking, and hairpulling than girls (Bryan & Freed, 1982; Giles-Sims, et. al., 1995; Jackson et al., 1999;
Lansford et al., 2004; Mathurin et al., 2006; Mcloyd & Smith, 2002; Straus & Stewart,
1999). However, other researchers have found that boys and girls are corporally
punished with spanking at similar rates (Afifi et. al., 2006; Lytton & Romney, 1991;
Strassberg, et. al., 1994; Trickett & Kuczynski, 1986). Studies that examine a wide range
of corporal punishment behaviors tend to show that there may be a sex difference in how
children are punished. It is possible that more common forms of punishment, such as
spanking do not vary by child’s sex. The results of these studies suggest that sex
differences may exist in some corporal punishment behaviors however, these have not
been previously explored.
Corporal punishment and ethnic group membership. Some cultural or ethnic
groups may believe the use of corporal punishment is not detrimental to children. In
28
certain situations, some cultural groups may find that corporal punishment is acceptable
especially when it takes place within positive parent-child relationships (Baumrind,
1996a; Horn, 2004; Lansford et al., 2004; Polaha, Larzelere, Shapiro, & Pettit, 2004),
while others believe that corporal punishment leads to negative outcomes, including
physical abuse regardless of child’s ethnic background (Gershoff, 2002; Matta, 2002;
Mcloyd & Smith, 2002; Whiteside-Mansell et al., 2009). Comparative studies among
children of different ethnic groups have led researchers to believe that stronger ethnic
identification with certain ethnic groups, specifically identifying as African American,
and adopting their cultural practices may serve as a protective factor for any negative
effects of corporal punishment for child targets. It is not clear why being strongly
identified or feeling a part of a certain ethnic or cultural group would serve as a protective
factor from the negative consequences of corporal punishment. Some suggest that
specific characteristics of a cultural group such as social acceptability of attitudes about
corporal punishment may make the experiencing of corporal punishment less detrimental
(Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1996; Haskett, Allaire, Kreig, & Hart, 2008;
Horn, 2004; Lansford et al., 2004; Polaha et al., 2004). However, most of these studies
have focused on psychological outcomes and not the risk for physical abuse. Future
studies should investigate this possible protective factor among different ethnic groups in
relation to risk of physical abuse.
It was suggested earlier that specific parenting practices such as nonviolent
discipline, psychological aggression, and corporal punishment may significantly differ
29
across ethnic groups because of possible differences in generally acceptable cultural
practices of disciplining children. Several studies have suggested that the disciplining
practice of corporal punishment does vary across ethnic groups both in attitudes and in
reported behaviors. It is important to take these possible differences into consideration
when it may appear that an ethnic group is over-represented in cases of physical abuse.
Investigating differences in parent disciplining methods may help to better explain why
over-representation of certain ethnic groups in physical abuse cases may occur.
Corporal punishment attitudes. Attitudes about corporal punishment may differ
across ethnic groups because of cultural beliefs about parent disciplining. For example,
White American mothers are significantly more likely than African American mothers to
believe that corporal punishment is necessary if they believe that the child is intentionally
misbehaving (Burchinal, Skinner, & Reznick, 2010). Studies in the past have found
significant differences across ethnic groups in attitudes about corporal punishment.
Specifically, research suggests that Asian and African Americans may hold a more
positive view of corporal punishment than White and Latino Americans. For example,
immigrant ethnic groups in the U.S. endorse corporal punishment (as defined by the
authors as beating, burning, and scratching their children) (Hong & Hong, 1991).
Specifically, these authors found that Asian Americans rated these corporal punishment
behaviors by parents as less severe than Latino or White Americans. Additionally, Asian
and African American mothers favored the use of corporal punishment more than White
and Latino American mothers (Jambunathan, Burts & Pierce, 2000). Consistent with this
30
study, African American mothers believed spanking was a more effective method for
disciplining than White American mothers and both African and White American
mothers believed spanking was a more effective disciplining technique than Latino
American mothers (Caughy & Franzini, 2005). In a separate study, Flynn (1998) found
both gender and ethnicity differences in the endorsement of spanking by African and
White Americans. Specifically, African Americans and men were more likely to support
spanking as a form of punishment than Whites and females, respectively. White
American women endorsed only verbal reasoning to discipline a misbehaving child, but
African American women endorsed verbal reasoning and spanking a misbehaving child
to correct his/her behavior (Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates & Pettit, 1995 as cited in
Deater-Deckard & Dodge, 1997). African American students were also found to be more
accepting of spanking, pulling, pinching, and slapping as a means for disciplining by
parents than Latino or White American students (Ibanez, Borrego, Pemberton, & Terao,
2006). Collectively, these studies seem to suggest a certain trend in parental attitudes
about corporal punishment across different ethnic groups. These studies suggest that
Asian and African Americans may have a more positive view of corporal punishment
than Latino and White Americans. Given that attitudes and behavior are often
significantly related, this information may lead us to believe that there are possible ethnic
differences in the rates or incidence of certain corporal punishment behaviors.
Corporal punishment behaviors. Past studies have suggested that corporal
punishment behaviors may vary across ethnic groups. For example, it was found that
31
being hit with or without an object, slapped on an extremity/face/head, pinched, and
being shaken occurred more for African American children than White American
children (Straus & Stewart, 1999). This finding supports the results of a previous study
which found that African American children were more likely to be hit with or without an
object and slapped on an extremity/face/head than White American children (DeaterDeckard et. al. 1996). Further supporting these findings, African American parents were
found to use spanking more than White American parents, however Latino and White
Americans did not differ in their rate of spanking in this same study (Wissow, 2001).
Several studies have found that Latino Americans use similar rates of spanking as White
Americans (Barkin et al., 2007; Berlin et. al., 2009; Weller, Romney, & Orr, 1987).
Therefore, it may be incorrect to believe that ethnic minorities, in general, use more
physical forms of punishment compared to White Americans. Instead, examining specific
groups is important.
Ethnic differences may also exist in the different types of corporal punishment
used to discipline children. Specific corporal punishment behaviors may be important to
study because certain behaviors may be more closely related to physical abuse than
others (Zolotor et al., 2008). One study (Lansford et. al., 2004) found that African
American parents used a wider range of corporal punishment behaviors to discipline their
children than White American parents at kindergarten and sixth and eighth grades.
Studies on attitudes about corporal punishment are fairly similar to the behavioral studies
concerning ethnic differences in the use of corporal punishment. In these studies, African
32
Americans tend to use more corporal punishment techniques or behaviors than other
ethnic groups and Latino and White American parents tend to use similar amounts of
corporal punishment behaviors (Barkin et al., 2007; Berlin et. al., 2009; Deater-Deckard
et. al. 1996; Straus & Stewart, 1999; Wissow, 2001). However, a limitation of these past
studies on corporal punishment attitudes is that Asian Americans are often overlooked
and not included in these samples. Future studies in the field of corporal punishment
should attempt to include Asian Americans since corporal punishment behaviors among
this group have not been frequently studied in the past and this group is underrepresented in national child abuse studies (U.S. DHHS, 2007; Sedlak et al., 2010a).
If experiences of corporal punishment and physical abuse are related, this may
have implications for groups that use corporal punishment and are over-represented in
physical abuse cases. As previously described, certain ethnic groups were found to be
over-represented in physical abuse cases reported to authorities (Hughes, 2006; Klevens
& Leeb, 2010; Lee et al., 2008; U.S. DHHS, 2007; Sedlak & Broadhurst, 1996; Sedlak et
al., 2010a).
However, it is not clear if there may be similar ethnic differences in
unsubstantiated cases or unreported cases of physical abuse. There may or may not be
similar ethnic differences for unsubstantiated cases, or unreported cases of physical
abuse. Unfortunately, less information is known about these other types of incidents that
may involve physically abusive behaviors by parents. It would be beneficial if future
research examined a general population which could be more representative of all of
these types of physical abuse incidents. Information about possible physical abuse in the
33
general population may reveal different findings from the representation of ethnicity
among children with documented experiences of physical abuse.
In summary, past studies have shown there are ethnic differences in corporal
punishment attitudes and behaviors. Some believe that a protective factor against
negative psychological outcomes may exist for certain ethnic groups when using corporal
punishment with their children, but it is unknown if this protective factor also occurs
against the risk for negative outcomes in the use of physically abusive behaviors by
parents. Ethnic differences may exist in the incidence of physical abuse cases as well,
but little information is known about the representation of ethnic groups in general
populations experiencing corporal punishment and physical abuse. There may be a
possible relationship between corporal punishment experiences and physical abuse
experiences. Future studies should examine the prevalence and types of corporal
punishment used by different ethnic groups in the general population and investigate how
these factors relate to the use of physically abusive behaviors by parents. This
information may clarify why ethnic minorities may be over-represented in physical abuse
cases.
Other contributing factors. When examining possible relationships between
ethnic group membership, parenting styles, parent disciplining practices, and physically
abusive behaviors, several other variables were often included in previous studies and
suggest a close association to these variables. These closely related variables may need
to be considered in any research design that attempts to study the relationship between
34
ethnicity, parent disciplining practices, and physical abuse. It may be these variables are
more closely related to physically abusive behaviors by parents than other variables such
as parenting practices. Separate examination of these variables will help explain the
relationship among ethnic group membership, parent disciplining practices, and
physically abusive behaviors in a more precise way.
Parent place of birth or immigrant status. Immigrant status or the parents’ place
of birth may play a critical role in determining preferred parenting styles and parent
disciplining practices. Immigrants who move to the United States may be following
culturally accepted standards or parenting styles from their native countries or countries
of origin even if their parenting behaviors are culturally different from what is the
accepted norm in the U.S. For example, in a study of six countries, parents in Kenya and
Italy reported the highest levels of corporal punishment, followed by parents in the
Philippines and India who reported moderate levels of corporal punishment, and parents
in China and Thailand reported the lowest levels of corporal punishment (Lansford et. al.,
2005). About 75% of parents in Egypt use corporal punishment (Abolfotouh, El-Bourgy,
Seif El Din, & Mehanna, 2009) in comparison with 94% of U.S. parents that use corporal
punishment. In contrast, only 2% of Egyptian parents have used time-out compared with
69% of U.S. parents. In a study of over two hundred Jewish and Arab mothers in Israel,
Arab mothers endorsed all forms of discipline (i.e., nonviolent discipline, psychological
aggression, and corporal punishment) more than Jewish mothers (Khoury-Kassabri,
2009). This may suggest that newly immigrated people, or children of immigrants, may
35
report with a greater likelihood to use or experience certain disciplining practices more
than others if this is the culturally accepted custom in their native countries. Another
aspect of this factor is that often certain ethnic groups in the U.S. are more likely to be
comprised of immigrants or children of immigrants. For example, Asian and Latino
Americans are more likely to be immigrants or children of immigrants than African or
White Americans. Unfortunately, general information about the frequency and
prevalence of nonviolent discipline, psychological aggression, and corporal punishment
is not readily available for many countries. The lack of such information makes it
difficult to state any specific conclusions about known differences concerning parent
discipline between different cultures. However, considering there may be possible crosscultural differences in parenting styles and disciplining techniques, this is a specific
variable that should be considered when studying the relationship of ethnicity, corporal
punishment, and physical abuse.
Socioeconomic status. Socioeconomic status (SES) may also be associated with
group differences in parenting styles, parent disciplining practices, and physical abuse.
For example, it was found that people with higher SES were engaging in more
authoritative parenting practices and people with lower SES engaging in more
authoritarian parenting practices (Bluestone & Tamis-LeMonda, 1999; Kaufman et al.,
2000). Lower socioeconomic status was also related to higher rates of permissive
parenting (Bluestone, et al., 1999). Another study confirmed these results that high and
middle SES families engaged in higher rates of authoritative parenting and low SES
36
families exhibited higher rates of authoritarian and permissive parenting than high/middle
SES families (Dornbusch et al., 1987). Considering this variable in a study parenting
styles would be important given the consistent differences in parenting styles across
different SES levels.
In a review of the literature, less is known about the relationship of SES to
different forms of parent disciplining including corporal punishment. Several researchers
do not believe there is a significant relationship between SES and nonviolent discipline
(Barkin et al., 2007; Jackson et al. 1999). Specifically, both high and low SES parents
were found to use similar amounts of nonviolent discipline. With regard to the use of
psychological aggression by different SES groups, mixed results have been found. Most
of the studies show no significant relationship between the use of psychological
aggression and SES (Barkin et al., 2007; Jackson et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2008; Straus,
2003). However, one study found that lower SES may be related to using more
psychological aggression (Berlin et al., 2009). In contrast, the use of corporal
punishment has been found to be more consistently related to low SES (Berlin et al.,
2009; Deater-Deckard et. al., 1996; Dietz, 2000; Lansford, et. al., 2004; Pinderhughes,
Dodge, Bates, Pettit, & Zelli, 2000; Straus & Stewart, 1999; Wager, 2009). If this
relationship is true, then it is possible that low socioeconomic status may explain higher
corporal punishment use by parents. It is also possible that SES may show the closest
association to use of corporal punishment, even when compared to ethnicity. There is
some evidence to suggest that physically abused children often come from the lowest
37
SES families (Klimes-Dougan, & Kistner, 1990; Lee et al., 2008; Mulvaney & Mebert,
2007). Although SES may not be related to nonviolent discipline and psychological
aggression, given the possible relationship between SES, corporal punishment use, and
physical abuse, this is a variable that should be considered as a possible contributing
variable in any study of corporal punishment and physical abuse. Inclusion of this
variable would clarify any possible relationships between SES, ethnic group membership,
parent disciplining practices, and physical abuse.
Family structure. Family structure components, defined by family size and the
marital status of the parents, are factors that are closely related to socioeconomic status
and physical abuse of children in past literature. First, family size must be considered
when examining SES since the financial resources of the family can become increasingly
limited as the size of the family grows larger. Second, SES may be confounded by the
marital status of the parents since a two-parent family is more likely to report with a
higher SES than a single-parent family. This factor must be considered when studying
socioeconomic status since a measure of SES based solely on income alone may not be
reflective of the resources available for each family.
Family size and parent marital status should be considered in a study of physical
abuse since they may be closely related. Specifically, as a family grows larger, parents
are more likely to feel the stressors of parenting and may be at greater risk to engage in
physically abusive behavior (Baldwin & Oliver, 1975; Klerman, 1993). Finally, parents
who are unmarried or separated may also experience extra stress due to separation and
38
the demands of single parenting and this could make such single parents more likely than
married parents to engage in physically abusive behavior (Afifi, Boman, Fleisher, &
Sareen, 2009; Irwin, 2009; Wu et al., 2004 )
Age. It may be important to consider the participant’s current age when studying
different dimensions of parenting, such as behavior and attitudes, in an adult population.
The participant’s age may better indicate the specific generation in which s/he grew up
and the general experiences of parenting and disciplining associated with a specific time
period may vary from generation to generation. One example of these differences is seen
cross culturally in a study of mothers and grandmothers from three different cultures.
While the mothers reported some similar beliefs about children and childcare to the
grandmothers, many of the beliefs had changed over time and this may be due to
differing child rearing environments (Lamm, Keller, Yovsi, & Chaudhary, 2008).
Another reason for these changes may be that recommendations by parenting experts may
have changed over time and this may lead to differences in parental attitudes and
behaviors across generations. One example of possible differences in parenting styles
was found among two different generations of parents in the United States. Specifically,
the first-generation parents showed higher levels of authoritarian and permissive
parenting and lower levels of authoritative parenting than the second-generation parents
(Pritchard-Boone, 2007). Differences were also found in a comparative generational
study of parent behaviors where the parenting for the first generation was observed in
1985, while the second generation was observed in 2002 (Bailey, Hill, Oesterle, &
39
Hawkins, 2009). Among these parents, some discontinuity in harsh parenting (i.e.,
yelling, spanking) was shown across generations, with the second generation reporting
lesser endorsement of such behaviors. A similar finding was reported among immigrant
families in the United States in which second generation parents adopted some of
disciplining attitudes and methods of their parents’ generation, but they had moved away
from the use of corporal punishment as a disciplining technique (Waters & Sykes, 2009).
It may be that newer generations of parents may be less likely to engage in certain
parenting styles and behaviors, particularly psychological aggression and corporal
punishment as compared with previous generations. This may lead to increased use of
alternative techniques to control child behavior, such as nonviolent discipline among
these younger parents. When measuring responses about parenting styles and discipline
among adult children, it may be important to examine the participant’s age to reduce
some of the generational differences in parenting.
Summary
This literature review of the factors that may be related to physical abuse suggests
several themes in the current literature:
1. Previous studies have shown an over-representation of ethnic minorities in
reported physical abuse cases. However, the reasons for these findings are
not clear. Previous studies have also found other factors that are highly
correlated with physical abuse, such as low socioeconomic status, which
may be over-represented in ethnic minority groups. However, recent studies
40
have shown that the gaps in SES have decreased between different ethnic
groups. Other factors may be responsible for explaining the overrepresentation of certain groups in physical abuse cases.
2. Certain parent disciplining practices, particularly corporal punishment, may
be associated with physical abuse of children. Parents typically have a
range of disciplining practices that they can use with their children. In the
past, there has been a lack of research attention regarding nonphysical
parenting practices such as nonviolent discipline and psychological
aggression. Parenting practices do not occur in isolation and future studies
must examine these three types of discipline together when investigating a
possible link to physical abuse. It is possible that access or use of
nonphysical disciplining methods may reduce the likelihood of using more
physical forms of punishment.
3. Previous studies have had differing and sometimes overlapping definitions
of corporal punishment and physical abuse. This has made it difficult to
determine if corporal punishment is a negative experience and also if it is
associated with the use of physical abuse. Future studies should be more
specific in the way these factors are described and operationally defined.
For example, specificity in describing the behaviors associated with these
factors would make the experiences of corporal punishment and the
relationship between these corporal punishment and physical abuse clearer.
41
4. Parent disciplining techniques such as nonviolent discipline, psychological
aggression, and corporal punishment may differ by ethnicity. Factors such
as immigrant status and parents’ place of birth or the sex of the child being
disciplined may contribute to the cultural group’s attitudes about discipline.
It may be that different attitudes about parenting are culturally appropriate
for each ethnic group and these may result in different disciplining
behaviors. Future studies should report information about rates of specific
disciplining behaviors in order to further support this relationship.
5. It is important to understand not only how rates of parent discipline is
related to physically abusive behavior, but the context that would make it
more likely for parents of certain ethnic groups to use particular parent
disciplining techniques. One factor, preferred parenting styles, may be
related to the decision to use some disciplining practices over others.
Parenting styles are characterized by two dimensions, parental warmth and
demandingness. For parents, the reported levels of these two factors may be
related to using more coercive disciplining techniques such as corporal
punishment and psychological aggression as compared with more
acceptable forms of discipline such as nonviolent discipline.
Present Study
The present study will examine if there are gender and ethnic group differences in
reported parent disciplining practices such as nonviolent discipline, psychological
42
aggression, and corporal punishment among Asian, African, Latino and White American
students. This study will also examine if there are gender and ethnic differences in
reported physically abusive behaviors in childhood. The significant relationship between
the different types of corporal punishment and reported types of physical abuse will also
be investigated. Finally, this study will examine each individual ethnic group to find
possible differences in the relationship between specific disciplining techniques and
reported physical abuse.
The first set of hypotheses (1-5) will determine whether any sex and ethnic
differences exist in parenting styles (authoritarian, authoritative, permissive), the three
disciplining methods (nonviolent discipline, psychological aggression, corporal
punishment) and physically abusive behavior controlling for the significant contribution
of socioeconomic status of family of origin (Figure 1).
Hypotheses 1-5: It is hypothesized that males will report higher levels of
authoritarian parenting, and lower levels of authoritative and permissive parenting in
childhood than females. It is also hypothesized that males will report with lower
nonviolent discipline, and higher psychological aggression, corporal punishment, and
physically abusive behavior in childhood than females. It is hypothesized that Asian and
African Americans will report with higher levels of authoritarian parenting style and
lower rates of authoritative and permissive parenting styles in childhood than White or
Latino Americans. Asian and African Americans will also report with fewer experiences
of nonviolent discipline and more experiences of psychological aggression, corporal
43
punishment, and physically abusive behavior in childhood, than Latino and White
Americans, controlling for the significant contribution of socioeconomic status of family
of origin.
The second set of hypotheses (6-11) will control for the significant contribution of
socioeconomic status of family of origin and will determine whether parenting styles are
related to the three parent disciplining techniques and physically abusive behavior. In
addition, the relationships between the three parent disciplining methods (nonviolent
discipline, psychological aggression, and corporal punishment) will be tested. Finally,
this set of hypotheses will explore if each of the disciplining methods are significantly
related to physically abusive behavior by parents, controlling for the significant
contributions of these covariates.
Hypotheses 6: It is hypothesized that higher levels of authoritarian parenting style
will be related to decreased experiences of nonviolent discipline and increased
experiences of psychological aggression, corporal punishment, and physically abusive
behavior in childhood controlling for the significant contribution of socioeconomic status
of family of origin.
Hypothesis 7: It is hypothesized that higher levels authoritative parenting style
will be related to increased experiences of nonviolent discipline and decreased
experiences of psychological aggression, corporal punishment, and physically abusive
behavior in childhood controlling for the significant contribution of socioeconomic status
of family of origin.
44
Hypothesis 8: It is hypothesized that higher levels of permissive parenting style
will be related to decreased experiences of all three disciplining types in childhood
controlling for the significant contribution of socioeconomic status of family of origin. It
is also hypothesized that higher levels permissive parenting styles will be related to
increased experiences of physically abusive behavior in childhood controlling for the
significant contributions of covariates.
Hypothesis 9: It is hypothesized that higher rates of reported nonviolent
discipline will be associated with lower rates of psychological aggression, corporal
punishment, and physically abusive behavior in childhood, controlling for the significant
contribution of socioeconomic status of family of origin
Hypothesis 10: It is hypothesized that higher rates of reported psychological
aggression will be associated with experiencing greater corporal punishment and more
physically abusive behaviors in childhood, controlling for the significant contribution of
socioeconomic status of family of origin, and nonviolent discipline.
Hypothesis 11: It is hypothesized that greater experiences of corporal punishment
will be associated with higher rates of physical abusive behavior in childhood controlling
for the significant contribution of socioeconomic status of family of origin, nonviolent
discipline, and psychological aggression.
The following hypothesis will test whether corporal punishment best explains
physically abusive behaviors by parents when compared with the significant
contributions of three parenting styles (i.e., authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive),
45
nonviolent discipline, psychological aggression, ethnicity, sex, and socioeconomic status
of family of origin.
Hypothesis 12: It is hypothesized that controlling for the socioeconomic status of
family of origin, higher rates of corporal punishment will the strongest predictor of
physically abusive behaviors in childhood than sex, ethnicity, experiences of
authoritarian parenting, authoritative parenting, permissive parenting, nonviolent
discipline, and psychological aggression.
46
Chapter 2
METHOD
Participants
The participants were 945 undergraduate college students from a large northern
California university that were recruited for a larger survey study. They were recruited
for the study through the campus psychology research website and received course credit
for participation. To be included in the final analysis, participants had to meet all of the
following selection criteria: 1) only participants who self-identified themselves as being
Asian, African, Latino, or White American were included in the final sample, 2) only
participants within the age range of 17-25 years were included in the final sample to
ensure a more age-compatible sample, 3) only participants who provide valid information
about socioeconomic status were included in the final sample to control for this important
variable, and 4) only participants who provided valid information for all other variables
of interest in the study were included in the final sample. The final sample consisted 706
participants and the ethnic distribution was 242 Asian American (32.64% male, 67.36%
female), 101 African American (29.70 % male, 70.30% female), 203 Latino American
(23.65% male, 76.35% female), and 160 White American (25.63% male, 74.37% female)
college students. The mean age of the final sample was 20.16 years and participants’
family of origin socioeconomic index scores ranged from 3 to 66, with a mean SES index
of 37.11. The number of participants in the final sample exceeded the minimum number
47
of participants (N = 107) needed for a multiple regression analysis with more than eight
variables with a power level of .80 and .05 alpha level for the effect size as outlined by
Cohen (1992).
Measures
Independent variables
Demographics. Participants provided demographic information including
ethnicity, sex, age, parent place of birth, parent marital status, family size, parent
occupation, and parent education. Ethnicity was self-identified by the participants (Asian
American, African American, Latino American, White American, American
Indian/Native American, or Other/Multiracial). Ethnicity was then dummy-coded for
each participant, with each participant being coded as one for the ethnic group with
which they self-identified and coded as zero for all other ethnic group variables.
Participants also identified whether they were male or female their age in years, and their
place of birth. In addition, participants indicated if their parents were U.S.-born or
foreign-born, the country of mother and father’s birth, and their parents’ marital status.
Finally, the students indicated how many people were dependent on their family’s
income.
Hollingshead’s Four Factor Index of Social Status (1975) was used to determine
socioeconomic status of the participants’ families. This index has been commonly used
to calculate socioeconomic status in past research (Deater-Deckard et al., 1996; Lansford
et al., 2004; Lynam et al., 2008; Pinderhughes et al., 2000; Polaha et al., 2004) and uses a
48
formula based on the marital status of the parents, each parent’s occupation, and each
parent’s level of education. In the present study, a deviation from Hollingshead’s
original formula was used to include participants whose parents were reported as
unemployed. Hollingshead’s original four factor calculation requires information on the
parent’s occupation and education level to compute a final SES index score. The formula
used to calculate the socioeconomic status for a family, result in a SES range from eight
to 66. Socioeconomic index scores for a particular family are divided by two if parents
are married and both employed and not divided if the parent is single or if one of the
married parents does not have gainful employment. To include participants with both
parents without gainful employment, only educational information was used to calculate
the socioeconomic index for these participants and final scores on this modified SES
index ranged from three to 66. For example, if two married parents had received an 7th
grade education or lower but were both unemployed, they would be coded as one. This
score would be weighted by multiplying by three, adding the two scores and then
dividing by two, as suggested by Hollingshead. This deviated from Hollingshead’s
formula because families with both parents being unemployed or single parents who were
not employed were not considered to have a valid socioeconomic index in his four factor
model. In the final sample for this study, only 33 out of 706 participants reported with
two parents who were unemployed.
Parenting styles. The Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ) was used to
measure authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting styles (Buri, 1991). This
49
30-item scale is often used in studies of parenting styles and child outcomes (Dominguez
& Carton, 1997; Flett, Hewitt, & Singer, 1995; Furnham & Cheng, 2000; Gonzalez,
Greenwood, & WenHsu, 2001; Klein, Bryant, & Hopkins, 1996; Pawlak & Klein, 1997).
The PAQ requires informants, either children or parents, to rate their level of agreement
on a five point scale ranging from 1-5 (strongly agree to strongly disagree) about the
mothers’ and fathers’ general parenting attitudes. The authoritarian parenting subscale
included items such as, “Whenever my parents told me to do something as I was growing
up, they expected me to do it immediately without asking any questions.” The
authoritative parenting subscale included items such as “As I was growing up, once
family policy had been established, my parents discussed the reasoning behind to policy
with the children in the family.” The permissive parenting subscale included items such
as, “As I was growing up, my parents seldom gave me expectations and guidelines for
my behavior.” These three ten-item subscales measured mother and father parenting style
levels with scores ranging from 10-50 for each parent. The six subscales show high
reliability ranging from .71-.92 across several studies (Buri, 1991; Dominguez & Carton,
1997; Furnham & Cheng, 2000). In the present study, the subscales show similar
reliability with Chronbach’s alphas ranging from .74 to .85 for the six subscales.
Parent discipline. The Parent-Child version of the Conflict Tactics Scale
(CTSPC) was used to measure nonviolent discipline, psychological aggression, and
corporal punishment (Straus, Hamby, Finkelhor, Moore & Runyan, 1998). The original
Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996), was
50
designed to measure spousal abuse and this scale was later formed into a 22-item scale to
measure parent disciplining methods and has been used in many studies (Afifi, et. al.,
2006; Deater-Deckard, et. al., 1996; Dietz, 2000; Edwards, et. al., 2003; Feigelman, et.
al., 2009; Fung & Lau, 2009; Turner & Muller, 2004).
The CTSPC items for the three parent disciplining subscales were identified by
Straus et al. Nonviolent discipline (4 items) is defined as the parents explaining why
something is wrong, revoking privileges, using time-out, and giving a child something
else to do. Psychological aggression (5 items) was defined as parents yelling/screaming,
swearing/cursing, threatening to spank, threatening to kick out of the house, and namecalling. The CTSPC items or reported behaviors used to define corporal punishment
required some modification for the present study. In past studies, the CTSPC has been
used inconsistently to measure critical constructs such as “corporal punishment,”
“physical punishment,” and “physical discipline.” To create clear operational definitions
of corporal punishment for this study, a strategy was proposed to select specific items
from the ordinary corporal punishment subscale of the physical assault subscale of the
CTSPC to avoid overlap with definitions of physical abuse as done in past studies.
In the present study, four individual items (spanking on the bottom with a bare
hand, spanking on the bottom with a hard object, shaking, and pinching) from the
ordinary corporal punishment subscale were used separately to measure corporal
punishment. Although this definition of corporal punishment deviates from what the
authors of the scale suggest as “corporal punishment,” it may result in a clearer definition
51
of corporal punishment as some researchers have used the CTSPC physical assault scale
as a measure that represents corporal punishment, while others have used this same scale
as a measure of physical abuse. Still others choose individual items from the subscales
that may overlap across studies. Considering that the CTSPC physical assault scale
contains both abusive and nonabusive items, this can pose a problem for comparing
studies that use the CTSPC. To represent corporal punishment in the present study, only
the 4 CTSPC items from the corporal punishment subscale were chosen that were not
previously used in definitions of physical abuse in the psychology literature.
The format of this measure requires the informant, usually the child’s parent, to
indicate how many times the disciplining technique was used in a referent period (i.e.,
one week, twelve months). In the present study, an adult child population was used and
the referent period was the adult’s childhood years. The authors of the measure propose
two ways of scoring the occurrence of a particular parent disciplining technique:
prevalence and chronicity. The prevalence method of scoring reports whether a parent
disciplining technique ever occurred within a referent period or over a lifetime. The
chronicity method of scoring requires the informant to report the number of times that a
parent disciplining technique has occurred in a given referent period. The present study
adopted the prevalence scoring method to assess for nonviolent discipline, psychological
aggression, and corporal punishment.
The authors of this scale have reported moderate to high reliability. The
nonviolent subscale had an alpha coefficient of .70, the psychological aggression
52
subscale had an alpha coefficient of .60, and the overall physical assault scale, which
includes both corporal punishment and physically abusive items, had an alpha coefficient
of .55 (Straus, Hamby, Finkelhor, Moore & Runyan, 1998). Few studies have reported
alpha coefficient values on the subscales as originally written. Some studies show that
three of the subscales report a reliability range from .50-.77 for psychological aggression
(Fung et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2008; Straus & Field, 2003; Tajima, 2002), .57-.80 for
corporal punishment (Dietz, 2000; Fung et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2008; Turner & Muller
2004), and .62-.92 for the whole physical assault scale (Maikovich et al., 2008; Tajima,
2002). However, the reliability of the nonviolent disciplining subscale is unknown for
other studies. The reliability for the corporal punishment items alone has not been
explored by the authors of the CTSPC or by other researchers. In the present study, the
Chronbach’s alpha scores were .43 for nonviolent discipline and .63 for psychological
aggression. These wide ranges of reliability scores in previous and the present study may
be due to different researchers using different scoring methods. The chronicity method of
scoring is more commonly used among these studies than the prevalence method. It may
be possible that the prevalence method of scoring may yield a more reliable scale.
Preliminary analyses on covariates and independent variables. In the original
design of this study, several variables were initially proposed as possible covariates for
the final analysis based on a review of the literature on this subject matter. A frequency
analysis showed a number of outliers on the upper end of participant age so a decision
was made to focus the final analyses on participant within the ages of 17-25 years. The
53
ANOVA results from above clearly showed there was no significant ethnic difference on
participant age (ages 17-25) and a subsequent decision was made to not include this
variable as a covariate as initially proposed in the study.
Finally, tests for multicollinearity were conducted to determine if some of the
independent variables may be highly correlated. Based on this information, changes in
covariates were made for the study hypotheses. One covariate that was removed from the
analyses was mother and father place of birth. Since more ethnic minority students
reported that their parents were foreign-born, this variable conflicted with one of the main
study variables, ethnicity. Family size was removed from the final analyses because it
was partially captured by Hollingshead’s socioeconomic status formula, which accounts
for the number of parents in the participant’s household of origin.
Finally, the Hollingshead socioeconomic status formula used parent marital
status to calculate the final SES score for each family. Therefore, only one of these
variables could be used in the final analyses. To address this issue and to determine the
most relevant variable for the present study, all hypotheses analyses were conducted with
parent marital status or socioeconomic status as a covariate. Socioeconomic status was
chosen as a covariate because parent marital status was not consistently related to the
study dependent variables.
Dependent Variables
Physically abusive behavior. The Parent-Child version of the Conflict Tactics
Scale (CTSPC) was used to measure physically abusive behavior (Straus, Hamby,
54
Finkelhor, Moore & Runyan, 1998). Similar to the nonabusive discipline, the participant
were asked to indicate if the physically abusive behavior has occurred during the referent
period. In the present study, the prevalence scoring method was also used for this
variable to better indicate whether different parent disciplining techniques are associated
with the use or nonuse of these more extreme tactics.
The physical assault scale, which includes corporal punishment and physically
abusive behavior, has moderate to high reliability (Maikovich et al., 2008; Straus et al.,
1998; Tajima, 2002). However, less information is known about the reliability of the
severe physical assault subscale, which provides information about use of physically
abusive items (hit another body part besides bottom with an object, threw/knocked down,
kicked/hit with a fist, beat, choked, burned/scald, and threatened with an knife/gun). The
authors of the measure reported close to 0 reliability for this measure (-.02). They
suggested several of these behaviors are very rare and, it may be difficult to obtain high
reliability for this scale due to this low prevalence rate. In the present study, two
individual items from the severe physical assault subscale, beating up and the combined
item of kicking/hitting with a fist, were combined into a subscale to measure physically
abusive behavior used by parents. This modified and newly created subscale showed a
Chronbach’s alpha of .61. As with the corporal punishment items, this subscale deviates
from what the authors had defined as potentially physically abusive behavior. These
items were chosen for two reasons. First, items from the severe physical assault subscale
were chosen that were not previously used in definitions of corporal punishment.
55
Second, based on prevalence rates of past studies, the more commonly used items from
the severe physical assault scale were chosen as the more extreme CTSPC items from the
physically abusive subscale (e.g., burned/scald, threatened with knife/gun) were rarely
reported. Studying more commonly used and reported physically abusive behaviors may
show a more meaningful relationship between the different disciplining methods and
physically abusive behavior.
Procedure
Prospective participants signed up for the study through the campus psychology
research website. Upon arrival at the laboratory, students were informed of the study’s
purposes and risks and then asked to provide written and verbal consent to participate in
the study. If the student agreed to participate in the study, s/he received a copy of his/her
written consent for his/her personal records. The survey took approximately an hour and
a half to complete. After completing the survey, students received a debriefing form
which explained the purpose of the study in greater detail and provided contact
information of the primary investigator should they have any further questions about the
study. Research assistants then submitted course credit for their participation directly
through the psychology research website.
56
Chapter 3
RESULTS
Demographic Information and Study Variables
Descriptive characteristics about the overall sample are presented in this section
and in the following tables. Concerning parenting styles (Table 1), the participants
reported both mother and father authoritarian and authoritative parenting styles were
present in their family of origin, but permissive parenting styles were largely absent.
With regard to certain disciplining practices, the participants reported a higher use of
nonviolent techniques (89%) such as time-out compared to psychological aggression
(65%) such as verbal threats As for the use of some type of spanking for corporal
punishment, the sample reported a high rate of both spanking with hand (78%) and
spanking with an object (77%) . In contrast, pinching (45%) and shaking (38%) as a
form of corporal punishment was less used. As for physically abusive behaviors, about
20% of the participants reported being violently beaten or thrown/knocked down by a
parent in their family of origin
Preliminary analyses were conducted to examine if significant ethnic differences
were present for participant age, socioeconomic status (using the Hollingshead SES
index), and participant gender (Table 2). The results of an analysis of variance
(ANOVA) showed there was a significant, F(3,702) = 3.06, p = .028, ethnic difference
for participant age. Specifically, Latino Americans were found to be slightly younger in
57
age than White Americans, p = .051. In addition, an ANOVA revealed a significant,
F(3,702) = 28.35, p < .001, ethnic difference for SES. Specifically, White Americans
reporting a higher family of origin SES than Asian and Latino Americans, F(3,702) =
28.35, p < .001, and F(3,702) = 28.35, p < .001, respectively. Also, African Americans
reported a higher family of origin SES than Asian and Latino Americans, F(3,702) =
28.35, p < .001, and F(3,702) = 28.35, p < .001, respectively. A chi-square test did not
show a significant ethnic difference in the distribution of participant sex. In general,
women made up the majority (about 73-75%) of the participants for each ethnic group.
Hypothesis 1
A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted to determine
if there were any significant sex (Table 3) and ethnic differences (Table 4) on scores of
both mother and father authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting after
controlling for the significant contribution of family of origin SES as a covariate (Table
6). Two separate MANCOVAs were completed, one for mother parenting styles and the
other for father parenting styles. For the ANCOVAs of mother and father parenting
styles, a Bonferroni correction was calculated and used to establish a more stringent cutoff point (p < .01) to identify significant main and interaction effects for these parenting
styles. This decision to establish a more stringent cut-off point would also provide
correction for the findings of unequal variances that were identified by the Levene’s test
on both mother and father authoritative and permissive parenting. For the pairwise
comparisons, the Bonferroni correction option was also selected in the SPSS program to
58
minimize the chances of reporting a false positive or negative finding in these multiple
pairwise comparisons.
The results for the MANCOVA on mother parenting styles showed a significant
effect for the covariate family of origin SES, F(3,700) = 4.65, p = .003, and significant
main effects for sex, F(3,700) = 3.49, p < .001, and ethnicity, F(3,700) = 5.02, p < .001.
However, there was not a significant interaction effect of sex and ethnicity.
The ANCOVA for mother authoritarian parenting did not show significant findings for
the effect of the covariate family of origin SES, the main effect for participant sex or the
interaction effects of participant sex and ethnicity. However, a significant main effect for
ethnicity was found for mother authoritarian parenting, F(3,700) = 9.10, p < .001, η2 =
.04. Specifically, Asian, African, and Latino Americans, reported higher rates of mother
authoritarian parenting as children than White Americans. The ANCOVA for mother
authoritative parenting did not show a significant effect for the covariate of family of
origin SES, the interaction between participant sex and ethnicity, or sex and ethnicity.
The ANCOVA for mother permissive parenting showed that family of origin SES
had a marginally significant, F(1,702) = 6.51, p = .011, η2 = .01, effect on this parenting
style. Specifically, lower family of origin SES was related to higher rates of permissive
parenting as children. In contrast, neither the interaction effect of sex and ethnicity, nor
the main effect for participant sex was found to be significant. A significant main effect
for ethnicity was found for mother permissive parenting, F(3,700) = 4.47, p = .004, η2 =
59
.02. Specifically, Asian Americans reported higher rates of mother permissive parenting
as children than African Americans.
For father parenting styles, a MANCOVA was completed to test for sex and
ethnic differences on father authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting after
controlling for the significant contribution of family of origin SES as a covariate.
The results for the MANCOVA on father parenting styles showed a significant effect for
the covariate of family of origin SES, F(3,700) = 6.84, p < .001, and significant main
effects for ethnicity, F(3,700) = 4.45, p < .001, and sex, F(3,700) = 4.16, p < .001.
However, there was not a significant interaction effect for sex and ethnicity.
The ANCOVA for father authoritarian parenting did not show significant findings
related to family of origin SES, the interaction of participant sex and ethnicity, or
participant sex. However, a significant, F(3,676) = 7.10, p < .001, η2 = .03, main effect
for ethnicity was found for father authoritarian parenting. Specifically, Asian, African,
and Latino Americans reported higher rates of father authoritarian parenting as children
than White Americans. The ANCOVA for father authoritative parenting did not show a
significant effect for the covariate family of origin SES, the interaction of sex and
ethnicity, or a main effect for sex or ethnicity. The ANCOVA for father permissive
parenting did not show a significant effect for the interaction of sex and ethnicity or the
main effect of sex. A significant main effect for the covariate family of origin SES was
found, F(1,678) = 8.21, p = .004, η2 = .01.
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations of Mother and Father Authoritarian, Authoritative, and Permissive Parenting Styles
Variables
M
SD
Mother authoritarian
35.81
6.81
Father authoritarian
36.50
7.12
Mother authoritative
34.91
6.82
Father authoritative
33.53
7.23
Mother permissive
24.77
6.19
Father permissive
24.46
6.40
Note: Mother/father authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive scores range 10-50.
60
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics per Ethnic Group for Total Sample, Participant Sex, Family of Origin Socioeconomic Status, and Age
Total Sample
Asian Americans African Americans Latino Americans
White Americans
(N = 706)
(N = 242)
(N = 101)
(N = 203)
(N = 160)
Variables
Family of origin
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
37.11
15.56
34.40b
16.77
42.62a
12.95
31.95b
15.00
44.29a
11.90
20.16
1.86
20.05
1.71
20.25
1.85
19.97
1.87
20.51
2.03
SES***
Participant age
Participant sex:
72.00%
67.36%
70.30%
76.35%
74.37%
Female
Note: Family of origin SES scores range from 3-66, participant age ranges from 17-25, and participant sex indicates the
percentage of females. Means marked with superscript, a > b.
* p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
61
Table 3
Estimated Marginal Means for Males and Females in Mother/Father Parenting Styles
Males
Females
(N = 198)
(N = 508)
Variables
M
SE
M
SE
Mother authoritarian parenting
36.51
0.50
35.50
0.31
Mother authoritative parenting
34.85
0.51
35.23
0.32
Mother permissive parenting
25.23
0.46
24.40
0.29
Father authoritarian parenting
36.80
0.55
36.22
0.34
Father authoritative parenting
34.22
0.56
33.30
0.35
Father permissive parenting
25.29
0.49
23.85
0.30
Note: Parenting styles scores for mother and father authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting range from 10-50.
62
Table 4
Estimated Marginal Means for Ethnic Groups in Mother/Father Parenting Styles
Asian American
African American
Latino American
(N = 242)
(N = 101)
(N = 203)
White American
(N = 160)
Variables
Mother authoritarian
M
SE
M
SE
M
SE
M
SE
36.48a
0.43
37.05a
0.67
36.35a
0.47
32.97b
0.54
34.15
0.44
36.00
0.68
34.61
0.49
35.76
0.55
25.69a
0.40
23.48b
0.61
23.60b
0.44
25.69a
0.49
parenting***
Mother authoritative
parenting
Mother permissive
parenting***
63
Father authoritarian
36.79a
0.46
36.79a
0.75
38.12a
0.51
33.85b
0.58
33.31
0.47
33.21
0.77
32.95
0.52
34.81
0.59
25.60a
0.41
22.87b
0.67
23.07b
0.45
25.42a
0.51
parenting***
Father authoritative
parenting
Father permissive
parenting***
Note: Parenting styles scores for mother and father authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting range
from 10-50. Means marked with superscript, a > b.
* p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
64
65
Specifically, lower family of origin SES was related to higher rates of permissive
parenting as children. There was a marginally significant main effect for participant sex,
F(1,678) = 6.28, p = .012, η2 = .01, with males reporting marginally higher rates of father
permissive parenting as children than females. A significant main effect for ethnicity was
found in father permissive parenting, F(3,676) = 6.13, p < .001, η2 = .03. Specifically,
Asian Americans reported marginally higher rates of father permissive parenting as
children than African, or Latino Americans. In addition, White Americans reported
marginally higher rates of father permissive parenting as children than African
Americans.
Hypotheses 2-3
A multivariate analysis of covariance was conducted to determine if there were
any significant sex (Table 5) and ethnic differences (Table 6) on scores of nonphysical
parent discipline (i.e., nonviolent discipline, psychological aggression) in childhood,
when controlling for the significant contributions of family of origin SES. For the
ANCOVAs of nonviolent discipline and psychological aggression, a Bonferroni
correction was calculated and used to establish a more stringent cut-off point (p < .01) to
identify significant main and interaction effects for these disciplining styles. This
decision to establish a more stringent cut-off point would also provide correction for the
findings of unequal variances that was identified by the Levene’s test on nonviolent
discipline. For the pairwise comparisons, the Bonferroni correction option was also
selected in the SPSS program to minimize the chances of reporting a false positive or
66
negative finding in these multiple pairwise comparisons. The results for the MANCOVA
on nonviolent discipline showed a significant effect for the covariate family of origin
SES, F(3,700) = 22.12, p = .003, and significant main effects for sex, F(3,700) = 5.89, p
= .003, and ethnicity, F(3,700) = 4.68, p < .001. However, there was not a significant
interaction effect of sex and ethnicity. The ANCOVA results showed a significant effect
for the covariate of family of origin SES, F(1,704) = 41.94, p < .001, η2 = .05, with
higher family of origin SES related to higher rates of nonviolent discipline experienced as
children. There was a marginally significant main effect for participant sex, F(1,704) =
6.61, p = .010, η2 = .01, with males reporting marginally higher rates of nonviolent
discipline experienced as children than females. A marginally significant main effect
was also found for ethnicity, F(3,702) = 3.72, p = .011, η2 = .01. Specifically, Latino
Americans reported higher rates of nonviolent discipline experienced as children than
Asian Americans. There was no significant finding for the interaction effect of sex and
ethnicity.
The ANCOVA for psychological aggression did not show a significant effect for
family of origin SES, or the interaction of sex and ethnicity. There was a significant
main effect for participant sex, F(1,704) = 7.24, p = .007, η2 = .01, with males reporting
higher rates of psychological aggression experienced as children than females. A
significant main effect was also found for ethnicity, F(3,702) = 4.50, p = .004, η2 = .02.
Specifically, Asian Americans reported higher rates of psychological aggression
experienced as children than White Americans. In addition, African and Latino
67
Americans reported marginally higher rates of psychological aggression experienced as
children than White Americans. Latino Americans also reported marginally higher rates
of psychological aggression as children than Asian Americans, F(3,702) = 3.72, p =
.021.
Hypothesis 4
The percentages of sex and ethnic group who experienced each corporal
punishment behavior are shown in Table 9. A hierarchical logistic regression analysis
was conducted to determine if there were significant sex and ethnic differences in
spanking with a bare hand in childhood when controlling for the significant contributions
of family of origin SES (Table 7). In this logistic regression model, the covariate of
family of origin SES were entered in the first block, participant sex was entered into the
second block, and the dummy coded ethnicity variables were entered in the third block.
The overall regression model was found to be significant, χ²(5, N = 706) = 17.03, p =
.004, and accounted for about 2% of the variance. The covariate of family of origin SES
entered in the first block was found to be marginally significant, χ²(1, N = 706) = 3.13, p
= .077, and accounted for less than 1% of the variance. Specifically, participants with
higher family of origin SES reported a marginally higher likelihood (1%) of spanking
with a bare hand as children than participants with lower family of origin SES. When
adding participant sex, the second model was found to be significant, χ²(1, N = 706) =
11.19, p = .004, and this variable accounted for about 2% of the variance.
Table 5
Estimated Marginal Means for Males and Females in Nonphysical Forms of Parent Discipline
Males
Females
(N = 198)
(N = 508)
Variables
M
SE
M
SE
Nonviolent discipline
3.68
0.05
3.55
0.03
Psychological aggression**
3.45a
0.10
3.12b
0.06
Note: Nonviolent discipline scores range from 0-4 and psychological aggression scores range from 0-5. Means
marked with superscript, a > b.
*p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001.
68
Table 6
Estimated Marginal Means for Ethnic Groups in Nonphysical Forms of Parent Discipline
Asian American
African American
Latino American
White American
(N = 242)
(N = 101)
(N = 203)
(N = 160)
Variables
Nonviolent
M
SE
M
SE
M
SE
M
SE
3.42b
0.05
3.55a,b
0.07
3.65a
0.05
3.65a
0.06
3.45a
0.09
3.26a
0.14
3.30a
0.10
2.83b
0.11
discipline**
Psychological
aggression**
Note: Nonviolent discipline scores range from 0-4 and psychological aggression scores range from 0-5.
Means marked with superscript, a > b.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
69
70
Family of origin SES remained marginally significant, Wald(1, N = 706) = 2.74, p
= .098, with participants with higher family of origin SES participants reporting a
marginally higher likelihood (1%) of spanking with a bare hand as children than
participants with lower family of origin SES. Participant sex was found to be significant,
Wald(1, N = 706) = 7.48, p = .006, with males reporting a 46% higher likelihood of
experiencing spanking with a bare hand as children than females. When adding the
dummy coded ethnicity variables in the third block, the model was found to be
significant, χ²(5, N = 706) = 17.03, p = .004, and this variable accounted for about 2% of
the variance. Participant sex was still found to be significant, Wald(1, N = 706) = 8.53, p
=.003, with males reporting a 48% higher likelihood of experiencing spanking with a
bare hand as children than females. The dummy coded ethnicity variables were found to
be significant in predicting spanking with a bare hand. Specifically, White Americans
were 40% more likely to have been spanked with a bare hand as children than Asian
Americans, Wald(1, N = 706) = 4.09, p = .043. Also, Latino Americans were found to be
marginally more likely (50%) to have been spanked with a bare hand as children than
Asian Americans, Wald(1, N = 706) = 3.05, p = .081.
A hierarchical logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine if there
were significant sex and ethnic differences in spanking with an object in childhood when
controlling for the significant contributions of family of origin SES (Table 7). In this
logistic regression model, the covariate of family of origin SES were entered in the first
block, participant sex was entered into the second block, and the dummy coded ethnicity
71
variables were entered in the third block. The overall regression model was found to be
significant, χ²(6, N = 706) = 34.62, p < .001. The covariate of family of origin SES
entered in the first block was not found to be significant. When adding participant sex,
the second model was found to be significant, χ²(2, N = 706) = 10.74, p = .001 and this
variable accounted for about 2% of the variance. Participant sex was found to be
significant, Wald(1, N = 706) = 9.80, p = .002, with males reporting a 51% higher
likelihood of experiencing spanking with an object as children than females. When
adding the dummy coded ethnicity variables in the third block, the model was found to be
significant, χ²(5, N = 706) = 45.39, p < .001, and this variable accounted for about 6% of
the variance. Participant sex, Wald(1, N = 706) = 10.09, p = .001, was still found to be
significant with males reporting a 52% higher likelihood of experiencing spanking with
an object as children than females. The dummy coded ethnicity variables were found to
be significant in predicting spanking with an object. Specifically, Asian, Wald(1, N =
706) = 5.01, p =.025, African, Wald(1, N = 706) = 21.14, p < .001, and Latino American
students, Wald(1, N = 706) = 16.16, p < .001, were 70%, 6.46 times and 2.89 times more
likely to report experiencing spanking with an object than White American students,
respectively. In addition, African, Wald(1, N = 706) = 11.06, p = .001, and Latino
American students, Wald(1, 706) = 4.94, p = .026, were 3.82 times and 70% more likely
to report experiencing spanking with an object than Asian American students,
respectively. Finally, African Americans were marginally more likely (2.24 times) to
72
report spanking with an object than Latino Americans, Wald(1, N = 706) = 3.67, p =
.056.
A hierarchical logistic regression was conducted to determine if there were
significant sex and ethnic differences in pinching in childhood when controlling for the
significant contributions of family of origin SES (Table 8). In this logistic regression
model, the covariate of family of origin SES was entered in the first block, participant sex
was entered into the second block, and the dummy coded ethnicity variables were entered
in the third block. The overall model was found to be significant, χ²(6, N=706) = 63.23, p
< .001. The covariate entered in the first block was not significant. When adding
participant sex, the second model was found to be significant and this variable accounted
for 1% of the variance, χ²(2, N=706) = 9.60, p = .008. Participant sex was significant,
with males reporting a 40% higher likelihood of experiencing pinching as children than
females, Wald(1, N = 706) = 9.00, p =.003. When adding the dummy coded ethnicity
variables in the third block, the model was found to be significant and this variable
accounted for 8% of the variance, χ²(5, N = 706) = 63.06, p < .001. Participant sex was
still significant with males reporting a 42% higher likelihood of experiencing pinching as
children than females, Wald(1, N = 706) = 9.49, p = .002. The dummy coded ethnicity
variables were found to be significant in predicting pinching. Specifically, Asian,
Wald(1, N = 706) = 17.86, p < .001, African, Wald(1, N = 706) = 27.68, p < .001, and
Latino Americans, Wald(1, N = 706) = 42.95, p < .001, were 2.73, 4.31, and 5.09 times
more likely to report experiencing pinching than White American students. In addition,
73
Latino Americans, Wald(1, N = 706) = 10.23, p = .001, were 87% more likely to report
experiencing pinching than Asian Americans. Finally, African Americans were
marginally more likely (60%) to report pinching than Asian Americans, Wald(1, N =
706) = 3.51, p = .061.
A hierarchical logistic regression was conducted to determine if there were
significant sex and ethnic differences in shaking in childhood when controlling for the
significant contributions of family of origin SES (Table 8). In this logistic regression
model, the covariate of family of origin SES was entered in the first block, participant sex
was entered into the second block, and the dummy coded ethnicity variables were entered
in the third block. The overall model was found to be significant, χ²(6, N = 706) = 63.23,
p < .001, and accounted for about 1% of the variance. The covariate of family of origin
SES entered in the first block was not found to be significant. When adding participant
sex, the second model was found to be significant and this variable accounted for about
2% of the variance, χ²(2, N = 706) = 7.96, p = .019. Participant sex was significant, with
males reporting a 36% higher likelihood of experiencing shaking as children than
females, Wald(1, N = 706) = 6.65, p =.010. When adding the dummy coded ethnicity
variables in the third block, the model was found to be marginally significant and this
variable accounted for 2% of the variance , χ²(5, N=706) = 10.57, p = .061. Participant
sex was still significant with males reporting a 35% higher likelihood of experiencing
shaking as children than females, Wald(1, N = 706) = 6.15, p =.013. However, no
significant ethnic differences in shaking were found.
74
Hypothesis 5
An analysis of covariance was conducted to determine if there were significant
sex (Table 10) and ethnic differences (Table 11) on scores of physically abusive behavior
in childhood when controlling for the significant contributions of family of origin SES.
For the ANCOVA of physically abusive behavior, a Bonferroni correction was calculated
and used to establish a more stringent cut-off point (p < .01) to identify significant main
and interaction effects for this parenting behavior. This decision to establish a more
stringent cut-off point would also provide correction for the findings of unequal variances
that was identified by the Levene’s test on physically abusive behavior. For the pairwise
comparisons, the Bonferroni correction option was also selected in the SPSS program to
minimize the chances of reporting a false positive or negative finding in these multiple
pairwise comparisons. The ANCOVA for physically abusive behavior did not show a
significant effect for family of origin SES or the interaction of sex and ethnicity. There
was a significant main effect for participant sex, F(1, 704) = 24.75, p < .001, η2 = .03,
with males reporting higher rates of physically abusive behavior as children than females.
A significant main effect was also found for ethnicity, F(3,702) = 10.72, p < .001, η2 =
.04. Specifically, Asian and African Americans reported higher rates of physically
abusive behavior as children than White Americans In addition, Asian and African
Americans reported marginally higher rates of physically abusive behavior as children
than Latino Americans.
Table 7
Logistic Regression Results with Ethnicity Predicting Spanking with or without Object
Spanking Hand
Variables
OR
95% CI
Variables
Step 1
Family of origin SES
Cox & Snell R2
Spanking object
OR
95% CI
Step 1
1.01
[1.01, 1.01]
Family of origin SES
Cox & Snell R2
0.00
Step 2
1.00
[1.00, 1.00]
0.00
Step 2
Family of origin SES
1.01
[1.01, 1.01]
Family of origin SES
1.00
[1.00, 1.00]
Participant sex**
0.54
[0.54, 0.54]
Participant sex**
0.49
[0.49, 0.50]
Cox & Snell R2
Cox & Snell R2
0.02
Step 3
0.02
Step 3
Family of origin SES
1.01
[1.01, 1.01]
Family of origin SES
1.00
[1.00, 1.00]
Participant sex**
0.52
[0.52, 0.52]
Participant sex
0.48
[0.48, 0.48]
75
Ethnicity
Baseline: Asian Americans
Ethnicity
Baseline: Asian Americans
African
1.10
[1.09, 1.10]
African**
3.82
[3.81, 3.84]
Latino
1.49
[1.49, 1.50]
Latino*
1.71
[1.71, 1.72]
White*
1.71
[1.71, 1.72]
White*
0.59
[0.59, 0.59]
Ethnicity
Baseline: African Americans
Ethnicity
Baseline: African Americans
Latino
1.36
[1.36, 1.37]
Latino
0.45
[0.45, 0.45]
White
1.56
[1.56, 1.57]
White***
0.15
[0.15, 0.16]
Ethnicity
Baseline: Latino Americans
White
Cox & Snell R2
1.15
[1.14, 1.15]
0.02
Ethnicity
Baseline: Latino Americans
White***
0.35
Cox & Snell R2
0.06
[0.35, 0.35]
Note: Family of origin SES scores ranged from 3-66. Sex was coded as 1 = male, 2 = female. Asian, African, Latino, and
White American ethnic groups coded 0 = Not belonging to ethnic group, 1 = Belonging to ethnic group. Spanking with hand
and spanking with object coded as 0 = Never occurred, 1= Occurred.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
76
Table 8
Logistic Regression Results with Ethnicity Predicting Pinching and Shaking
Pinching
Variables
OR
95% CI
Step 1
Family of origin SES
Cox & Snell R2
Variables
Shaking
OR
95% CI
1.01
[1.01, 1.01]
Step 1
1.00
[1.00, 1.00]
Family of origin SES
Cox & Snell R2
0.00
Step 2
0.00
Step 2
Family of origin SES
1.00
[1.00, 1.00]
Family of origin SES
1.01
[1.01, 1.01]
Participant sex
0.60
[0.60, 0.60]
Participant sex
0.64
[0.64, 0.64]
Cox & Snell R2
Cox & Snell R2
0.02
Step 3
0.01
Step 3
Family of origin SES
1.00
[1.00, 1.00]
Family of origin SES
1.01
[1.01, 1.01]
Participant sex
0.58
[0.58, 0.58]
Participant sex
0.65
[0.65, 0.66]
77
Ethnicity
Baseline group: Asian Americans
Ethnicity
Baseline group: Asian Americans
African
1.58
[1.58, 1.59]
African
1.11
[1.11, 1.12]
Latino**
1.87
[1.86, 1.87]
Latino
0.90
[0.90, 0.91]
White***
0.37
[0.37, 0.37]
White
0.76
[0.76, 0.76]
Ethnicity
Baseline group: African Americans
Ethnicity
Baseline group: African Americans
Latino
1.18
[1.18, 1.19]
Latino
0.81
[0.81, 0.81]
White***
0.23
[0.23, 0.23]
White
0.68
[0.68, 0.68]
Ethnicity
Baseline group: Latino Americans
White***
0.20
Cox & Snell R2
0.09
[0.20, 0.20]
Ethnicity
White
Cox & Snell R2
Baseline group: Latino Americans
0.84
[0.84, 0.84]
0.02
Note: Family of origin SES scores ranged from 3-66. Sex was coded as 1 = male, 2 = female. Asian, African, Latino, and
White American ethnic groups coded 0 = Not belonging to ethnic group, 1 = Belonging to ethnic group. Pinching and shaking
coded as 0 = Never occurred, 1= Occurred. For these models, the Cox & Snell estimation of effect size is reported.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
78
Table 9
Percentage of Each Sex and Ethnic Group Experiencing Spanking With Bare Hand, Spanking with Object, Pinching and
Shaking
Asian
African
Latino
White
Variables
Spanking with
American
American
American
American
(N = 242)
(N = 101)
(N = 203)
(N = 160)
74%b
76%a,b
76%a,b
83%a
bare hand*
Spanking with
Variables
Spanking with
Males
Females
(N = 198)
(N = 508)
85%a
75%b
85%a
74%b
bare hand**
75% b
92% a
83%a
64%b
object***
Spanking with
object***
Pinching***
44%b
55%a,b
58%a
23%c
Pinching**
54%a
41%b
Shaking
40%
44%
37%
34%
Shaking*
46%a
35%b
Note: Means marked with superscript, a > b > c.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
79
Table 10
Estimated Marginal Means for Males and Females in Physically Abusive Behavior
Males
Variables
Physically abusive behavior***
Females
(N = 198)
(N = 508)
M
SE
M
SE
0.60a
0.05
0.31b
0.03
Note: Physically abusive behavior ranges from 0-2. Means marked with superscript, a > b.
* p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
80
Table 11
Estimated Marginal Means for Ethnic Groups in Physically Abusive Behavior
Asian American
African American
Latino American
White American
(N = 242)
(N = 101)
(N = 203)
(N = 160)
Variables
Physically abusive
M
SE
M
SE
M
SE
M
SE
0.57a
0.04
0.64a,b
0.07
0.39b
0.05
0.22b
0.06
behavior***
Note: Physically abusive behavior ranges from 0-2. Means marked with superscript, a > b.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
81
82
Hypotheses 6-8
A hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to determine if there was a
significant relationship between mother authoritarian, authoritative, or permissive
parenting and nonviolent discipline in childhood when controlling for the significant
contributions of family of origin SES. In this multiple regression model, the covariate of
family of origin SES was entered in the first block, and mother authoritarian
authoritative, and permissive parenting were entered on the second block. For the
regression model on mother authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting (Table
12), the overall model was found to be significant, F(2, 701) = 19.47, p < .001. The
covariate entered in the first block was found to be significant, F(1, 702) = 52.09, p <
.001, and accounted for 7% of the variance. Specifically, participants with higher family
of origin SES reported experiencing more nonviolent discipline as children than
participants with lower family of origin SES, t(702) = 7.22, p < .001. When adding
mother authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting in the second block, the
model was also found to be significant, F(4, 699) = 19.47, p < .001, and these variables
accounted for 3% of the variance. Family of origin SES remained significant, t(702) =
6.57, p < .001, with participants of higher family of origin SES reporting higher rates of
nonviolent discipline as children than participants of lower family of origin SES.
Concerning mother parenting styles, authoritative parenting was found to be significant,
t(702) = 4.49, p < .001, and was related to higher reported nonviolent discipline. Also,
83
mother permissive parenting was found to be significant, t(702) = 2.61, p = .009, and was
related to lower reported nonviolent discipline.
A hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to determine if there was a
significant relationship between father authoritarian, authoritative, or permissive
parenting and nonviolent discipline in childhood when controlling for the significant
contributions of family of origin SES. In this multiple regression model, the covariate of
family of origin SES was entered in the first block, and father authoritarian, authoritative,
and permissive parenting entered in the second block.
For the regression model on father authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive
parenting (Table 11), the overall model was found to be significant, F(2, 677) = 18.05, p
< .001. The covariate entered in the first block was found to be significant, F(1, 678) =
53.97, p < .001, and accounted for 7% of the variance. Specifically, participants with
higher family of origin SES reported higher rates of nonviolent discipline as children than
participants with lower family of origin SES, t(678) = 7.35, p < .001. When adding
father authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting in the second block, the
second model was found to be significant, F(4, 675) = 18.05, p < .001, and these
variables accounted for 3% of the variance. Family of origin SES remained significant,
t(678) = 6.49, p < .001, with participants of higher family of origin SES reporting higher
rates of nonviolent discipline as children than participants with lower family of origin
SES.
Table 12
Multiple Regression Results with Mother and Father Parenting Styles Predicting Nonviolent Discipline
Mother parenting styles
Father parenting styles
Variables
B
SE
β
Step 1
Family of origin SES***
R2
B
SE
β
Family of origin SES***
-0.00
0.00
0.27
Step 1
0.01
0.00
0.26
R2
0.07
Step 2
0.07
Step 2
Family of origin SES***
0.01
0.00
0.24
Family of origin SES
-0.00
0.00
0.24
Authoritarian parenting
0.00
0.01
0.01
Authoritarian parenting
-0.00
0.00
-0.02
Authoritative parenting***
0.02
0.00
0.17
Authoritative parenting***
0.02
0.00
0.15
-0.01
-0.01
-0.11
-0.01
0.01
-0.11
Permissive parenting**
R2
Variables
0.10
Permissive parenting
R2
0.10
Note: Family of origin SES scores ranged from 3-66, nonviolent discipline ranged from 0-4, and psychological aggression
ranged from 0-5. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
84
85
With regard to father parenting styles, authoritative parenting was found to be significant,
t(678) = 3.79, p < .001, and was related to higher reported nonviolent discipline. Father
permissive parenting was also found to be significant, t(678) = 2.54, p = .011, and was
related to lower reported nonviolent discipline.
A hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to determine if there was a
significant relationship between mother authoritarian, authoritative, or permissive
parenting and psychological aggression in childhood when controlling for the significant
contributions of family of origin SES. In this multiple regression model, the covariate of
family of origin SES was entered in the first block, and mother authoritarian
authoritative, and permissive parenting entered in the second block.
For the regression model on mother authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive
parenting (Table 13), the overall model was found to be significant, F(2,701) = 36.72, p <
.001. The covariate entered in the first block was not found to be significant. When
adding mother authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting, the second model
was found to be significant, F(4, 699) = 28.19, p < .001, and these variables accounted
for 14% of the variance. With regard to mother parenting styles, authoritarian parenting,
t(702) = 7.84, p < .001, and permissive parenting, t(702) = 3.06, p = .002, were both
found to be significantly related to higher reported psychological aggression. Mother
authoritative parenting was also found to be significantly related to lower reported
psychological aggression, t(702) = 5.55, p < .001.
86
A hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to determine if there was a
significant relationship between father authoritarian, authoritative, or permissive
parenting and psychological aggression in childhood when controlling for the significant
contributions of family of origin SES. In this multiple regression model, the covariate of
family of origin SES was entered in the first block, and father authoritarian authoritative,
and permissive parenting entered in the second block.
For the regression model on father authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive
parenting (Table 12), the overall model was found to be significant, F(2,677) = 27.80, p <
.001. The covariate entered in the first block was not found to be significant. When
adding father authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting, the second model
was found to be significant, F(4, 675) = 27.80, p < .001, and these variables accounted
for 14% of the variance. Concerning father parenting styles, authoritarian parenting,
t(678) = 7.17, p < .001, and permissive parenting, t(678) = 2.53, p < .001, were both
found to be significantly related to higher reported psychological aggression. Father
authoritative parenting was also found to be significantly related to lower reported
psychological aggression, t(678) = 6.04, p < .001.
A hierarchical logistic regression was conducted to determine if there was a
significant relationship between mother authoritarian, authoritative, or permissive
parenting and the corporal punishment item of spanking with a bare hand when
controlling for the significant contributions of family of origin SES.
Table 13
Multiple Regression Results with Mother and Father Parenting Styles Predicting Psychological Aggression
Mother parenting styles
Father parenting styles
Variables
B
SE
β
Step 1
Family of origin SES
R2
B
SE
β
-0.00
0.00
-0.06
-0.00
0.00
-0.01
Step 1
-0.01
0.00
-0.06
Family of origin SES
R2
0.00
Step 2
0.00
Step 2
Family of origin SES
0.00
0.00
-0.00
Authoritarian parenting***
0.06
0.01
0.32
Authoritarian parenting***
0.06
0.01
0.29
Authoritative parenting***
-0.04
0.01
-0.20
Authoritative parenting***
-0.05
0.01
-0.23
0.03
0.01
0.12
0.02
0.01
0.11
Permissive parenting**
R2
Variables
0.14
Family of origin SES
Permissive parenting*
R2
0.10
Note: Family of origin SES scores ranged from 3-66, nonviolent discipline ranged from 0-4, and psychological aggression
ranged from 0-5. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
87
88
In this logistic regression model, the covariate family of origin SES was entered in the
first block, and mother authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting entered in
the second block.
For the logistic regression model on mother authoritarian, authoritative, and
permissive parenting (Table 14), the overall model was found to be significant, χ²(2, N =
704) = 19.09, p < .001. The covariate entered in the first block was found to be
marginally significant, χ²(1, N = 704) = 3.29, p = .070, and accounted for 1% of the
variance. Family of origin SES was found to be marginally significant, Wald(1, N = 704)
= 3.30, p = .069, with participants of higher family of origin SES reporting a 1% higher
likelihood of experiencing spanking with a bare hand as children than participants with
lower family of origin SES. When mother authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive
parenting were added, the second model was found to be significant, χ²(4, N = 704) =
19.08, p < .001, and these variables accounted for 3% of the variance. Family of origin
SES became significant, Wald(1, N = 704) = 4.39, p = .036, with participants of higher
family of origin SES reporting a 1% higher likelihood of experiencing spanking with a
bare hand as children than participants of lower family of origin SES. With regard to
mother parenting styles, authoritarian parenting was found to be marginally significant,
Wald(1, N = 704) = 3.39, p = .065, and authoritative parenting was found to be
significant, Wald(1, N = 704) = 5.25, p = .022. Specifically, mother authoritarian
parenting was related to a marginally higher likelihood (3%) of spanking with a bare
89
hand in childhood, while mother authoritative parenting was related to a lower likelihood
(3%) of reported experiences of spanking with a bare hand as children
A hierarchical logistic regression was conducted to determine if there was a
significant relationship between father authoritarian, authoritative, or permissive
parenting and the corporal punishment item of spanking with a bare hand when
controlling for the significant contributions of family of origin SES. In this logistic
regression model, the covariate family of origin SES was entered in the first block, and
father authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting entered in the second block.
For the logistic regression model on father authoritarian, authoritative, and
permissive parenting (Table 14), the overall model was found to be significant, χ²(2, N =
680) = 20.01, p < .001. The covariate entered in the first block was found to be
significant, χ²(1, N = 680) = 4.09, p = .043, and accounted for 1% of the variance (Table
16). Family of origin SES was significant, Wald(1, N = 680) = 4.11, p = .04, with
participant of higher family of origin SES reporting a marginally higher likelihood (1%)
of spanking with a bare hand as children than participants of lower family of origin SES3.
When father authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting were added, the
second model was found to be significant, χ²(2, N = 680) = 20.01, p < .001, and these
variables accounted for 2% of the variance. Family of origin SES remained significant,
Wald(1, N = 680) = 5.51, p = .019, with participant of higher family of origin SES
reporting a 2% higher likelihood of spanking with a bare hand as children than
participants of lower family of origin SES.
Table 14
Logistic Regression Results with Mother and Father Parenting Styles Predicting Spanking with Bare Hand
Mother parenting styles
Father parenting styles
Variables
OR
95% CI
Step 1
Family of origin SES
Cox & Snell R2
Variables
OR
95% CI
1.00
[1.00, 1.00]
Step 1
1.01
[1.01, 1.01]
Family of origin SES
Cox & Snell R2
0.00
Step 2
0.00
Step 2
Family of origin SES*
1.01
[1.01, 1.01]
Family of origin SES
1.02
[1.01, 1.02]
Authoritarian parenting
1.03
[1.03, 1.03]
Authoritarian parenting
1.04
[1.04, 1.04]
Authoritative parenting*
0.97
[0.97, 0.97]
Authoritative parenting
0.97
[0.97, 0.97]
Permissive parenting
0.98
[0.98, 0.98]
Permissive parenting
0.99
[0.99, 0.99]
Cox & Snell R2
0.03
Cox & Snell R2
0.03
Note: Spanking with hand and spanking with object were coded as 0 = Never occurred, 1 = Occurred.
* p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
90
91
Father authoritarian parenting was significantly related to a 4% higher likelihood,
Wald(1, N = 680) = 6.02, p = .014, and father authoritative parenting was significant in
relation to a marginally lower likelihood, Wald(1, N = 680) = 3.68, p = .055, (3%) of
reported experiences of spanking with a bare hand as children.
A hierarchical logistic regression was conducted to determine if there was a
significant relationship between mother authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive
parenting and the corporal punishment item of spanking with an object in childhood,
when controlling for the significant contributions of family of origin SES, (Table 15). In
this logistic regression model, the covariate family of origin SES was entered in the first
block, and mother authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting entered in the
second block.
For the logistic regression model on mother authoritarian, authoritative, and
permissive parenting (Table 15), the overall model was found to be significant, χ²(2, N =
704) = 38.22, p < .001. The covariate entered in the first block was not found to be
significant. When mother authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting were
added, the second model was found to be significant, χ²(2, N = 704) = 38.22, p < .001,
and these variables accounted for 5% of the variance. Mother authoritarian parenting was
related to an 8% higher likelihood, Wald(1, N = 704) = 22.37, p < .001, of reported
experiences of spanking with an object as children.
A hierarchical logistic regression was conducted to determine if there was a
significant relationship between father authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive
92
parenting and the corporal punishment item of spanking with an object in childhood,
when controlling for the significant contributions of family of origin SES. In this logistic
regression model, the covariate family of origin SES was entered in the first block, and
father authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting entered in the second block.
For the logistic regression model on father authoritarian, authoritative, and
permissive parenting (Table 15), the overall model was found to be significant, χ²(2, N =
680) = 31.38, p < .001. The covariate entered in the first block was not found to be
significant. When adding father authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting,
the second model was found to be significant, χ²(2, N = 680) = 31.38, p < .001, and these
variables accounted for 5% of the variance. Father authoritarian parenting was related to
a 6% higher likelihood, Wald(1, N = 680) = 17.69, p < .001, of reported experiences of
spanking with an object as children.
A hierarchical logistic regression was conducted to determine if there was a
significant relationship between mother authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive
parenting and the corporal punishment item of pinching in childhood, when controlling
for the significant contributions of family of origin SES. In this logistic regression
model, the covariate family of origin SES was entered in the first block, and mother
authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting entered in the second block.
Table 15
Logistic Regression Results with Mother and Father Parenting Styles Predicting Spanking with an Object
Mother parenting styles
Father parenting styles
Variables
OR
95% CI
Step 1
Family of origin SES
Cox & Snell R2
Variables
OR
95% CI
1.00
[1.00, 1.00]
Step 1
1.01
[1.01, 1.01]
Family of origin SES
Cox & Snell R2
0.00
Step 2
0.00
Step 2
Family of origin SES
1.00
[1.00, 1.00]
Family of origin SES
1.00
[1.00, 1.00]
Authoritarian parenting***
1.08
[1.08, 1.08]
Authoritarian parenting***
1.06
[1.06, 1.06]
Authoritative parenting
0.98
[0.98, 0.98]
Authoritative parenting
0.98
[0.98, 0.98]
Permissive parenting
0.99
[0.99, 0.99]
Permissive parenting
0.99
[0.99, 0.99]
Cox & Snell R2
0.05
Cox & Snell R2
0.05
Note: Spanking with hand and spanking with object were coded as 0 = Never occurred, 1 = Occurred.
* p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
93
Table 16
Logistic Regression Results with Mother and Father Parenting Styles Predicting Pinching
Mother parenting styles
Variables
OR
95% CI
Step 1
Family of origin SES
Cox & Snell R2
Father parenting styles
Variables
OR
95% CI
1.00
[1.00, 1.00]
Step 1
1.00
[1.00, 1.00]
Family of origin SES
Cox & Snell R2
0.00
Step 2
0.00
Step 2
Family of origin SES
1.00
[1.00, 1.00]
Family of origin SES
1.00
[1.00, 1.00]
Authoritarian parenting***
1.09
[1.09, 1.09]
Authoritarian parenting***
1.05
[1.05, 1.05]
Authoritative parenting
0.99
[0.99, 0.99]
Authoritative parenting
0.98
[0.98, 0.98]
Permissive parenting
1.00
[1.00, 1.00]
Permissive parenting
1.00
[1.00, 1.00]
Cox & Snell R2
0.07
Cox & Snell R2
0.04
Note: Spanking with hand and spanking with object were coded as 0 = Never occurred, 1 = Occurred.
* p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
94
95
For the logistic regression model on mother authoritarian, authoritative, and
permissive parenting (Table 16), the overall model was found to be significant, χ²(2, N =
704) = 50.25, p < .001. The covariate entered in the first block was not found to be
significant. When mother authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting were
added, the second model was found to be significant and these variables accounted for
7% of the variance, χ²(2, N = 704) = 50.25, p < .001. Mother authoritarian parenting was
significantly related to a 9% higher likelihood, Wald(1, N = 704) = 33.73, p < .001, of
reported experiences of pinching as children.
A hierarchical logistic regression was conducted to determine if there was a
significant relationship between father authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive
parenting and the corporal punishment item of pinching in childhood, when controlling
for the significant contributions of family of origin SES. In this logistic regression
model, the covariate family of origin SES was entered in the first block, and father
authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting entered in the second block. For
the logistic regression model on father authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive
parenting (Table 16), the overall model was found to be significant, χ²(2, N = 680) =
26.16, p < .001. The covariate entered in the first block was not found to be significant.
When father authoritarian parenting was added, the second model was found to be
significant, χ²(2, N = 680) = 26.16, p < .001, and these variables accounted for 4% of the
variance. Father authoritarian parenting was significantly related to a 5% higher
likelihood, Wald(1, N = 680) = 13.22, p < .001, of reported experiences of pinching as
96
children. Father authoritative parenting was related to marginally lower likelihood,
Wald(1, N = 680) = 3.03, p = .082, (2%) of reported experiences of pinching as children.
A hierarchical logistic regression was conducted to determine if there was a
relationship between mother authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting and
the corporal punishment item of shaking in childhood, when controlling for the
significant contributions of family of origin SES. In this logistic regression model, the
covariate family of origin SES was entered in the first block, and mother authoritarian,
authoritative, and permissive parenting entered in the second block.
For the logistic regression model on mother authoritarian, authoritative, and
permissive parenting (Table 17), the overall model was found to be significant, χ²(2, N =
704) = 32.99, p < .001. The covariate entered in the first block was not found to be
significant. When mother authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting were
added, the second model was found to be significant, χ²(2, N = 704) = 32.99, p < .001,
and these variables accounted for 5% of the variance. Mother authoritarian and
permissive parenting were significantly related to a 6% higher likelihood, Wald(1, N =
704) = 14.79, p < .001, and a 5% higher likelihood, Wald(1, N = 704) = 8.65, p = .003, of
reported experiences of shaking as children. Mother authoritative parenting was
significantly related to a 4% lower likelihood, Wald(1, N = 704) = 12.38, p < .001, of
reported experiences of shaking as children.
A hierarchical logistic regression was conducted to determine if there was a
relationship between father authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting
Table 17
Logistic Regression Results with Mother and Father Parenting Styles Predicting Shaking
Mother parenting styles
Variables
OR
95% CI
Step 1
Family of origin SES
Cox & Snell R2
Variables
Father parenting styles
OR
95% CI
1.01
[1.01, 1.01]
Step 1
1.00
[1.00, 1.00]
Family of origin SES
Cox & Snell R2
0.00
Step 2
0.00
Step 2
Family of origin SES*
1.04
[1.04, 1.04]
Family of origin SES
1.01
[1.01, 1.01]
Authoritarian parenting***
1.06
[1.05, 1.06]
Authoritarian parenting**
1.05
[1.05, 1.05]
Authoritative parenting***
0.96
[0.96, 0.96]
Authoritative parenting**
0.97
[0.97, 0.97]
Permissive parenting**
1.05
[1.05, 1.05]
Permissive parenting**
1.04
[1.04, 1.04]
Cox & Snell R2
0.05
Cox & Snell R2
0.03
Note: Spanking with hand and spanking with object were coded as 0 = Never occurred, 1 = Occurred.
* p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
97
98
and the corporal punishment item of shaking in childhood, when controlling for the
significant contributions of family of origin SES. In this logistic regression model, the
covariate family of origin SES was entered in the first block, and father authoritarian,
authoritative, and permissive parenting entered in the second block.
For the logistic regression model on father authoritarian, authoritative, and
permissive parenting (Table 17), the overall model was found to be significant, χ²(2, N =
680) = 23.55, p < .001. The covariate entered in the first block was not found to be
significant. When father authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting were
added, the second model was found to be significant, χ²(2, N = 680) = 23.55, p = .002,
and these variables accounted for 3% of the variance. Father authoritarian and
permissive parenting were significantly related to a 4% higher likelihood, Wald(1, N =
680) = 6.95, p = .008, and a 5% higher likelihood, Wald(1, N = 704) = 8.65, p = .003 of
reported experiences of shaking as children. Father authoritative parenting was
significantly related to a 3% lower likelihood, Wald(1, N = 704) = 6.92, p = .008, of
reported experiences of shaking as children.
A hierarchical multiple regression was conducted determine if there was a
significant relationship between mother authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive
parenting and physically abusive behavior in childhood, when controlling for the
significant contributions of family of origin SES. In this multiple regression model, the
covariate family of origin SES was entered in the first block, and mother authoritarian,
authoritative, and permissive parenting entered in the second block.
99
For the multiple regression model on mother authoritarian, authoritative, and
permissive parenting (Table 18), the overall model was found to be significant, F(4, 699)
= 27.76, p < .001. The covariate entered in the first block was not found to be
significant. When mother authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting were
added, the second model was found to be significant, F(4, 699) = 27.76, p < .001, and
these variables accounted for 14% of the variance. Mother authoritarian, t(702) = 8.71, p
< .001 and permissive parenting, t(702) = 6.11, p < .001, were significantly related to
higher reported rates of physically abusive behavior as children. Mother authoritative
parenting, t(702) = 4.56, p < .001, was significantly related to lower reported rates of
physically abusive behavior as children.
A hierarchical multiple regression was conducted determine if there was a
significant relationship between father authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive
parenting and physically abusive behavior in childhood, when controlling for the
significant contributions of family of origin SES. In this multiple regression model, the
covariate family of origin SES was entered in the first block, and father authoritarian,
authoritative, and permissive parenting entered in the second block.
For the multiple regression model on father authoritarian, authoritative, and
permissive parenting (Table 18), the overall model was found to be significant, F(4, 675)
= 21.90, p < .001. The covariate entered in the first block was not found to be
significant.
Table 18
Multiple Regression Results with Mother and Father Parenting Styles Predicting Physically Abusive Behavior
Mother parenting styles
Father parenting styles
Variables
B
SE
β
Step 1
Family of origin SES
R²
Variables
B
SE
β
-0.00
0.00
-0.02
Step 1
-0.00
0.00
-0.01
0.00
Family of origin SES
R²
Step 2
0.00
Step 2
Family of origin SES
0.00
0.00
0.05
Family of origin SES
0.00
0.00
0.04
Authoritarian parenting***
0.03
0.00
0.35
Authoritarian parenting***
0.03
0.00
0.33
Authoritative parenting***
-0.02
0.00
-0.17
Authoritative parenting**
-0.01
0.00
-0.13
0.03
0.00
0.25
Permissive parenting***
0.03
0.00
0.28
Permissive parenting***
R²
0.14
R²
0.05
Note: Physically abusive behavior ranged from 0-2.
* p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
100
101
When father authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting were added, the
second model was found to be significant, F(2, 677) = 19.46, p < .001, and these
variables accounted for 12% of the variance. Father authoritarian, t(678) = 7.93, p < .001,
and permissive parenting, t(678) = 6.53, p < .001, were significantly related to higher
reported physically abusive behavior. Father authoritative parenting, t(678) = 3.44, p =
.001, was significantly related to lower reported physically abusive behavior.
Hypothesis 9
A hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to determine if there was a
significant relationship between nonviolent discipline and psychological aggression in
childhood, when controlling for the significant contributions of family of origin SES
(Table 19). In this multiple regression model, the covariate family of origin SES was
entered in the first block, and nonviolent discipline was entered into the second block.
The overall model was found to be significant, F(2, 703) = 10.54, p < .001. The
covariate entered in the first block was not found to be significant. When adding
nonviolent discipline, the second model was found to be significant, F(2, 703) = 10.54, p
< .001, and these variables accounted for 3% of the variance. Family of origin SES
became significant, t(704) = 2.63, p <.009, with participants of lower family of origin
SES reporting higher rates of psychological aggression as children than participants of
higher family of origin SES. Nonviolent discipline, t(704) = 4.23, p < .001, was
significantly related to higher reported psychological aggression as children.
102
Hypothesis 10
In the previous hypothesis nonviolent discipline was found to be positively related
to psychological aggression. Therefore, in the following analyses, the variable
nonviolent discipline was included to control for its significance. A hierarchical logistic
regression was conducted to determine if there was a significant relationship between
psychological aggression, and spanking with a bare hand in childhood, when controlling
for the significant contributions of family of origin SES, and nonviolent discipline (Table
20).
In this logistic regression model, the covariate family of origin SES was entered
in the first block, nonviolent discipline was entered into the second block, and
psychological aggression were entered into the third block. The overall model was found
to be significant, χ²(3, N = 706) = 111.87, p < .001. The covariate entered in the first
block was found to be marginally significant, χ²(1, N = 706) = 3.13, p = .077, and
accounted for less than 1% of the variance. Specifically, participants of higher family of
origin SES reported a 1% marginally higher likelihood, Wald(1, N = 706) = 3.14, p =
.077, of reported experiences of spanking with a bare hand as children than participants
of lower family of origin SES. When adding nonviolent discipline, the second model was
found to be significant, χ²(2, N = 706) = 33.52, p < .001, and these variables accounted
for about 5% of the variance. Nonviolent discipline was significantly related to a 89%
higher likelihood, Wald(1, N = 706) = 30.34, p < .001, of reported experiences of
103
spanking with a bare hand as children. When adding psychological aggression, the third
model was found to be significant, χ²(3, N = 706) = 111.87, p < .001, and accounted for
15% of the variance. Nonviolent discipline remained significant. In addition,
psychological aggression was related to a 87% higher likelihood, Wald(1, N = 706) =
68.16, p < .001, of reported experiences of spanking with a bare hand as children.
A hierarchical logistic regression was conducted to determine if there was a
significant relationship between psychological aggression, and spanking with an object in
childhood, when controlling for the significant contributions of family of origin SES, and
nonviolent discipline (Table 20). In this logistic regression model, the covariate family
of origin SES was entered in the first block, nonviolent discipline entered into the second
block, and psychological aggression was entered into the third block.
The overall model was found to be significant, χ²(3, N = 706) = 135.48, p < .001.
The covariate entered into the first block was not found to be significant. When adding
nonviolent discipline, the second model was found to be significant, χ²(2, N = 706) =
27.29, p < .001, and these variables accounted for about 4% of the variance. Nonviolent
discipline was significantly related to a 83% higher likelihood, Wald(1, N = 706) = 27.40,
p < .001, of reported experiences of and these variables accounted for 18% of the
variance. When adding psychological aggression, the third model was found to be
significant, χ²(3, N = 706) = 135.48, p < .001, and accounted for 18% of the variance.
Nonviolent discipline remained significant. In addition, psychological aggression was
104
related to a higher likelihood (2.11 times), Wald(1, N = 706) = 88.37, p < .001, of
reported experiences of spanking with an object as children.
A hierarchical logistic regression was conducted to determine if there was a
significant relationship between psychological aggression, and pinching in childhood,
when controlling for the significant contributions of family of origin SES, and nonviolent
discipline (Table 21). In this logistic regression model, the covariate family of origin
SES was entered in the first block, nonviolent discipline was entered into the second
block, and psychological aggression entered into the third block.
The overall model was found to be significant, χ²(3, N = 706) = 109.53, p < .001.
The covariate entered in the first block was not found to be significant. When adding
nonviolent discipline, the second model was found to be significant, χ²(3, N = 706) =
30.28, p < .001, and these variables accounted for 4% of the variance. Nonviolent
discipline was significantly related to an 90% higher likelihood, Wald(1, N = 706) =
26.24, p < .001, of reported experiences of pinching as children. When adding
psychological aggression, the third model was found to be significant, χ²(3, N = 706) =
109.53, p < .001, and accounted for 14% of the variance. Nonviolent discipline remained
significant. In addition, psychological aggression was significantly related to a 71%
higher likelihood, Wald(1, N = 706) = 69.69, p < .001, of reported experiences of
pinching as children.
A hierarchical logistic regression was conducted to determine if there was a
significant relationship between psychological aggression, and shaking in childhood,
105
when controlling for the significant contributions of family of origin SES , and
nonviolent discipline (Table 21). In this logistic regression model, the covariate family
of origin SES was entered in the first block, nonviolent discipline was entered into the
second block, and psychological aggression were entered into the third block. The
overall model was found to be significant, χ²(3, N = 706) = 53.69, p < .001.
The covariate entered in the first block was not found to be significant. When
adding nonviolent discipline, the second model was found to be significant, χ²(2, N =
706) = 13.06, p = .001, and these variables accounted for 2% of the variance. Nonviolent
discipline was significantly related to a 48% higher likelihood, Wald(1, N = 706) = 10.83,
p = .001, of reported experiences of shaking as children. When adding psychological
aggression, the third model was found to be significant, χ²(3, N = 706) = 53.69, p < .001,
and accounted for 7% of the variance. Nonviolent discipline remained significant. In
addition, psychological aggression was significantly related to a 46% higher likelihood,
Wald(1, N = 706) = 37.62, p = .001, of reported experiences of shaking as children.
A hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to determine if there was a
significant relationship between nonviolent discipline and psychological aggression, and
physically abusive behavior in childhood, when controlling for the significant
contributions of family of origin SES (Table 22). In this multiple regression model, the
covariate family of origin SES was entered in the first block, and variables nonviolent
discipline and psychological aggression were entered into the second block.
Table 19
Multiple Regression Results with Nonviolent Discipline Predicting Psychological Aggression
Psychological aggression
Variables
B
SE
β
-0.01
0.00
-0.06
Step 1
Family of origin SES
R²
0.00
Step 2
Family of origin SES**
-0.01
0.00
-0.10
Nonviolent discipline***
0.31
0.07
0.17
R²
0.03
Note: Psychological aggression scores ranged from 0-5.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
106
Table 20
Logistic Regression Results with Nonviolent Discipline and Psychological Aggression Predicting Spanking with or without
Object
Spanking hand
Spanking object
Variables
OR
95% CI
Step 1
Family of origin SES
Cox & Snell R²
Variables
OR
95% CI
1.00
[1.00, 1.00]
Step 1
1.01
[1.01, 1.01]
0.00
Family of origin SES
Cox & Snell R²
Step 2
0.00
Step 2
Family of origin SES
1.00
[1.00, 1.00]
Family of origin SES
0.99
[0.99, 0.99]
Nonviolent discipline***
1.89
[1.89, 1.89]
Nonviolent discipline***
1.83
[1.83, 1.83]
Cox & Snell R²
0.05
Cox & Snell R²
0.04
107
Step 3
Step 3
Family of origin SES
1.01
[1.01, 1.01]
Family of origin SES
1.00
[1.00, 1.00]
Nonviolent discipline***
1.71
[1.70, 1.71]
Nonviolent discipline***
1.64
[1.64, 1.64]
Psychological aggression***
1.87
[1.87, 1.88]
Psychological aggression***
2.11
[2.11, 2.11]
Cox & Snell R²
0.15
Cox & Snell R²
0.18
Note: Spanking with hand and spanking with object were coded as 0 = Never occurred, 1 = Occurred.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
108
Table 21
Logistic Regression Results with Nonviolent Discipline and Psychological Aggression Predicting Pinching and Shaking
Pinching
Shaking
Variables
OR
95% CI
Step 1
Family of origin SES
Cox & Snell R²
Variables
OR
95% CI
Step 1
1.00
[1.00, 1.00]
0.00
Family of origin SES
Cox & Snell R²
Step 2
1.01
[1.01, 1.01]
0.00
Step 2
Family of origin SES*
0.99
[0.99, 0.99]
Family of origin SES
1.00
[1.00, 1.00]
Nonviolent discipline***
1.70
[1.69, 1.70]
Nonviolent discipline**
1.48
[1.47, 1.48]
Cox & Snell R²
0.04
Cox & Snell R²
0.02
109
Step 3
Step 3
Family of origin SES*
0.99
[0.99, 0.99]
Family of origin SES
1.00
[1.00, 1.00]
Nonviolent discipline***
1.85
[1.85, 1.85]
Nonviolent discipline*
1.34
[1.34, 1.35]
Psychological aggression***
1.71
[1.71, 1.72]
Psychological aggression***
1.46
[1.46, 1.46]
Cox & Snell R²
0.14
Cox & Snell R²
0.07
Note: Pinching and shaking were coded as 0 = Never occurred, 1 = Occurred.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
110
Table 22
Multiple Regression Results with Nonviolent Discipline and Psychological Aggression Predicting Physically Abusive Behavior
Physically abusive behavior
Variables
B
SE
β
-0.00
0.00
-0.02
Step 1
Family of origin SES
R²
0.00
Step 2
Family of origin SES
-0.00
0.00
0.01
Nonviolent discipline
-0.02
0.03
-0.02
Psychological aggression***
0.20
0.02
0.40
R²
0.16
Note: Physically abusive behavior scores ranged from 0-2.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
111
112
The overall model was found to be significant, F(3,702) = 43.98, p < .001. The covariate
entered in the first block was not found to be significant. When adding nonviolent
discipline and psychological aggression, the second model was found to be significant
and these variables accounted for 16% of the variance, F(3,702) = 43.98, p < .001.
Psychological aggression was significantly, t(701) = 11.40, p <.001, related to a higher
rates of reported physically abusive behavior as children.
Hypothesis 11
A hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to determine a relationship
between the four corporal punishment behaviors and physically abusive behavior in
childhood, when controlling for the significant contributions of family of origin SES,
nonviolent discipline, and psychological aggression, (Table 23). In this multiple
regression model, the covariate family of origin SES was entered in the first block,
nonviolent discipline and psychological aggression were entered in the second block, and
spanking with a bare hand, spanking with an object, pinching, and shaking were entered
into the third block. The overall model was found to be significant, F(7, 698) = 32.58, p
< .001. The covariate entered in the first block was not found to be significant. When
adding nonviolent discipline and psychological aggression, the second model was found
to be significant, F(3, 702) = 43.98, p < .001, and accounted for 16% of the variance.
Psychological aggression was significantly, t(704) = 11.40, p < .001, related to higher
reported experiences of physically abusive behavior as children. When adding the four
113
corporal punishment behaviors, the third model was found to be significant and these
variables accounted for 25% of the variance, F(7, 698) = 32.19, p < .001. Psychological
aggression remained significantly related, t(704) = 7.20, p < .001, to higher reported
experiences of physically abusive behavior as children. Spanking with an object t(704) =
2.44, p = .015, pinching t(704) = 3.08, p = .002, shaking t(704) = 7.43, p < .001, but not
spanking with a bare hand were significantly related to higher rates of reported physically
abusive behavior as children.
Hypothesis 12
Considering the previous eleven hypotheses and their results, a change was made
in hypotheses twelve and thirteen. Specifically, mother/father permissive parenting was
removed from these hypotheses because this variable was not consistently significant in
relation to the disciplining methods and this parenting style was not significantly related
to the dependent variable, physically abusive behavior. The corporal punishment item of
spanking with a bare hand was also removed from the analyses because when controlling
for the other corporal punishment items, spanking with a bare hand was not significantly
related to physically abusive behavior. Finally, some of the following analyses should be
interpreted with caution because several of the independent variables were highly
correlated.
For hypothesis twelve, a hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to
determine a significant relationship between the three disciplining types (nonviolent
discipline, psychological aggression, corporal punishment) and physically abusive
114
behavior in childhood, when controlling for the significant contributions of family of
origin SES. In these multiple regression models, the covariate family of origin SES was
entered into the first block, mother authoritarian, father authoritarian, mother
authoritative or father authoritative parenting styles entered in the second block,
nonviolent discipline, psychological aggression, and the three corporal punishment items
entered into the third block, participant sex entered into the fourth block, and ethnicity
entered into the fifth block.
For the first analysis, mother authoritarian parenting was included as the parenting
style (Table 24). The overall model was found to be significant, F(11, 692) = 25.71, p <
.001. The covariate entered in the first block was not found to be significant. When
adding mother authoritarian parenting, the second model was found to be significant and
these variables accounted for 7% of the variance, F(2, 701) = 28.20, p < .001. Mother
authoritarian parenting, t(702) = 7.50, p < .001, was significantly related to higher
reported rates of physically abusive behavior. When nonviolent discipline, psychological
aggression, spanking with object, pinching, and shaking were added, the third model was
found to be significant, F(7, 696) = 34.93, p < .001, and these variables accounted for
19% of the variance. Mother authoritarian parenting remained significant, t(704) = 3.63,
p < .001. Psychological aggression t(702) = 6.39, p < .001, pinching t(702) = 2.31, p =
.021, and shaking t(702) = 7.44, p < .001, were found to be significant and spanking with
object t(702) = 1.93, p = .054 was found to be marginally significant in relation to higher
reported rates of physically abusive behavior. When adding participant sex, the fourth
115
model was found to be significant, F(8,695) = 33.15, p < .001, and these variables
accounted for 2% of the variance. Mother authoritarian parenting t(702) = 6.63, p < .001,
psychological aggression t(702) = 6.39, p < .001, pinching t(702) = 2.10, p = .036, and
shaking t(702) = 7.29, p < .001, remained significant and spanking with an object
remained marginally significant, t(702) = 1.70, p = .090. Nonviolent discipline became
significant, t(702) = 1.70, p = .090. Significant sex differences remained after removing
the impact of mother authoritarian parenting, nonviolent discipline, psychological
aggression, and the three corporal punishment items, with males reporting higher
reported rates of physically abusive behavior as children than females, t(702) = 3.94, p <
.001. When adding ethnicity, the fifth model was found to be significant, F(11, 692) =
25.71, p < .001, and these variables accounted for 1% of the variance. Mother
authoritarian parenting t(702) = 3.38, p = .001, psychological aggression t(704) = 6.11, p
< .001, pinching t(702) = 2.15, p = .032, and shaking t(702) = 7.19, p < .001, remained
significant. Significant sex differences remained, t(702) = 3.66, p < .001. Finally, some
significant ethnic differences remained after removing the impact of mother authoritarian
parenting, nonviolent discipline, psychological aggression, the three corporal punishment
items, and sex. Specifically, Asian Americans reported higher rates of physically abusive
behavior of children than Latino, t(700) = 3.10, p = .002, and White Americans, t(700) =
2.24, p = .025. In addition, African Americans reported higher rates of physically
abusive behavior as children than Latino Americans, t(700) = 2.49, p = .013 and
116
marginally higher rates of physically abusive behavior as children than White Americans,
t(700) = 1.91, p = .056.
For the second analysis, father authoritarian parenting was included as the
parenting style (Table 24). The overall model was found to be significant, F(11, 668) =
22.97, p < .001. The covariate entered in the first block was not found to be significant.
When adding father authoritarian parenting, the second model was found to be
significant, F(2,701) = 19.45, p < .001, and these variables accounted for 5% of the
variance. Father authoritarian parenting, t(678) = 6.22, p < .001, was significantly related
to higher rates of physically abusive behavior as children. When nonviolent discipline,
psychological aggression, spanking with object, pinching, and shaking were added, the
third model was found to be significant, F(7, 672) = 31.11, p < .001, and these variables
accounted for 20% of the variance. Father authoritarian parenting remained significant,
F(1, 678) = 2.69, p = .007. Psychological aggression t(678) = 6.15, p < .001, spanking
with object t(678) = 1.98, p = .048, pinching t(678) = 2.56, p = .011, and shaking t(678) =
7.14, p < .001 were significantly related to higher rates of reported physically abusive
behavior as children. When adding participant sex, the fourth block was found to be
significant, F(8, 671) = 29.34, p < .001, and accounted for 1% of the variance. Father
authoritarian parenting remained significant, F(1, 678) = 2.72, p = .007. Psychological
aggression t(678) = 6.17, p < .001, pinching t(678) = 2.39, p = .017, and shaking t(678) =
6.98, p < .001 remained significant.
Table 23
Multiple Regression Results with Corporal Punishment Predicting Physically Abusive Behavior
Variables
Physically abusive behavior
B
SE
β
-0.00
0.00
-0.02
Step 1
Family of origin SES
Cox & Snell R²
0.00
Step 2
Family of origin SES
0.00
0.00
0.01
Nonviolent discipline
-0.02
0.03
-0.02
0.20
0.02
.40
Psychological aggression***
Cox & Snell R²
0.16
117
Step 3
Family of origin SES
0.00
0.00
0.01
Nonviolent discipline
-0.06
0.03
-0.07
0.13
0.02
0.28
-0.05
0.06
-0.03
Spanking object*
0.16
0.06
0.10
Pinching**
0.15
0.05
0.11
Shaking***
0.35
0.05
0.26
Cox & Snell R²
0.25
Psychological aggression***
Spanking hand
Note: Physically abusive behavior scores ranged from 0-2.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
118
119
Spanking with object t(678) = 1.75, p = .081, and nonviolent discipline, t(678) = 1.73, p
= .085, became marginally significant, with nonviolent discipline related to marginally
lower rates of reported physically abusive behavior as children. Significant sex
differences, t(678) = 3.61, p < .001, remained after removing the impact of father
authoritarian parenting, nonviolent discipline, psychological aggression, and the three
corporal punishment items, with males reporting higher rates of reported physically
abusive behavior as children than females. When adding ethnicity, the fifth model was
found to be significant, F(11, 668) = 22.97, p < .001, and these variables accounted for
1% of the variance. Father authoritarian parenting remained significant, F(1, 678) = 2.81,
p = .005. Psychological aggression t(678) = 6.17, p < .001, pinching t(678) = 2.39, p =
.017, and shaking t(678) = 6.98, p < .001 remained significant and spanking with an
object t(678) = 1.75, p = .081, remained marginally significant. Significant sex
differences remained, t(678) = 3.61, p < .001. Finally, some ethnic differences remained
after removing the impact of father authoritarian parenting, nonviolent discipline,
psychological aggression, the three corporal punishment items, and participant sex.
Specifically, Asian Americans reported higher rates of reported physically abusive
behavior as children than Latino t(676) = 3.32, p = .001 or White Americans, t(678) =
2.59, p = .010. In addition, African Americans, t(676) = 1.91, p = .057, reported
marginally higher rates of reported physically abusive behavior as children than Latino
Americans.
120
For the third analysis, mother authoritative parenting was included as the
parenting style (Table 25). The overall model was found to be significant, F(11, 692) =
24.82, p < .001. The covariate entered in the first block was not found to be significant.
When adding mother authoritative parenting, the second model was found to be
significant, F(2, 701) = 12.83, p < .001, and this variable accounted for 4% of the
variance. Mother authoritative parenting was significantly related to lower rates of
reported physically abusive behavior as children, t(702) = 5.05, p < .001. When
nonviolent discipline, psychological aggression, spanking with object, pinching, and
shaking were added, the third model was found to be significant, F(7, 696) = 33.09, p <
.001, and these variables accounted for 21% of the variance.
Mother authoritative parenting became marginally significant, t(702) = 1.85, p =
.064. Psychological aggression t(702) = 6.60, p < .001, spanking with object t(702) =
2.24, p = .025 pinching t(702) = 2.86, p = .004, and shaking t(702) = 7.33, p < .001, were
significantly related to higher rates of reported physically abusive behavior as children.
When adding participant sex, the fourth model was found to be significant, F(8, 696) =
31.55, p < .001, and this variable accounted for 2% of the variance. Mother authoritative
parenting remained marginally significant, t(702) = 1.93, p = .054. Psychological
aggression t(702) = 6.57, p < .001, spanking with object t(702) = 2.00, p = .046, pinching
t(702) = 2.64, p = .008, and shaking t(702) = 7.16, p < .001 remained significant.
Table 24
Multiple Regression Results with Mother/Father Authoritarian Parenting and Parent Discipline Predicting Physically Abusive
Behavior
Mother authoritarian
Father authoritarian
Variables
parenting
B
SE
Variables
β
Step 1
Family of origin SES
R²
B
SE
β
-0.00
0.00
-0.02
Step 1
-0.00
0.00
-0.01
0.00
Family of origin SES
R²
Step 2
Step 2
Family of origin SES
0.00
0.00
0.01
Family of origin SES
-0.00
0.00
-0.01
Mother authoritarian
0.01
0.00
0.01
Father authoritarian
0.02
0.00
0.23
parenting***
R²
parenting
parenting***
0.07
R²
0.03
121
Step 3
Step 3
Family of origin SES
0.00
0.00
0.02
Family of origin SES
0.00
0.00
Mother authoritarian
0.01
0.00
0.13
Father authoritarian
0.01
0.00
-0.05
0.03
parenting***
Nonviolent discipline
R²
parenting**
-0.05
0.03
-0.05
Psychological aggression***
0.12
0.02
0.25
Psychological aggression***
0.12
0.02
Spanking object
0.11
0.06
0.07
Spanking object*
0.10
0.06
Pinching*
0.11
0.05
0.08
Pinching*
0.12
0.05
Shaking***
0.35
0.05
0.25
Shaking***
0.34
0.05
0.26
Nonviolent discipline
R²
0.26
122
Step 4
Step 4
Family of origin SES
0.00
0.00
0.01
Family of origin SES
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mother authoritarian
0.01
0.00
0.13
Father authoritarian
0.01
0.00
0.10
-0.05
0.03
-0.06
parenting***
Nonviolent discipline
parenting**
-0.05
0.03
-0.06
Psychological aggression***
0.12
0.02
0.24
Psychological aggression***
0.11
0.02
0.24
Spanking object
0.10
0.06
0.60
Spanking object
0.10
0.06
0.07
Pinching*
0.10
0.05
0.08
Pinching**
0.12
0.05
0.09
Shaking***
0.34
0.05
0.25
Shaking***
0.33
0.05
0.24
-0.19
0.05
-0.13
-0.18
0.05
-0.12
Participant sex***
R²
0.28
Nonviolent discipline
Participant sex***
R²
123
Step 5
Step 5
Family of origin SES
0.00
0.00
0.00
Family of origin SES
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mother authoritarian
0.01
0.00
0.12
Father authoritarian
0.01
0.00
0.10
-0.04
0.03
-0.04
parenting**
parenting**
Nonviolent discipline
-0.04
0.03
-0.04
Psychological aggression***
0.11
0.02
0.23
Psychological aggression***
0.11
0.02
0.23
Spanking object
0.10
0.06
0.06
Spanking object
0.10
0.06
0.07
Pinching*
0.11
0.05
0.08
Pinching**
0.12
0.05
0.09
Shaking***
0.33
0.05
0.24
Shaking***
0.32
0.05
0.24
-0.18
0.05
-0.12
-0.16
0.05
-0.11
0.07
-0.02
Participant sex***
Ethnicity
Nonviolent discipline
Participant sex***
Ethnicity
Baseline: Asian Americans
African
0.01
Baseline: Asian Americans
0.07
0.00
African
-0.04
124
Latino**
-0.17
0.06
-0.12
Latino**
-0.19
0.06
-0.13
White*
-0.14
0.06
-0.09
White*
-0.16
0.06
-0.10
Baseline: African Americans
Baseline: African Americans
Latino*
-0.18
0.07
-0.12
Latino
-0.14
0.07
-0.10
White
-0.14
0.08
-0.09
White
-0.12
0.08
-0.08
0.07
0.07
Baseline: Latino Americans
White
R²
0.03
0.29
Baseline: Latino Americans
0.07
0.02
White
R²
0.02
0.27
Note: Family of origin SES scores ranged from 3-66. Mother/father parenting styles = 10-50, nonviolent discipline = 0-4,
psychological aggression = 0-5, corporal punishment coded as 0 = Never occurred, 1= Occurred. Asian, African, Latino, and
White American ethnic groups coded 0 = Not belonging to ethnic group, 1 = Belonging to ethnic group. Physically abusive
behavior scores ranged from 0-2.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
125
126
Significant sex differences, t(702) = 3.98, p < .001, remained after removing the impact
of mother authoritative parenting, nonviolent discipline, psychological aggression, and
the three corporal punishment items, with males reporting higher rates of reported
physically abusive behavior as children than females. When adding ethnicity, the fifth
model was significant, F(11, 692) = 24.82, p < .001, and this variable accounted for 1%
of the variance. Mother authoritative parenting became significant, t(702) = 2.09, p =
.037. Psychological aggression t(702) = 6.24, p < .001, pinching t(702) = 2.53, p = .012,
and shaking t(702) = 7.06, p < .001 remained significant and spanking with object t(702)
= 1.83, p = .067 became marginally significant. Significant sex differences remained,
t(702) = 3.70, p < .001. Finally, some ethnic differences remained after removing the
impact of mother authoritative parenting, nonviolent discipline, psychological aggression,
the three corporal punishment items, and participant sex. Specifically, Asian Americans
reported higher rates of reported physically abusive behavior as children than Latino
t(700) = 3.09, p = .002, or White Americans, t(700) = 2.63, p = .009. In addition, African
Americans reported higher rates of reported physically abusive behavior as children than
Latino t(700) = 2.69, p = .007, or White Americans, t(700) = 2.43, p = .009.
For the fourth analysis, father authoritative parenting was included as the
parenting style (Table 25). The overall model was found to be significant, F(11, 668) =
22.01, p < .001. The covariate entered in the first block was not found to be significant.
When adding father authoritative parenting, the second model was found to be
significant, F(2, 677) = 5.43, p < .001, and this variable accounted for 2% of the
127
variance. Father authoritative parenting, t(678) = 3.27, p < .001, was significantly related
to lower rates of reported physically abusive behavior as children. When nonviolent
discipline, psychological aggression, spanking with object, pinching, and shaking were
added, the third model was found to be significant, F(7, 672) = 29.76, p < .001, and these
variables accounted for 22% of the variance. Psychological aggression t(678) = 6.68, p <
.001, spanking with object t(680) = 2.23, p = .028, pinching t(678) = 2.76, p = .006, and
shaking t(678) = 7.22, p < .001, were significantly related to higher rates of reported
physically abusive behavior as children. In addition, nonviolent discipline was
marginally significant, t(678) = 1.76, p = .079, in relation to lower rates of reported
physically abusive behavior as children. When adding participant sex, the fourth model
was found to be significant, F(8, 671) = 28.12, p < .001, and this variable accounted for
1% of the variance. Psychological aggression t(678) = 6.63, p < .001, spanking with
object t(678) = 1.97, p = .049, pinching t(678) = 2.58, p = .010, and shaking t(678) =
7.04, p < .001, remained significant, and nonviolent discipline remained marginally
significant, t(678) = 1.88, p = .061. Significant sex differences, t(678) = 3.60, p < .001,
remained after removing the impact of mother authoritative parenting, nonviolent
discipline, psychological aggression, and the three corporal punishment items, with males
reporting higher rates of physically abusive behavior as children than females. When
adding ethnicity, the fifth model was significant, F(11, 668) = 22.01, p < .001, and this
variable accounted for 2% of the variance. Psychological aggression t(678) = 6.17, p <
.001, pinching t(678) = 2.47, p = .014, and shaking t(678) = 6.96, p < .001 remained
128
significantly related to higher rates of reported physically abusive behavior as children.
Spanking with an object remained marginally significant in relation to higher rates of
reported physically abusive behavior as children, t(678) = 1.92, p = .055. Significant sex
differences remained, t(678) = 3.31, p = .001. Finally, some ethnic differences remained
after removing the impact of father authoritative parenting, nonviolent discipline,
psychological aggression, the three corporal punishment items, and sex. Specifically,
Asian Americans reported higher rates of reported physically abusive behavior as
children than Latino t(676) = 3.09, p = .002 or White Americans, t(676) = 2.82, p = .005.
African Americans reported marginally higher rates of physically abusive behavior as
children than Latino t(676) = 1.73, p = .085 or White Americans, t(676) = 1.69, p = .091.
Table 25
Multiple Regression Results with Mother/Father Authoritative Parenting and Parent Discipline Predicting Physically Abusive
Behavior
Mother authoritative
Father authoritative
Variables
parenting
B
SE
Variables
β
Step 1
Family of origin SES
R²
B
SE
β
-0.00
0.00
-0.02
-0.00
0.00
-0.01
0.02
0.00
0.23
Step 1
-0.00
0.00
-0.02
0.00
Family of origin SES
R²
Step 2
0.00
Step 2
Family of origin SES
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mother authoritative
0.02
0.00
-0.19
Family of origin SES
Father authoritative
parenting***
R²
parenting
parenting***
0.04
R²
0.02
129
Step 3
Step 3
Family of origin SES
0.00
0.00
0.01
Family of origin SES
Mother authoritative
-0.01
0.00
0.07
Father authoritative
parenting
Nonviolent discipline
R²
0.00
0.00
0.01
-0.01
0.00
-0.10
-0.06
0.03
-0.07
parenting
-0.04
0.03
-0.05
Psychological aggression***
0.12
0.02
0.26
Psychological aggression***
0.13
0.02
0.27
Spanking object*
0.13
0.06
0.08
Spanking object*
0.13
0.06
0.08
Pinching**
0.14
0.05
0.10
Pinching**
0.14
0.05
0.10
Shaking***
0.34
0.05
0.25
Shaking***
0.35
0.05
0.26
0.25
Nonviolent discipline
R²
0.23
130
Step 4
Step 4
Family of origin SES
0.00
0.00
0.01
Family of origin SES
Mother authoritative
-0.01
0.00
0.13
Father authoritative
parenting*
Nonviolent discipline
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.00
0.00
-0.10
-0.06
0.03
-0.07
parenting
-0.03
0.03
-0.03
Psychological aggression***
0.11
0.02
0.24
Psychological aggression***
0.12
0.02
0.26
Spanking object
0.11
0.06
0.07
Spanking object*
0.12
0.06
0.07
Pinching*
0.12
0.05
0.09
Pinching**
0.13
0.05
0.10
Shaking***
0.33
0.05
0.24
Shaking***
0.34
0.05
0.25
-0.18
0.05
-0.12
-0.18
0.05
-0.12
Participant sex***
R²
0.27
Nonviolent discipline
Participant sex***
R²
0.25
131
Step 5
Step 5
Family of origin SES
0.00
0.00
0.00
Family of origin SES
Mother authoritative
0.01
0.00
0.12
Father authoritative
parenting**
0.00
0.00
0.01
-0.01
0.00
-0.01
-0.04
0.03
-0.05
parenting
Nonviolent discipline
-0.04
0.03
-0.04
Psychological aggression***
0.11
0.02
0.23
Psychological aggression***
0.12
0.02
0.25
Spanking object
0.10
0.06
0.60
Spanking object
0.11
0.06
0.07
Pinching*
0.11
0.05
0.08
Pinching*
0.12
0.05
0.09
Shaking***
0.33
0.05
0.24
Shaking***
0.33
0.05
0.24
-0.18
0.05
-0.12
-0.17
0.05
-0.11
0.07
-0.02
Participant sex***
Ethnicity
Nonviolent discipline
Participant sex***
Ethnicity
Baseline: Asian Americans
African
0.02
Baseline: Asian Americans
0.07
0.01
African
-0.04
132
Latino**
-0.17
0.06
-0.12
Latino**
-0.17
0.06
-0.12
White**
-0.16
0.06
-0.10
White**
-0.18
0.06
-0.11
Baseline: African Americans
Baseline: African Americans
Latino**
-0.19
0.07
-0.13
Latino
-0.13
0.08
-0.09
White*
-0.18
0.08
-0.12
White
-0.13
0.08
-0.09
0.01
-0.06
Baseline: Latino Americans
White
R²
0.01
0.28
Baseline: Latino Americans
0.07
0.01
White
R²
-0.00
0.27
Note: Family of origin SES scores ranged from 3-66. Mother/father parenting styles = 10-50, nonviolent discipline = 0-4,
psychological aggression = 0-5, corporal punishment coded as 0 = Never occurred, 1= Occurred. Asian, African, Latino, and
White American ethnic groups coded 0 = Not belonging to ethnic group, 1 = Belonging to ethnic group. Physically abusive
behavior scores ranged from 0-2.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
133
134
Chapter 4
DISCUSSION
Summary and Interpretation of Findings in the Context of Previous Literature
The results of the present study partially supported the proposed hypotheses. In
the first hypothesis, significant sex and ethnic differences were found in some parenting
styles. However, these differences did not completely reflect what was proposed in the
hypotheses. First, sex differences were only found in reported father permissive
parenting, with males reporting higher father permissive parenting. In addition, while
Asian and African Americans reported higher mother and father authoritarian parenting
than White Americans, Latino Americans also reported higher authoritarian parenting
than White Americans. Asian and Latino Americans unexpectedly reported significantly
higher permissive parenting as compared with African and Latino Americans and no
significant ethnic differences were found in mother and father authoritative parenting.
Considering the range of scores for parenting styles, all of the participants, regardless of
ethnicity, tended to agree that their parents were more authoritarian and authoritative, but
disagreed that their parents were permissive.
While the results of this first analysis did not fully support the first hypotheses,
these results do support previous literature that states that boys may report higher
permissive parenting than girls. However, both male and female participants reported that
their parents did not use permissive parenting. In addition, these results support previous
literature that has shown that ethnic minority groups report more authoritarian parenting
135
than White Americans, but that they also prefer an authoritative parenting approach.
Finally, little information was found about permissive parenting style in the literature.
However, the results of this study show that it is a parenting style that is not often used
across all ethnic groups.
When exploring the second and third hypotheses, significant sex and ethnic
differences in nonphysical forms of discipline were found. First, males reported more
nonviolent discipline and psychological aggression experienced as children than females.
The expectation that Latino and White Americans would report the highest levels of
nonviolent disciple experienced as children was supported. However, African Americans
reported a similar level of nonviolent discipline to these two ethnic groups and Asian
Americans reported less nonviolent discipline experienced as children than Latino and
White Americans. However, it is important to note that all four ethnic groups reported
that they had experienced almost all of the four nonviolent discipline items as children.
Finally, the three ethnic minority groups reported more psychological aggression
experienced as children than White Americans. Specifically, ethnic minority groups
reported experiencing an average of about three out of six types of psychological
aggression as children, while White Americans reported less than three types of
psychological aggression as children.
These findings were slightly different from what was expected as described in the
hypotheses. However, these results were supportive of previous literature showing that
boys report with higher levels of disciplining of all kinds when compared with girls. In
136
addition, some previous literature has shown that African, Latino, and White Americans
parents use similar and high levels of nonviolent discipline. Research on Asian American
parental attitudes had suggested a preference for more traditional Asian disciplining
practices than Western disciplining techniques, which was supported by the results of this
study. Finally, previous research on ethnic differences in psychological aggression has
often been contrary to one another. The current study supports literature that suggests
that ethnic minority parents may use more psychological aggression with their children
than White American parents.
The analyses conducted to explore the fourth hypothesis revealed significant
ethnic differences on the four corporal punishment items. Interestingly, White
Americans were more likely to report spanking with a bare hand as children than Asian
Americans. This was directly contrary to the proposed hypothesis because it was
expected that Asian Americans would be more likely to report experiencing all four of
corporal punishment items than White Americans. In contrast, White Americans
reported more spanking with an object and pinching as a child than the three ethnic
minority groups. Significant ethnic differences for the ethnic minority groups were also
reported on these two corporal punishment items. Specifically, Latino Americans were
the most likely to report spanking with an object as children, followed by African
Americans, and Asian Americans were the least likely to report spanking with an object
for these three ethnic minority groups. Latino Americans were also the most likely to
report pinching as children, while Asian Americans were the least likely to report
137
pinching as children. Finally, no significant ethnic differences were found in the final
corporal punishment item of shaking for the four ethnic groups.
While previous literature has not examined ethnic differences in individual
corporal punishment items, the results of this study mostly supported previous literature
examining ethnic differences in corporal punishment. The only discrepant finding
regarding corporal punishment was between Asian and White Americans on spanking
with hand. This finding shows that not all corporal punishment items may be equally
acceptable in different ethnic groups or cultures. It may also be that certain corporal
punishment items, such as shaking, are equally but infrequently used across these
different ethnic groups. The results lend supportive evidence that shaking was not
commonly used as a disciplining technique for these four ethnic groups. These results
show some support for examining corporal punishment items separately in the future.
These sex and ethnic differences in parenting styles and parent discipline
experienced may be the result of cultural beliefs about how boys and girls should be
treated and disciplined. There may also be inter-group cultural differences regarding the
frequency or types of parenting styles and parent discipline used. Some trends show that
boys may experience more of all three parenting styles and parent disciplining techniques
than girls. This may be due to cultural beliefs that boys need more demandingness and
discipline to control their behaviors than girls do. Similarly, the ethnic differences in
parenting styles and parent discipline may reveal the trend that some groups may believe
138
that they must be comparatively more demanding and use stricter discipline to raise
successful and well-behaved children.
In the analyses conducted for the fifth hypothesis, significant sex and ethnic
differences in physically abusive behavior were found. Male participants reported
experiencing higher physically abusive behavior, defined as being beat up or being hit
with a fist/kicked, than females, which supported the findings in previous literature.
Significant ethnic differences in physically abusive behaviors experienced as children
were somewhat different from what was expected. While Asian and African Americans
reported experiencing more physically abusive behaviors as children than White
Americans, the reported ethnic differences between African, Asian, and Latino
Americans were less prominent for these physically abusive behaviors. Specifically, both
African and Asian Americans reported more experiences of physically abusive behavior
as children, a higher than the entire sample average rate (20%). In contrast, Latino
Americans reported a below average rate of only 17% who had experienced some type of
physically abusive behavior as children. Finally, White Americans reported the lowest
rate of physical abuse experienced as children (10%), which was far lower than the three
ethnic minority groups. These results support previous literature that has shown that
ethnic minority families tend to be overrepresented in suspected child physical abuse
cases and community epidemiological studies. In addition, as described in the previous
section, sex and ethnic differences in parenting styles and parent discipline may indirectly
139
lead to situations in which strict parenting styles and discipline may escalate into more
severe behaviors such as physical abuse.
In the next set of hypotheses, the possible relationships between parenting style,
parent discipline, and physically abusive behavior were explored. As shown in Table 26,
a clear pattern is emerging regarding the relationship between parenting styles and parent
discipline. As noted earlier, authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting styles
are based on the dimensions of parental warmth and demandingness. These results
suggest that the high levels of demandingness in authoritarian parenting may lead to
stricter parenting practices such as psychological aggression, corporal punishment, and
physically abusive behavior. Conversely, these results also suggest that lack of
demandingness, as in permissive parenting, may also eventually lead to stricter parenting
practices such as psychological aggression, shaking, and physically abusive behavior. As
suggested in the previous literature, these more impulsive parenting practices may result
from initial lack of boundaries and demands from parents. Parents then may impulsively
control child behavior through one of the more intrusive disciplining methods. Finally,
authoritative parenting, which is characterized by both high warmth and demandingness
is related to more use of nonviolent discipline and less use of the intrusive disciplining
methods including, psychological aggression, spanking with a bare hand, shaking, and
physically abusive behavior.
These results suggest that both dimensions of parenting, warmth and
demandingness, may be important for choosing less intrusive disciplining methods. It
140
may be possible that excessively strict or lenient parenting may lead to more intrusive
disciplining and even physically abusive parenting.
In the next set of hypotheses, relationships between the parent disciplining
techniques and physically abusive behavior were explored. The results of these analyses
partially supported the hypotheses. For hypothesis nine and ten, nonviolent discipline
showed the opposite relationship to the other disciplining techniques than what was
expected.
Table 26
Summary of the Relationship between Mother/Father Authoritarian, Authoritative, and Permissive Parenting Styles, Parent
Discipline, and Physically Abusive Behavior
Mother parenting styles
Father parenting styles
Variables
Nonviolent Discipline
Psychological
Authoritarian Authoritative
Permissive
Authoritarian Authoritative
Permissive
N.S.
+
-
N.S.
+
-
+
-
+
+
-
+
+
-
N.S
+
-
N.S.
+
N.S.
N.S.
+
N.S.
N.S.
Aggression
Spanking with bare
hand
Spanking with object
141
Pinching
+
N.S.
N.S.
+
N.S.
N.S.
Shaking
+
-
+
+
-
+
Physical abusive
+
-
+
+
-
+
behavior
Note: A positive relationship is indicated by a +, a negative relationship is indicated by a -, no relationship is indicated by N.S.
142
143
First, nonviolent discipline was related to higher use of psychological
aggression. In addition, nonviolent discipline, like psychological aggression, was
positively and not negatively related to spanking with a hand, spanking with an object,
pinching, and shaking (Table 27). Finally, nonviolent discipline was not related to
reported physically abusive behavior.
Previous literature had not explored the relationship between nonviolent
discipline and other disciplining methods. While it was expected that nonviolent
discipline would be negatively correlated with other disciplining methods, it makes
logical sense that these variables are positively related because they are all forms of
discipline or punishment. If the definition of nonviolent discipline focused on rewarding
or praising type techniques, it is possible that the results may have been as expected.
Although nonviolent discipline was not related to physically abusive behavior, this
finding supported previous research that has shown no relationship between the two
variables. It is also possible that, since nonviolent discipline is very commonly used,
both abusive and nonabusive parents may be likely to use high levels of this disciplining
technique.
As expected, psychological aggression was positively related to corporal
punishment and physically abusive behavior. Although this disciplining technique has
not been frequently explored in previous literature, the more intrusive nature of
psychological aggression, may be similar to the intrusiveness of corporal punishment and
physically abusive behavior.
Table 27
Summary of the Relationships between Nonviolent Discipline, Psychological Aggression, Corporal Punishment, and
Physically Abusive Behavior
Variables
Nonviolent discipline
Psychological Aggression
Spanking with hand
+
+
Spanking with object
+
+
Pinching
+
+
Shaking
+
+
N.S.
+
Physically abusive behavior
Note: A positive relationship is indicated by a +, a negative relationship is indicated by a -, no relationship is indicated by N.S.
144
145
For hypothesis eleven, the expected relationships between the four corporal
punishment items, when controlling for nonphysical discipline, and physically abusive
behavior were partially supported. Specifically, spanking with an object, pinching, and
shaking but not spanking with a bare hand were related to physically abusive behavior.
These findings supported previous literature that found that corporal punishment was
positively related to physically abusive behavior. However, these findings were contrary
to studies focusing on spanking, which also showed a positive relationship with
physically abusive behavior. It is possible that since spanking with a bare hand is a
common disciplining technique, rates of use do not differ between abusive and
nonabusive parents. It is also possible that when the three other corporal punishment
items are considered, spanking with a bare hand is no longer a relevant factor in
relationship to physically abusive behavior. It is possible that these other corporal
punishment items are comparatively more predictive of physically abusive behavior.
However, these findings supported previous studies that have suggested that
corporal punishment may be important to consider when studying physical abuse. Since
corporal punishment is a physical form of discipline, it is possible that it can more easily
escalate into physically abusive attempts to control behavior. It is important to note that
these findings also suggest that nonphysical discipline, specifically psychological
aggression, may be more important in predicting the occurrence of physically abusive
behavior than the four corporal punishment items.
The last hypothesis explored the relationships between SES, participant sex,
146
authoritarian/authoritative parenting styles, parent disciplining techniques, and physically
abusive behavior. In hypothesis twelve, it was expected that the three corporal
punishment items (i.e., spanking with object, pinching, and shaking) would fully mediate
the relationship between ethnicity and reports of physically abusive behavior even when
controlling for covariate SES, participant sex, mother/father parenting styles, and
psychological aggression. The results of these analyses partially supported the
hypotheses. First, some significant sex and ethnic differences were still present after
mother/father parenting styles and parent discipline were added. Male participants
continued to report higher physically abusive behavior than females. This finding
continued to support previous literature, despite controlling for SES, parenting styles, and
parent discipline.
In regards to ethnic differences, the analyses controlling for mother/father
authoritarian parenting styles resulted in no significant ethnic differences between
African and White Americans. However, Asian Americans continued to report higher
physically abusive behavior than Latino and White Americans. In addition, African
Americans reported higher physically abusive behavior than Latino Americans, which
was a change from the marginal differences in the original analyses exploring ethnic
differences. In the analyses controlling for mother/father authoritative parenting, the
significant ethnic differences remained similar to the original analyses exploring ethnic
differences. The differences between African and Latino Americans became significant
again in these final analyses exploring authoritative parenting. Another result that was
147
counter to expectations was that the three corporal punishment items were not
consistently the factors that predicted occurrence of physically abusive behavior. While
pinching and shaking consistently predicted the occurrence of physically abusive
behavior, spanking with an object did not. Finally, psychological aggression also
consistently predicted the occurrence of physically abusive behavior.
Another discrepancy found in these final analyses, is that the corporal punishment
items were not all predictive of physically abusive behavior and they were not the only
significant parent disciplining items. Specifically, a nonphysical disciplining method,
psychological aggression, continued to be predictive of physically abusive behavior. This
finding was unexpected because previous literature has suggested that physical forms of
punishment may be most important in determining risk factors for physical abuse.
However, as described previously, one limitation of past studies is that nonphysical forms
of discipline are often not explored. An explanation for the current findings is that more
common and planned forms of parent discipline, such as spanking, are unlikely to be
related to a higher risk of physically abusive behavior. One commonality between the
items that were found to be highly related to physically abusive behavior (i.e., pinching,
shaking, and psychological aggression) is that they are parental behaviors that may be
unplanned, much like the nature of physically abusive behavior.
Limitations in the Current Study
The current study included some limitations that should be addressed in future
studies. First, the adult child sample used to determine parenting styles, parent discipline,
148
and parental physically abusive behavior may have resulted in some errors. Participants
reported on childhood memories of these factors and it is possible that they may have
been faulty. Conversely, it may have been difficult to measure some of the constructs in
the current study (i.e. physically abusive behavior) in a child sample with either parents
or children reporting on parent behavior. However, the results of the current study seem
to report similar results to studies with children and adult children samples.
Another limitation may lie in the way the Parent-Child version of the Conflict
Tactics Scale was used. The corporal punishment subscale was divided and was used in a
way not suggested by the original authors. However, past studies showed that looking at
individual corporal punishment behaviors may show stronger predictions to physically
abusive behavior, than measures with multiple items. It is also important to note that this
study has supported previous research that has emphasized corporal punishment to be an
important variable to consider for studies of physical abuse.
Another limitation includes generalizability from the current sample to larger
populations. First, the sample was from a college student population. The college
population may differ from the larger community in a number of ways including family
of origin socioeconomic status, participant sex, and age which may have impacted the
results. However, the result of this study was similar to other studies of parent discipline
utilizing a college sample and the current sample had a wide variability among the
students in terms of family of origin socioeconomic status, and age. For example, on
about half of the current sample experienced all four corporal punishment behaviors.
149
This finding supports previous studies that have also found a similar proportion of
students experiencing various corporal punishment behaviors (Miller-Perrin et al., 2009;
Turner & Muller, 2004).
Next, this study only included very specific corporal punishment behaviors. It is
possible that these results will only generalize to families that use the specific behaviors
described in this study. However, it is important to note that the behaviors used to
describe corporal punishment in this study were reflective of the behaviors used in
previous studies and included the most common corporal punishment behaviors. Finally,
one limitation of the current sample was the disproportionately low number of male
participants. Since sex differences in reported parenting styles and discipline were highly
significant, it may be important to collect a more evenly distributed sample in regards to
participant sex in future studies. However, in regards to distributions of sexes in college
samples, it may be more reflective of the college population to have more female
participants. This distribution is particularly evident among the psychology
undergraduate student population. Due to these issues, precautions were taken to avoid
finding significant sex differences if none existed. Finally, despite the disproportionately
low number of males, the results regarding parent discipline and physically abusive
behavior seem to support previous research.
Clinical Implications
The current study gives a basis for a number of methodological and practical
implications. One aspect of the study revealed that socioeconomic status was not found to
150
be a consistent predictor of parent discipline or physically abusive behavior. This finding
supported a trend that is beginning to emerge that different ethnic groups are becoming
more similar in socioeconomic status. It may be beneficial to continue to examine this
variable, however, researchers may focus on how this variable is changing as a possible
predictor. However, one negative aspect of including this variable in future studies is that
it may reduce the impact or importance of other variables such as parenting styles and
parent discipline in studies of physical abuse.
Another thing that may be important to consider is the context of parent
discipline. Some of the findings in this study suggest that general parent attitudes may be
related to different parent disciplining methods and physically abusive behavior, at least
for some ethnic groups. Since the parenting attitudes of an ethnic group precede parent
behavior, this factor may be important to include in future studies to better understand
attitudinal risk factors for physical abuse. This study also showed that there may be
possible ethnic or cultural differences in the use of different corporal punishment items
and these are differentially related to physical abuse. It may be beneficial to separate
corporal punishment behaviors in future studies to better determine their relationships to
physically abusive behavior. Finally, the inclusion of nonphysical disciplining methods,
specifically psychological aggression, may be important for future research. Including
these other methods of discipline in studies of corporal punishment and physical abuse
may give a better understanding of how using different disciplining methods together
may heighten the risk for physical abuse.
151
Some practical implications for social service agencies and mental health
clinicians may be derived from the results of the current study. While previous research
has focused on less severe physical punishment (i.e., corporal punishment) as a precursor
to physical abuse, the current study suggests that other parental behaviors, such as
psychological aggression, may be a risk factor to consider as well. This information may
be important in the assessment of families referred to social service agencies for child
physical abuse. It may be beneficial to incorporate assessment of nonphysical forms of
discipline in families rather than only assessing parents for corporal punishment use or
children for physical injuries. The results of this study showed that spanking was not a
strong predictor of physically abusive behavior. However, since nonviolent discipline
may be indirectly related and psychological aggression is directly related to physically
abusive behavior and these behaviors would be beneficial to assess in parents who are
referred. This information may also be helpful to incorporate into parent training
programs for parents mandated to attend counseling after a referral for physical abuse. In
the past, parent training programs have focused on the teaching of alternative nonviolent
disciplining techniques. However, in the current study, there is some suggestion that the
two nonphysical forms of discipline, nonviolent discipline and psychological aggression,
may both occur at high rates for some parents. It may be possible that only teaching
nonviolent disciplining methods may not lead to a reduction in psychological aggression.
Therefore, it may be beneficial to address parental psychological aggression in parent
training programs as well. Finally, the results of this study have suggested teaching the
152
use of high demandingness but also high warmth, as described by authoritative parenting
styles, may be important in indirectly assisting parents in choosing less intrusive or
severe disciplining methods that may lead to physically abusive behavior.
Future Directions in Research
The current study is a basis for future studies in this field. One such study could
utilize a younger study sample for more current reports of parenting styles and
disciplining practices. When using a younger or child sample, it may also be beneficial
to include parent reports of behavior as well to minimize biases in child reports of parent
behavior. Also, it may be important to control for child behavior in future studies. It is
possible that rate of child misbehavior, such as noncompliance, may be a factor to control
for when studying parent discipline.
In addition, the examination of individual parenting behaviors has been shown to
be important in studies of physical abuse and in the current study. It may be useful to
examine parenting behaviors, such as nonviolent discipline, psychological aggression,
and corporal punishment behaviors this way in the future. Future studies may attempt to
explore other relevant factors, such as acculturation and parenting differences for boys
and girls, to better explain the overrepresentation of boys and ethnic minorities in
physical abuse cases.
When the current and past studies have focused on nonphysical discipline, these
behaviors have included punishment behaviors such as nonviolent discipline and
psychological aggression. Since these behaviors are indirectly and directly related to
153
physical abusive behavior, it may be beneficial to explore other parenting practices that
aim to control child behavior but are not punishing in nature. These future studies could
include parenting behaviors such as using praise or a reward system to control child
behavior. It would be beneficial to know if these other behaviors are related to
nonphysical discipline, corporal punishment and physically abusive behaviors. These
types of studies may lead to more knowledge about safer parenting practices.
Finally, it is suggested by this study that parent attitudes, nonphysical discipline,
corporal punishment, and physically abusive behavior may be related to one another in a
progressively aggressive sequence. It may be valuable to examine parent attitudes in the
form of parenting styles in a general population of parents and use this information for a
basis of a longitudinal study to better examine this possible sequence. A longitudinal
study may facilitate understanding the relationship between parenting styles, nonphysical
discipline, corporal punishment, and physically abusive behavior. Specifically, it would
be beneficial to study parenting attitudes and styles in new parents and examine these
parents’ use of parent discipline and physically abusive behavior as the child grows into
an adult. This information could also be useful for studying the same child sample as
adults to gain better understanding of how parenting is perceived in adult children. A
longitudinal study can also attempt to link parent discipline to actual referrals of parents
for physical abuse or founded cases of physical abuse in the same sample.
The current study supported the importance of parenting styles and parent
disciplining practices when examining physically abusive behavior. It has been shown
154
that these variables may explain some of the differences in rates of abuse among different
demographic groups, such as males and ethnic minority groups. Future studies should
continue to focus on these variables. Ultimately, uncovering the predictive variables for
physically abusive behavior and designing studies with generalizable results will pave the
way to the creation of effective child protection measures and proliferation of safe
parenting practices.
155
REFERENCES
Abada, T., Hou, F., & Ram, B. (2008). The effects of harassment and victimization on
self-rated health and mental health among Canadian adolescents. Social Science
& Medicine, 67, 557-567. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.04.006
Abolfotouh, M. A., El-Bourgy, M. D., Seif El Din, A. G., & Mehanna, A. A. (2009).
Corporal punishment: Mother’s disciplinary behavior and child’s psychological
profile in Alexandria, Egypt. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 5, 5-17. doi:
10.1111/j.1939-3938.2009.01025.x
Ackerman, P. T., Newton, J., McPherson, W. B., Jones, J.G., & Dykman, R. A. (1998).
Prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder and other psychiatric diagnoses in
three groups of abused children (sexual, physical, and both). Child Abuse &
Neglect, 22, 759–774. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(98)00062-3
Afifi, T.O., Brownridge, D. A., Cox, B. J., & Sareen, J. (2006). Physical punishment,
childhood abuse and psychiatric disorders. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 1093–
1103. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.04.006
Allen, D. M., & Tarnowski, K. J. (1989). Depressive characteristics of physically abused
children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 17, 1-11.
doi:10.1007/BF00910766
Amato, P. R., & Fowler, F. (2002). Parenting practices, child adjustment, and family
diversity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 703–716. doi:10.1111/j.17413737.2002.00703.x
156
Amuwo, S., Fabian, R., Tolley, G., Spence, A., & Hill, J. (2004). Child discipline and
family decision-making. The Journal of Socioeconomics, 33, 153-173.
doi:10.1016/j.socec.2003.12.016
Bailey, J. A., Hill, K. G., Oesterle, S., & Hawkins, J. D. (2009). Parenting practices and
problem behavior across three generations: Monitoring, harsh discipline, and drug
use in the intergenerational transmission of externalizing behavior.
Developmental Psychology, 45, 1214-1226. doi: 10.1037/a0016129
Barbo, E. (2004). The effects of child sexual abuse, child physical abuse, and combined
child sexual and physical abuse on adult sexual victimization and adult
posttraumatic stress disorder. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The
Sciences and Engineering, 64 (12-B), 6321. (AAI3114433).
Barkin, S., Scheindlin, B., Ip, E. H., Richardson, I., & Finch, S. (2007). Determinants of
parental discipline practices: A national sample from primary care practices.
Clinical Pediatrics, 46, 64-69. doi:10.1177/0009922806292644
Baumrind, D. (1996). A blanket injunction against disciplinary use of spanking is not
warranted by the data. Pediatrics, 98, 828-831.
Baumrind, D. (1984). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool
behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 42-89.
Bean, A. W., & Roberts, M. W. (1981). The effect of time-out release contingencies
on changes in child noncompliance. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 9,
95-105. doi:10.1007/BF00917860
157
Berlin, L. J., Ispa, J. M., Fine, M. A., Malone, P. S., Brooks-Gunn, J., Brady-Smith, C.,
Ayoub, C., & Bai, Y. (2009). Correlates and consequences of spanking and verbal
punishment for low-income white, African American, and Mexican American
toddlers. Child Development, 80, 1403–1420. doi:10.1111/j.14678624.2009.01341.x
Bluestone, C., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (1999). Correlates of parenting styles in
predominantly working and middle-class African American mothers. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 61, 881-893.
Boyle, C. L., Sanders, M. R., Lutzker, J. R., Prinz, R. J., Shapiro, C., & Whitaker, D. J.
(2010). An analysis of training, generalization, and maintenance effects of
primary care Triple P for parents of preschool-aged children with disruptive
behavior. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 41, 114-131.
doi:10.1007/s10578-009-0156-7
Bradley, C.R. (1998). Child rearing in African-American families: A study of the
disciplinary practices of African-American parents. Journal of Multicultural
Counseling and Development, 26, 273-281.
Bryan, J. W., & Freed, F. W. (1982). Corporal punishment: Normative data and
sociological and psychological correlates in a community college population.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 11, 77-87. doi:10.1007/BF01834705
Burchinal, M., Skinner, D., & Reznick, J. S. (2010). European American and African
American mothers' beliefs about parenting and disciplining infants: A mixed-
158
method analysis. Parenting: Science and Practice, 10, 79-96.
doi:10.1080/15295190903212604
Buschgens, C. J. M., van Aken, M. A. G., Swinkels, S. H. N., Ormel, J., Verhulst, F. C.,
& Buitelaar, J. K. (2010). Externalizing behaviors in preadolescents: Familial risk
to externalizing behaviors and perceived parenting styles. European Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 19, 567-575. doi: 10.1007/s00787-009-0086-8
Buri, J. R. (1991). Parental authority questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment,
57, 110-119.
Calder, J., McVean, A., & Wang, W. (2010). History of abuse and current suicidal
ideation: Results from a population based survey. Journal of Family Violence, 25,
205-214. doi:10.1007/s10896-009-9284-x
Caughy, M. O., & Franzini, L. (2005). Neighborhood correlates of cultural differences
in perceived effectiveness of parental disciplinary tactics. Parenting: Science and
Practice, 5, 119-151. doi: 10.1207/s15327922par0502_1
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
Day, D. E., & Roberts, M. W. (1983). An analysis of the physical punishment component
of a parent training program. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 11, 141152. doi:10.1007/BF00912184
Dearing, E. (2004). The developmental implications of restrictive and supportive
parenting across neighborhoods and ethnicities: Exceptions are the rule. Applied
Developmental Psychology, 25, 555–575. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2004.08.007
159
Deater-Deckard, K., & Dodge, K. A. (1997). Externalizing behavior problems and
discipline revisited: Nonlinear effects and variation by culture, context, and
gender. Psychological Inquiry, 8, 161-175. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0803_1
Deater-Deckard, K., & Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S. (1996). Physical discipline
among African American and European American mothers: Links to children's
externalizing behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32, 1065- 1072.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.32.6.1065
Dietz, T. L. (2000). Disciplining children characteristics associated with the use of
corporal punishment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 1529–1542. doi:10.1016/S01452134(00)00213-1
Dodge, K. A., Bates, J.E., & Pettit, G. S. (1990). Mechanisms in the cycle of violence.
Science, 250, 1678-1683. doi:10.1126/science.2270481
Eamon, M. K. (2001). Antecedents and socioemotional consequences of physical
punishment on children in two-parent families. Child Abuse & Neglect, 6, 787–
802. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(01)00239-3
Edwards, V. J., Holden, G. W., Felitti, V. J., & Anda, R. F. (2003). Relationship between
multiple forms of childhood maltreatment and adult mental health in community
respondents: Results from the adverse childhood experiences study. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 1453-1460. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.160.8.1453
Feldman, R. S., Salzinger, S., Rosario, M., Alvarado, L., Caraballo, L., & Hammer, M.
(1995). Parent, teacher, and peer ratings of physically abused and nonmaltreated
160
children's behavior. Joumal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 23, 317-334.
doi:10.1007/BF01447560
Fergusson, D. M., Boden, J. M., & Horwood, L. J. (2008). Exposure to childhood sexual
and physical abuse and adjustment in early adulthood. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32,
607-619. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.12.018
Fite, P. J., Stoppelbein, L., & Greening, L. (2009). Predicting readmission to a child
psychiatric inpatient unit: The impact of parenting styles. Journal of Child and
Family Studies, 18, 621-629. doi: 10.1007/s10826-009-9284-8
Fletcher, A. C., Walls, J. K., Cook, E. C., Madison, K. J., & Bridges, T. H. (2008).
Parenting style as a moderator of associations between maternal disciplinary
strategies and child well-being. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 1724-1744. doi:
10.1177/0192513X08322933
Fletcher, J. M. (2009). Childhood mistreatment and adolescent and young adult
depression. Social Science & Medicine, 68, 799-806.
doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.12.005
Fluke, J. D., Yuan, Y. T., Hedderson, J., & Curtis, P. A. (2003). Disproportionate
representation of race and ethnicity in child maltreatment: Investigation and
victimization. Children and Youth Services Review, 25, 359–373.
doi:10.1016/S0190-7409(03)00026-4
161
Flynn, C. P., (1998). To spank or not to spank: The effect of situation and age of child on
support for corporal punishment. Journal of Family Violence, 13, 21-37.
doi:10.1023/A:1022808716048
Frias-Armenta, M., & McCloskey, L. A. (1998). Determinants of harsh parenting in
Mexico. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 129-139.
Fung, J. J., & Lau, A. S. (2009). Punitive discipline and child behavior problems in
Chinese-American immigrant families: The moderating effects of indigenous
child-rearing ideologies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33,
520–530. doi:10.1177/0165025409343749
Gamez-Guadix, M., Straus, M. A., Carrobles, J. A., Munoz-Rivas, M. J., & Almendros,
C., (2010). Corporal punishment and long-term behavior problems: The
moderating role of positive parenting and psychological aggression. Psicothema,
22, 529-536.
Garbarino, J. (1977). The human ecology of child maltreatment: A conceptual model for
research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 39, 721-735. doi:10.2307/350477
Gest, S. D., Freeman, N. R., Domitrovich, C. E., & Welsh, J. A. (2004). Shared book
reading and children’s language comprehension skills: The moderating role of
parental discipline practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 319–336.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.04.007
162
Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors
and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin,
128, 539-579. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.128.4.539
Gil, D. G. (1970). Violence against children: Physical child abuse in the United States.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Giles-Sims, J., Straus, M. A., & Sugarman, D. B. (1995). Child, maternal, and family
characteristics associated with spanking. Family Relations, 44, 170-176.
doi:10.2307/584804
Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children. (2010, August).
Countdown to universal prohibition. Retrieved September 3, 2010 from
http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/frame.html
Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children. (2009). Human rights and
corporal punishment of children. Retrieved October 1, 2009 from
http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/frame.html
Hakman, M., Chaffin, M., Funderburk, B., & Silovsky, J. F. (2009). Change trajectories
for parent-child interaction sequences during parent-child interaction therapy for
child physical abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 461-470.
doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.08.003
Haskett, M. E., Allaire, J. C., Kreig, S., & Hart, K. C. (2008). Protective and vulnerability
factors for physically abused children: Effects of ethnicity and parenting context.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 567–576. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.06.009
163
Hollingshead, W. (1979). The Hollingshead Four-Factor Index of Socioeconomic Status.
Unpublished manuscript, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Horn, I. B., (2004). Nonabusive physical punishment and child behavior among AfricanAmerican children: A systematic review. Journal of the National Medical
Association, 96, 1162-1168.
Hughes, T. (2006). The neglect of children and culture: Responding to child maltreatment
with cultural competence and a review of Child Abuse and Culture: Working with
Diverse Families. Family Court Review, 44, 501-510. doi:10.1111/j.17441617.2006.00103.x
Ibanez, E. S., Borrego, J., Pemberton, J. R., & Terao, S. (2006). Cultural factors in
decision-making about child physical abuse: Identifying reporter characteristics
influencing reporting tendencies. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 1365–1379.
doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.06.007
Jackson, S., Thompson, R. A., Christiansen, E. H., Colman, R. A., Wyatt, J., Buckendahl,
C. W.,…Peterson, R. (1999). Predicting abuse-prone parental attitudes and
discipline practices in a nationally representative sample. Child Abuse & Neglect,
23, 15-29. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(98)00108-2
Jackson-Newsom, J., Buchanan, C. M., & McDonald, R. M. (2008). Parenting and
perceived maternal warmth in European American and African American
adolescents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 62–75.
164
Jaffe, S. R., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., & Taylor, A. (2004). Physical maltreatment victim
to antisocial child: Evidence of an environmentally mediated process. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 113, 44-55. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.113.1.44
Jambunathan, S., Burts, D. C., & Pierce, S. (2000). Comparisons of parenting attitudes
among five ethnic groups in the United States. Journal of Comparative Family
Studies, 31, 395-406.
Johnsona, R. M., Kotch, J. B., Catellier, D. J., Winsor, J. R., Dufort, V., Hunter, W., &
Amaya-Jackson, L. (2002). Adverse behavioral and emotional outcomes from
child abuse and witnessed violence. Child Maltreatment, 7, 179-186.
doi:10.1177/1077559502007003001
Joiner, T. E., Sachs-Ericsson, N. J., Wingate, L. R., Brown, J. S., Anestis, M. D., &
Selby, E. A. (2007). Childhood physical and sexual abuse and lifetime number of
suicide attempts: A persistent and theoretically important relationship. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 45, 539–547. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2006.04.007
Kadushin, A., & Martin, J. A. (1981). Child abuse: An interactional event. New York,
NY: Columbia University Press.
Kaufman, D., Geston, E., Santa Lucia, R. C., Salcedo, O., Rendina-Gobioff, G., & Gadd,
R. (2000). The relationship between parenting style and children’s adjustment:
The parents’ perspective. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9, 231–245.
165
Kazdin, A. E., Moser, J., Colbus, D., & Bell, R. (1985). Depressive symptoms among
physically abused and psychiatrically disturbed children. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 94, 298-307. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.94.3.298
Kennedy, M. A., (2003). Identifying child abuse: A structural equation modeling analysis
of history of abuse and westernization on perceptions of abuse among Asiandescent and European-descent students. Dissertation Abstracts International
Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 65 (3-A), 829. (AAINQ90205)
Khoury-Kassabri, M. (2009). Attitudes of Arab and Jewish mothers towards punitive and
non-punitive discipline methods. Child and Family Social Work, 15, 135-144.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2009.00667.x
Kim, E., & Hong, S. (2006). First-generation Korean-American parents’ perceptions of
discipline. Journal of Professional Nursing, 23, 60-68.
doi:10.1016/j.profnurs.2006.12.002
Kiser, L., Heston, J., Millsap, P., & Pruitt, D. (1991). Physical and sexual abuse in
childhood: relationship with post-traumatic stress disorder. Journal of the
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 30, 776-783.
doi:10.1097/00004583-199109000-00013
Klevens, J., & Leeb, R. T. (2010). Child maltreatment fatalities in children under 5:
Findings from the National Violence Death Reporting System. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 34, 262-266. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.07.005
166
Klimes-Dougan, B., & Kistner, J. (1990). Physically abused preschoolers' responses to
peers' distress. Developmental Psychology, 26, 599-602. doi:10.1037/00121649.26.4.599
Lamm, B., Keller, H., Yovsi, R. D., & Chaudhary, N. (2008). Grandmaternal and
maternal ethnotheoriesa about early child care. Journal of Family Psychology, 22,
80-88.
Lansford, J. E., Chang, L., Dodge, K. A., Malone, P. S., Oburu, P., Palmerus, K.,…
Quinn, N. (2005). Physical discipline and children’s adjustment: Cultural
normativeness as a moderator. Child Development, 76, 1234-246.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00847.x
Lansford, J. E., Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (2004).
Ethnic differences in the link between physical discipline and later adolescent
externalizing behaviors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 801–
812. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00273.x
Larzelere, R. E., Klein, M., Shumm, W. R., & Alibrando, S. A. (1989). Relations of
spanking and other parenting characteristics to self-esteem and perceived fairness
of parental discipline. Psychological Reports, 64, 1140-1142.
Larzelere, R. E., & Kuhn, B. R. (2005). Enhancing behavioral parent training with an
extended discipline ladder. The Behavior Therapist, 28, 105-108.
Leary, C. E., Kelley, M. L., Morrow, J., & Mikulka, P. J. (2008). Parental use of physical
punishment as related to family environment, psychological well-being, and
167
personality in undergraduates. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 1-7.
doi:10.1007/s10896-007-9124-9
Lee, S. J., Guterman, N. B., & Lee, Y. (2008). Risk factors for paternal physical child
abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 846–858. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.11.006
Lee, J., Pomeroy, E. C., & Bohman, T. M. (2007). Intimate partner violence and
psychological health in a sample of Asian and Caucasian women: The roles of
social support and coping. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 709-720.
doi:10.1007/s10896-007-9119-6
Litrownik, A. J., Newton, R. R., & Landsverk, J. A. (2005). Assessment of depressive
symptomatology in young maltreated children. Journal of Human Behavior in the
Social Environment, 11, 135-156. doi: 10.1300/J137v11n03_07
Lynam, D. R., Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2008). The stability of
psychopathy from adolescence into adulthood: The search for moderators.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 228-243. doi:10.1177/0093854807310153
Lytton, H., & Romney, D. M. (1991). Parents' differential socialization of boys and girls:
A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 267-296. doi:10.1037/00332909.109.2.267
Maccoby, E. E. & Martin, J.A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent–
child interaction. In P. Mussen and E. M. Hetherington, (Eds), Handbook of Child
Psychology, Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (4th ed.)
(pp. 1–101). New York: Wiley.
168
Maikovich, A. K., Jaffe, S. R., Odgers, C. L., & Gallop, R. (2008). Effects of family
violence on psychopathology symptoms in children previously exposed to
maltreatment. Child Development, 79, 1498-1512. doi:10.1111/j.14678624.2008.01201.x
Maker, A. H., Shah, P. V., & Agha, Z. (2009). South Asian, Middle Eastern, East Asian,
and Latina women in the United States child physical abuse: Prevalence,
characteristics, predictors, and beliefs about parent-child violence. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 20, 1406-1428. doi:10.1177/0886260505278713
Mathurin, M. N., Gielen, U. P., & Lancaster, J. (2006). Corporal punishment and
personality traits in the children of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Cross-Cultural
Research, 40, 306-324. doi:10.1177/1069397105284678
Matta, M. A. (2002). Parental corporal punishment as a predictor of child maladjustment:
Race and parental responsiveness as potential moderators. Dissertation Abstracts
International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 63 (4-B), 2091.
(AAI3049173)
McCabe, K. M., Clark, R., & Barnett, D. (1999). Family protective factors among urban
African American youth. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28, 137-150.
McLoyd, V. C., & Smith, J. (2002). Physical discipline and behavior problems in African
American, European American, and Hispanic children: Emotional support as a
moderator. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 40-53. doi:10.1111/j.1741-
3737.2002.00040.x
169
McKinney, C., & Renk, K. (2008). Differential parenting between mothers and fathers:
Implications for late adolescents. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 806-827. doi:
10.1177/0192513X07311222
Medora, N. P., Wilson, S., & Larson, J. H. (2001). Attitudes toward parenting strategies,
potential for child abuse, and parental satisfaction of ethnically diverse lowincome U.S. mothers. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 335-348.
doi:10.1080/00224540109600555
Mersky, J. P., Berger, L. M., Reynolds, A. J., & Gromoske, A.N. (2009). Risk factors for
child and adolescent maltreatment: A longitudinal investigation of a cohort of
inner-city youth. Child Maltreatment, 14, 73-88. doi:10.1177/1077559508318399
Miller-Perrin, C. L., Perrin, R. D., & Kocur, J. L. (2009). Parental physical and
psychological aggression: Psychological symptoms in young adults. Child Abuse
& Neglect, 33, 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.12.001
Moore, T. E., & Pepler, D. J. (2006). Wounding words: Maternal verbal aggression and
children’s adjustment. Journal of Family Violence, 21, 89-93.
doi:10.1007/s10896-005-9007-x
Mulvaney, M. K., & Mebert, C. J. (2007). Parental corporal punishment predicts behavior
problems in early childhood. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 389–397.
doi:10.1037/0893-3200.21.3.389
Mupinga, E. E., Garrison, M. E. B., & Pierce, S. H. (2002). An exploratory study of the
relationships between family functioning and parenting styles: The perceptions of
170
mothers of young grade school children. Family and Consumer Sciences
Research Journal, 31, 112-129.
Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Carlo, G. (2004). “It’s not fair!” Adolescents’ constructions of
appropriateness of parental reactions. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 389401. doi:10.1023/B:JOYO.0000037632.46633.bd
Park, H., & Bauer, S. (2002). Parenting practices, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and
academic achievement in adolescents. School International Psychology, 23, 386396. doi: 10.1177/0143034302234002
Paquette, D., Bolte, C. Turcotte, G., Dubeau, D., & Bouchard, C. (2000). A new typology
of fathering: Defining and associated variables. Journal of Infant and Child
Development, 9, 213-230.
Pelcovitz, D. (1984). Adolescent abuse: Family structure and implications for treatment.
Journal of American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 23, 85-90. doi:
10.1097/00004583-198401000-00012
Pinderhughes, E. E., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., & Zelli, A. (2000).
Discipline responses: Influences of parents' socioeconomic status, ethnicity,
beliefs about parenting, stress, and cognitive-emotional processes. Journal of
Family Psychology, 14, 380-400. doi:10.1037//0893-3200.14.3.380
Polaha, J., Larzelere, R. E., Shapiro, S. K., & Pettit, G. S. (2004). Physical discipline and
child behavior problems: A study of ethnic group differences. Parenting: Science
and Practice, 4, 339-360. doi:10.1207/s15327922par0404_6
171
Radziszewska, B., Richardson, J. L., Dent, C. W., & Flay, B. R. (1996). Parenting style
and adolescent depressive symptoms, smoking, and academic achievement:
Ethnic, gender, and SES differences. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 19, 289305.
Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B., Olsen, S. F., & Hart, C. H. (2001). The parenting styles
and dimensions questionnaire. In J. Touliatos & B. Perlmutter (Eds.), Handbook
of family measurement techniques. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Sedlak, A. J., & Broadhurst, D. D. (1996). Third national incidence study of child abuse
and neglect. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families.
Sedlak, A. J., McPherson, K., & Das, B. (2010b). Fourth national incidence study of
child abuse and neglect (NIS–4): Supplementary analyses of race differences in
child maltreatment rates in the NIS–4. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.
Sedlak, A. J., Mettenburg, J., Basena, M., Petta, I., McPherson, K., Greene, A., & Li, S.
(2010a). Fourth national incidence study of child abuse and neglect (NIS–4):
Report to congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families.
Simons, L. G., & Conger, R. D. (2007). Linking mother-father differences in parenting to
a typology of family parenting styles and adolescent outcomes. Journal of Family
Issues, 28, 212-241. doi: 10.1177/0192513X06294593
172
Smagner, J. P., & Sullivan, M. H., (2005). Investigating the effectiveness of behavioral
parent training with involuntary clients in child welfare settings. Research on
Social Work Practice, 15, 431-439. doi:10.1177/1049731505276994
Springer, K. W., Sheridan, J., Kuo, D., & Carnes, M. (2007). Long-term physical and
mental health consequences of childhood physical abuse: Results from a large
population-based sample of men and women. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 517–
530. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.01.003
Steinberg, L., Blatt-Eisengart, I., & Cauffman, E. (2006). Patterns of competence and
adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and
neglectful homes: A replication in a sample of serious juvenile offenders. Journal
of Research on Adolescence, 16, 47–58.
Steinberg, L., Mounts, N. S., Lamborn, S. D., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Authoritative
parenting and adolescent adjustment across varied ecological niches. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 1, 19-36.
Strassberg, Z., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1994). Spanking in the home
and children’s subsequent aggression toward peers. Development and
Psychopathology, 6, 445-461. doi:10.1017/S0954579400006040
Straus, M. A. (2000). Corporal punishment and primary prevention of physical abuse.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 1109-1114. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(00)00180-0
Straus, M. A., & Field, C. J., (2003). Psychological aggression by American parents:
173
national data on prevalence, chronicity, and severity. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 65, 795-808. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00795.x
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Finkelhor, D., Moore, D. W., & Runyan, D. (1998).
Identification of child maltreatment with the parent-child conflict tactics scales:
Development and psychometric data for a national sample of American parents.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 22, 249-270. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(97)00174-9
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised
conflict tactics scale (CTS2). The Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316.
Straus, M. A., & Stewart, J. H. (1999). Corporal punishment by American parents:
National data on prevalence, chronicity, severity, and duration, in relation to child
and family characteristics. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2, 5570. doi: 10.1023/A:1021891529770
Tajima, E. A., (2002). Risk factors for violence against children : Comparing homes with
and without wife abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 122-149.
doi:10.1177/0886260502017002002
Thompson, M. P., Kingree, J. B., & Desai, S. (2004). Gender differences in long-term
health consequences of physical abuse of children: Data from a nationally
representative survey. American Journal of Public Health, 94(4), 599-604.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.94.4.599
Thompson, R. A., Christiansen, E. H., Jackson, S., Wyatt, J. M., Colman, R. A., Peterson,
R. L., Wilcox, B. L., & Buckendahl, C. W. (2009). Parent attitudes and discipline
174
practices: Profiles and correlates in a nationally representative sample. Child
Maltreatment, 4, 316-330. doi:10.1177/1077559599004004005
Trickett, P. A., & Kuczynski, L. (1986). Children's misbehaviors and parental discipline
strategies in abusive and nonabusive families. Developmental Psychology, 22,
115-123. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.22.1.115
Turner, H. A., & Muller, P. A. (2004). Long-term effects of child corporal punishment on
depressive symptoms in young adults: Potential moderators and mediators.
Journal of Family Issues, 25, 761-782. doi:10.1177/0192513X03258313
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and
Families. (2007). Child Maltreatment 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Wainwright, N. W. J., & Surtees, P. G. (2002). Childhood adversity, gender and
depression over the life-course. Journal of Affective Disorders, 72, 33-44. doi:
10.1016/S0165-0327(01)00420-7
Waters, M. C., & Sykes, J. E. (2009). Spare the rod, ruin the child? First- and secondgeneration West Indian child-rearing practices. In N. Foner (Ed.), Across
Generations: Immigrant Families in America (pp. 72-94). New York: New York
University Press.
Webster-Stratton, C., & Hancock, L. (1998). Training for parents of young children with
conduct problems: Content, methods, and therapeutic processes. In C. E. Schaefer
175
& J. M. Briesmeister (Eds.), Handbook of parent training (pp. 98–152). New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Weller, S. C., Romney, A. K., & Orr, D. P. (1987). The myth of a sub-culture of corporal
punishment. Human Organization, 46, 39-47.
Whipple, E. E., & Richey, C. A. (1997). Crossing the line from physical discipline to
child abuse: How much is too much? Child Abuse & Neglect, 21, 431-444.
doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(97)00004-5
Whiteside-Mansell, L., Bradley, R. H., & McKelvey, L. (2009). Parenting and preschool
child development: Examination of three low-income U.S. cultural groups.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18, 48-60. doi:10.1007/s10826-008-9206-1
Wilson, S. R., Rack, J. J., Shi, X., & Norris, A. N. (2008). Comparing physically abusive,
neglectful, and non-maltreating parents during interactions with their children: A
meta-analysis of observational studies. Child Abuse and Neglect, 32, 897-911.
doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.01.003
Wissow, L. S. (2001). Ethnicity, income, and parenting contexts of physical punishment
in a national sample of families with young children. Child Maltreatment, 6, 118129. doi:10.1177/1077559501006002004
Wolff, N. L., & Shi, S. (2010). Trauma and incarcerated persons. In Scott, Charles L.
(Ed.), Handbook of correctional mental health (2nd ed.) (pp. 277-320). Arlington,
VA, US: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.
176
Yates, T. (2006). A longitudinal study of self-injurious behavior in a community sample.
Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering,
66 (8-B), 4518. (AAI3184985)
Zolotor, A. J., Theodore, A. D., Chang, J., Berkoff, M. C., & Runyan, D. (2008). Speak
softly and forget the stick: Corporal punishment and child physical abuse.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, 364-369.
doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.06.031