Does History of Corporal Punishment Predict Current Levels of Empathy and Moral Reasoning?
Kate E. Sherman and Lance C. Garmon
Salisbury University
Poster Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Moral Education
November 17th, 2007
New York, New York
Introduction
Previous work, both theoretical and empirical, suggests that children who experience corporal
punishment as a form of parental discipline may be less likely to develop higher levels of moral
reasoning and empathy than children who do not experience corporal punishment. Martin L. Hoffman
(2000) theorized that an alternative to corporal punishment known as induction could facilitate the
process of moral internalization, and that moral internalization must occur in a child in order for that
child to develop moral reasoning. According to Hoffman, parental use of induction taps into the child’s
empathy and transforms it into guilt, and parental use of excessive power-assertion—external parental
pressure that evokes unnecessary anger and fear in the child—can distract the child from moral
internalization, even when the power-assertion is used in conjunction with an inductive technique.
In 1996, Julia Krevans and John Gibbs conducted a study, supporting the empathy mediation
hypothesis of Hoffman’s theory, which says that the role of empathy is one of mediation between
parental discipline and children’s prosocial behavior. Additional analyses in 2007 by Renee Patrick and
John Gibbs supported the existence of Hoffman’s 3-factor model involving 1) power assertion, 2)
induction, and 3) love withdrawal, although a 4th factor involving parental disappointment may also be
relevant in preadolescence. Finally, and most relevant to the current research, Lopez, Bonenberger, and
Schneider conducted a study (2001) focusing on early adulthood which found that 1) parental use of
minor corporal punishment (i.e. spanking, hitting, slapping, etc.) was significantly associated with low
levels of empathy; 2) parental use of minor corporal punishment was significantly associated with low
levels of principled morality; 3) empathy was significantly associated with levels of principled morality;
and 4) parental use of severe corporal punishment was not associated with either empathy or moral
reasoning.
The present study attempts to replicate and extend Lopez et al.’s 2001 study by using a sample of
similar participants and comparable measures, including revised versions of the same questionnaires
used by Lopez et al to assess empathy and moral reasoning. Lopez et al. used the Questionnaire Measure
of Emotional Empathy (QMEE; Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972) which was revised by Mehrabian (2000)
into the Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale (BEES) in order to provide “a more up-to-date and
balanced assessment” (p. 2) of emotional empathy. In addition, Lopez et al. used the Defining Issues
Test (DIT; Rest & Narvaez, 1986), which was revised and “may now be a better DIT that is shorter,
more updated, purges fewer participants, and has significantly better validity characteristics” (DIT2,
Rest, Thoma, Bebeau, 1999, p. 657). Additionally, while Lopez et al. utilized two separate measures of
parental disciplinary styles, the current study does not ask about non-aggressive styles in general, but
does assess induction specifically, since it was the only non-aggressive style Lopez et al. found to be
related to empathy. The present study includes one measure (Physical Punishment Questionnaire; PPQ;
Rohner, 2004) of disciplinary corporal punishment for Mother and one for Father, both of which include
a measure of induction (when induction is combined with corporal punishment).
2
Participants and Procedures
Participants. Participants in this study were 71 undergraduate college students, who were
actively enrolled in an Introduction to Psychology course at a small Mid-Atlantic university. Students’
voluntary participation in this study fulfilled an Introduction to Psychology course requirement. The
sample consisted of 32 males, 37 females, and 2 participants of undisclosed genders. The mean age of
the sample was 18.55 with a standard deviation of 0.697.
Procedures. Each participant was asked to attend any one of eight possible two-hour testing
sessions. All participants signed a consent form before receiving their testing materials. At the beginning
of each testing session, a script of instructions was read to participants in a group setting. Each
participant was then asked to individually complete a series of four self-report questionnaires.
Measures
Corporal Punishment. Each participant’s history of corporal punishment was measured using
the adult version of the Physical Punishment Questionnaire (PPQ; Rohner, 2004), which has previously
been shown to exhibit acceptable levels of reliability and validity. The PPQ contains 27 items describing
disciplinary behaviors by Mother and 27 similar items for Father, producing separate scores for each
parent. Participants are asked to indicate how well each statement describes the way their mother/father
treated them when they were about seven to twelve years old. The first item of both sections states, “My
mother/father never punished me physically.” If a participant indicates that the first item’s statement is
true, then (s)he is instructed to leave the remainder of that section of the questionnaire blank. Additional
PPQ items relate to topics such as the variety of types of corporal punishment employed by parents, how
justified a participant generally felt punishments were, and how frequently induction-like parental
behaviors were used in conjunction with corporal punishment.
Empathy. Each participant’s current level of empathy was measured using the Full-Length
Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale (BEES; Mehrabian, 2000), which has previously been shown to
exhibit acceptable levels of reliability and validity. The Full-Length BEES is a 30-item self-report
questionnaire that assesses one’s own experience of another’s emotional experiences. Each participant is
presented with a number of statements and asked to indicate his/her degree of agreement or
disagreement with each statement in terms of a 9-point likert scale. In order to reduce acquiescence bias,
15 of the items on the Full-Length BEES are positively worded—such as the statement, “I very much
enjoy and feel uplifted by happy endings”—and the remaining 15 items are negatively worded—such as
the statement, “I cannot feel much sorrow for those who are responsible for their own misery.”
Agreement with a positively worded item shows higher emotional empathy, while agreement with a
negatively worded item shows lower emotional empathy.
Moral Reasoning. Each participant’s current level of moral reasoning was measured using the
Defining Issues Test (DIT-2; Rest & Narvaez, 1998). The DIT-2 assesses how one defines the issues in
a moral dilemma. Participants are instructed to read five stories about moral dilemmas. The first moral
dilemma presented to the participants is about whether of not a man should steal food for his starving
family, from a rich man, who is hoarding food during a severe famine. The second moral dilemma
presented is about whether or not a news reporter should report a potentially damaging story. The third
dilemma presented is about whether or not a school board should continue holding open meetings, in
which members of the community can voice their opinions about which school to close, even though the
first open meeting almost ended with fist-fights. The fourth moral dilemma presented is about whether
or not a doctor should fulfill a cancer patient’s request to increase the dosage of her pain medication to
3
potentially life-threatening doses. The fifth, and final moral dilemma presented to the participants is
about whether or not a group of students should continue protesting in ways that are disruptive and
paralyzing to the functioning of their college and surrounding town. At the end of each story, each
participant is asked to indicate his/her preference for what action to take in the story. Each participant is
also presented with a list of twelve questions at the end of each story. These questions represent different
issues that might be raised by the problem in the story. Each participant is asked to rate each issue in
terms of how important each one seems to him/her.
Results
Background
 Most participants (69%) did report experiencing some form of parental corporal
punishment when they were about 7-12 years old, but 31% of participants reported that
they did not experience any form of parental corporal punishment during that time (see
Graph 1)
 Subscales measuring corporal punishment administered by mothers were positively
correlated with subscales measuring corporal punishment administered by fathers (see
Table 1)
Empathy and Corporal Punishment
 Contrary to our hypotheses, ANOVAs failed to reveal a significant relationship between
empathy and whether or not participants were ever corporally punished.
 Empathy was positively correlated with participants’ evaluations of the justness of corporal
punishment administered by fathers, r = 0.275 (p = 0.047) (see Table 1)
 Post hoc analyses suggest that empathy was positively correlated with the variety of corporal
punishment administered by mothers, r = 0.346 (p = 0.018) (see Table 1)
Empathy and Moral Reasoning
 Participants’ action preferences were examined for each of the 5 moral dilemmas
 Empathy was negatively correlated with responses to the reporter moral dilemma, r = -0.235 (p =
0.033) and positively related to responses to the school board moral dilemma, r = 0.238 (p =
0.032) (see Table 1)
Corporal Punishment and Moral Reasoning
 Participants’ action preferences were examined for each of the 5 moral dilemmas, but only
responses to the protest dilemma were significantly related to any of the various corporal
punishment variables
 No significant relationships were found between responses to the protest moral dilemma and any
of the subscales measuring corporal punishment (see Table 2)
 ANOVAs revealed that participants who indicated that they would be significantly more likely to
continue protesting were less likely to have been corporally punished by either their Mother or
Father, F (1, 57) = 4.907 (p = 0.031) and F (1, 55) = 5.258 (p = 0.026), respectively (see Table 3)
 No significant relationship was found between responses to the protest moral dilemma and
whether or not participants were ever corporally punished at all (see Table 3)
Gender Differences
 As expected, significantly higher levels of empathy were found in females than in males, F (1,
66) = 21.323 (p = 0.000) (see Graph 3)
 Post hoc analyses suggest that males received more induction than females from both their
mothers, F (1, 33) = 3.968 (p = 0.055) and their fathers, F (1, 37) = 10.201 (p = 0.003) (see
Graph 2)
4
History of Punishment
31%
69%
Corporally Punished
Never Corporally Punished
Gender and Empathy
Gender and Induction
47.33
3.41 3.45
3.5
2.78
3
45
2.47
40
2.5
35
2
Induction by mother
Induction by father
1.5
1
Empathy
Frequency of Induction
(w/corporal punishment)
50
22.13
30
25
20
15
0.5
10
5
0
Males
Females
0
Males
Females
Table 1
Intercorrelations Between Subscales of Corporal Punishment and Empathy
Subscale
1. Empathy
2. Freq. (mom)
3. Harshness (mom)
4. Justness (mom)
5. Variety (mom)
6. Freq. (dad)
7. Harshness (dad)
1
_
2
3
4
5
6
7
.119
.186
-.043 .346*
.257
.234
(n=36) (n=37) (n=37) (n=37) (n=39) (n=39)
_
.908*** -.170 .424** .456** .455**
(n=36) (n=36) (n=36) (n=27) (n=27)
_
-.102 .458** .457** .494**
(n=37) (n=37) (n=28) (n=28)
_
-.305* .145
.132
(n=37) (n=28) (n=28)
_
.252
.291
(n=28) (n=28)
_
.893***
(n=40)
_
8. Justness (dad)
9. Variety (dad)
Note. The values represent Pearson Correlations.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001
8
.275*
(n=38)
.058
(n=27)
.056
(n=27)
.561**
(n=27)
.212
(n=27)
.007
(n=39)
-.025
(n=39)
_
9
.163
(n=39)
.211
(n=27)
.203
(n=28)
.288
(n=28)
.298
(n=28)
.405**
(n=40)
.415**
(n=40)
.122
(n=39)
_
5
Table 2
Correlations Between Moral Decisions and Subscales of Corporal Punishment and Empathy
Famine
Reporter
School Board
Cancer Patient
Protest
Decision
Decision
Decision
Decision
Decision
1. Empathy
.022
-.235*
.238*
.061
.126
(n=65)
(n=62)
(n=61)
(n=63)
(n=59)
2. Freq. (mom)
-.502**
-.056
-.191
-.131
-.105
(n=34)
(n=32)
(n=31)
(n=33)
(n=31)
3. Harshness
-.370*
-.061
-.213
-.008
-.083
(mom)
(n=35)
(n=33)
(n=32)
(n=34)
(n=31)
4. Justness
-.099
.262
.026
-.189
.149
(mom)
(n=35)
(n=33)
(n=32)
(n=34)
(n=31)
5. Variety
-.045
-.420**
-.068
.321*
-.042
(mom)
(n=35)
(n=33)
(n=32)
(n=34)
(n=31)
6. Freq. (dad)
-.214
-.041
.070
-.218
-.026
(n=38)
(n=35)
(n=33)
(n=36)
(n=34)
7. Harshness
-.223
-.099
.074
-.180
-.051
(dad)
(n=38)
(n=35)
(n=33)
(n=36)
(n=34)
8. Justness (dad)
.106
-.001
.116
.288*
.085
(n=37)
(n=34)
(n=32)
(n=35)
(n=34)
9. Variety (dad)
-.529***
-.049
.037
.124
-.105
(n=38)
(n=35)
(n=33)
(n=36)
(n=34)
Note. The values represent Pearson Correlations.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001
Table 3
Analysis of Variance for Corporal Punishment and Responses to Protest Moral Dilemma
Punished
Never Punished
F
Mother
-0.6452 (31)
-0.1786 (28)
4.907*
Father
-0.5882 (34)
-0.0870 (23)
5.258*
Either
-0.5238 (42)
-0.1667 (18)
2.392
Only Mother
-0.2500(8)
-0.4423 (52)
0.369
Only Father
-0.1818 (11)
-0.4694 (49)
1.082
Both
-0.7826 (23)
-0.1892 (37)
8.140**
*p < .05. **p < .01.
•
•
•
•
Discussion
Most of the participants in this study reported receiving corporal punishment.
Findings suggest that parental use of induction may vary according to the gender of both child and
parent.
Contrary to the findings of Lopez et al. (2001), but still consistent with Hoffman’s overall theory
(2001), the present study did not find a relationship between induction and empathy, at least when
induction was used in combination with corporal punishment. This finding may have been
influenced by the fact that, since induction was measured as a part of the corporal punishment
questionnaires, the present study did not measure induction in any of the participants who were not
corporally punished. It is recommended that future studies use a separate measure of induction.
Contrary to Lopez et al.’s findings (2001), whether or not participants were corporally
punished was not related to current levels of empathy. Additionally, while Lopez et al. found
6
•
•
•
that parental use of minor corporal punishment was related to empathy, the present study did
not find any relationship between empathy and harshness of corporal punishment. Possible
explanations for this variation include the use of more recently revised measures and the
different ages at which participants were asked to report parental disciplinary behaviors.
In terms of the relationship between gender and empathy, findings were consistent with those of
previous studies (Lopez, Bonenberger, & Schneider, 2001; Krevans & Gibbs, 1996), providing
further support for the idea that females display higher levels of empathy than males.
The use of corporal punishment was significantly related to participants’ action preferences to the
protest moral dilemma only when corporal punishment was administered by both parents.
Additional questions arise when the action preferences for each of the moral dilemmas were
examined, and these questions should be addressed in future research. Why was corporal punishment
related only to responses to the protest moral dilemma? Why was empathy related only to the
reporter moral dilemma and the school board moral dilemma? Is it a function of gender only, since
the reporter in the moral dilemma is a female and females evidence higher levels of empathy?
References
Hoffman, M.L. (2000). Empathy and Moral Development: Implications for Caring and Justice.
Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Krevans, J. & Gibbs, J.C. (1996). Parents’ use of inductive discipline: relations to children’s empathy
and prosocial behavior. Child Development, 67, 3263-3277.
Lopez, N.L., Bonenberger, J.L., Schneider, H.G. (2001). Parental disciplinary history, current levels of
empathy, and moral reasoning in young adults. North American Journal of Psychology, 3(1),
193-204.
Mehrabian, A. (2000). Manual for the Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale (BEES). (Available from
Albert Mehrabian, 1130 Alta Mesa Road, Monterey, CA 93940).
Patrick, R.B. & Gibbs, J.C. (2007). Parental expression of disappointment: should it be a factor in
Hoffman’s model of parental discipline? The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 168(2), 131-145.
Rest, J. & Narvaez, D. (1998). Defining Issues Test (DIT-2). (Available from University of Minnesota’s
Center for Research in Ethical Development).
Rest, J.R., Narvaez, D., Thoma, S.J., & Bebeau, M.J. (1999). DIT2: devising and testing a revised
instrument of moral judgment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 644-659.
Rest, J.R., Narvaez, D., Thoma, S.J., & Bebeau, M.J. (1999). Postconventional Moral Thinking: A NeoKohlbergian Approach. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Rohner, R.P. & Khaleque, A. (2005). Handbook for the Study of Parental Acceptance and Rejection.
Storrs, Connecticut: Rohner Research Publications.