THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AND ADULT
CHILD PARENT RELATIONSHIPS
A Project
Presented to the faculty of the Division of Social Work
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK
by
Audrey Leonard
SPRING 2013
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AND ADULT
CHILD PARENT RELATIONSHIPS
A Project
by
Audrey Leonard
Approved by:
______, Committee Chair Maria Dinis, Ph.D., M.S.W.
______Date
ii
Student: Audrey Leonard
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the project.
______, Graduate Coordinator ______Dale Russell, Ed.D., LCSW Date
Division of Social Work
iii
Abstract
of
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AND ADULT
CHILD PARENT RELATIONSHIPS
by
Audrey Leonard
Corporal punishment is a highly debated method of discipline. Many parents get conflicting information regarding the negative effects of corporal punishment. The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between corporal punishment and adult child – parent relationships. This quantitative survey research study used secondary data from surveys of 48 men and women who filled out a questionnaire as part of an adoption process. A non-probability quota sampling design was used to select the questionnaires. Protestant Christian fathers were found to spank more frequently than fathers who were not Protestant Christian and this finding was statistically significant using the chi-square test. In addition, males were statistically less likely to describe their relationship with their mother as “best friends” compared to females, using the chi-square test. Implications for social work practice and policy are discussed.
______, Committee Chair Maria Dinis, Ph.D., M.S.W.
______Date
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Tables…………………………………………………………...……………….viii
Chapter 1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM……………....………………………………….1
Background of the Problem ……………………………………………………....3
Statement of the Research Problem……………………………………………….6
Definition of Terms….………………………………………………………….. 11
Assumptions…..………………………………………………………………….12
Social Work Research Justification….………………………………..…..……..13
Study Limitations…………………………………………………………..…… 14
Summary…………………………………………………………………………15
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE………………………………………………….17
Definitions of Corporal Punishment……………………………………………..17
History of Corporal Punishment………………………………………………....18
Opposition to Corporal Punishment…..………………………………………….22
Support for Corporal Punishment………………………………………………..28
Core Factors Linked with Corporal Punishment…..…………………………….31
Gaps in Literature.……………………………………………………………….35
Summary…………………………………………………………………………39
3. METHODS…………………………………………………………………………..40
Study Objectives….…………………………………………………………….. 40
v
Study Design….………………………………………………………………….40
Study Population…………………………………………………………………42
Sampling Procedures….…………………………………………………………43
Data Analysis…...………………………………………………………………..46
Protection of Human Subjects…...………………………………………………46
Summary...……………………………………………………………………….46
4. STUDY FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS………………………………………....48
Demographics……………………………………………………………………48
Corporal Punishment and Adult-Child Parent Relationships..…………………..50
Religion and Use of Corporal Punishment………………………………………57
Parent’s Age and Use of Corporal Punishment.…………………………………62
Gender and Relationship with Parent……………………………………………63
Gender and Use of Corporal Punishment….…………………………………….65
Ethnicity and Use of Corporal Punishment.……………………………………..67
Summary...……………………………………………………………………….69
5. CONCLUSION, SUMMARY, AND RECOMMENDATIONS …...………………70
Summary……………..…………………………………………………………..70
Discussion..………………………………………………………………………71
Limitations…...…………………………………………………………………..74
Implications for Social Work Practice and Policy……………………………….76
Recommendations………………………………………………………………..78
vi
Conclusion…...…………………………………………………………………..80
Appendix A. Consent for Agency Secondary Data use ...... 81
References ...... 82
vii
LIST OF TABLES Tables Page
1. Table 4.1 Ethnicity...... 49
2. Table 4.2 Age of Respondents...... 49
3. Table 4.3 Religion……………………...... ……….……………...………….50
4. Table 4.4 Education…………………………………………….………………. 50
5. Table 4.5 Father’s use of Corporal Punishment………………...………………..51
6. Table 4.6 Mother’s use of Corporal Punishment…………...……………………51
7. Table 4.7 Relationship with Father………………………………………………52
8. Table 4.8 Relationship with Mother……………………………………….…….53
9. Table 4.9 Father’s Corporal Punishment and Relationship with Father………....55
10. Table 4.10 Father’s Corporal Punishment and Relationship with Father………..56
11. Table 4.11 Mother’s Corporal Punishment and Relationship with Mother……...57
12. Table 4.12 Religion and Father’s use of Corporal Punishment………………….59
13. Table 4.13 Christian vs. Catholic and Father’s use of Corporal Punishment...….60
14. Table 4.14 Religion and Mother’s use of Corporal Punishment………...………61
15. Table 4.15 Christian vs. Catholic and Mother’s use of Corporal Punishment…..62
16. Table 4.16 Father’s age and use of Corporal Punishment……...………………..63
17. Table 4.17 Gender and Relationship with Mother………………………………64
18. Table 4.18 Gender and Relationship with Father………………………………..65
viii
19. Table 4.19 Gender and Mother’s use of Corporal Punishment………...………..66
20. Table 4.20 Gender and Father’s use of Corporal Punishment……………...……67
21. Table 4.21 Ethnicity and Father’s use of Corporal Punishment………..………..68
22. Table 4.22 Ethnicity and Mother’s use of Corporal Punishment………………..69
ix
1
Chapter 1
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The goal of any society is to have functional, law abiding, contributing adult citizens. Child rearing is an important aspect in creating these contributing adults.
Discipline is a necessary part of child rearing and effective discipline techniques are important in creating contributing adults. The specific practice of corporal punishment as a form of discipline has been a highly debated topic over the years. One side of the argument has concerns regarding the negative repercussions from this type of discipline and negative long term effects (Andrew & Stewart, 2002; Benjet & Kazdin, 2003; Flynn,
1998; Gershoff et al., 2002; Gromoske & Maguire-Jack, 2012; Hicks-Pass, 2009;
Larzelere & Kuhn, 2005; McLoyd & Smith, 2002; Straus, 1996 & 2001; Simons &
Wurtele, 2010; Turner & Muller, 2004). The other side of the argument has concerns regarding children being immediately compliant, not learning to obey and respect authority, and not following the Bible’s guidelines on discipline (Andero & Stewart,
2002; Benjet & Kazdin, 2003).
This conflicting evidence in support and opposition of corporal punishment results in the continued use of corporal punishment since families and professionals can argue support for their view. Considering the severity of the negative effects that have been linked with corporal punishment, it is concerning that parents continue to use this discipline method partially due to lack of conclusive evidence of its consequences. While some studies point to corporal punishment not causing severe consequences (Paolucci &
2
Violato, 2004), there is no evidence supporting the effectiveness of corporal punishment long term, even among those who support its use. Given that corporal punishment is not an effective long term discipline method, and the risk of negative effects have been shown in many studies, such as lower mental health and deviant behaviors (Gromoske &
Maguire-Jack, 2012), corporal punishment should be avoided. The cost of the use of this discipline method is high while a long term benefit does not exist. Therefore, despite the conflicting evidence, corporal punishment should be abolished as an acceptable form of discipline.
Furthermore, despite the continued debate in the literature and research, there is enough concern regarding the negative effects of corporal punishment that forty professional organizations have publically supported the abolition of corporal punishment as an effective discipline technique (Hicks-Pass, 2009). The National Association of
Social Workers and the American Academy of Pediatrics are included in that group.
However, some professionals within these organizations do not all support the abolition of corporal punishment (Evans & Fargason, 1998).
Since the results of the research on corporal punishment are conflicting, parents and professionals have developed their own opinions regarding its use. And, regardless of the current literature and research, corporal punishment is still a commonly used practice of discipline. Corporal punishment has a long history of use in families so its abolition will take time and will need to be address within the communities in which
3 children are reared, such as the Protestant community, where it is most prevalent (Andero
& Stewart, 2002).
The focus of this project will be on the topic of corporal punishment in depth, including the support and opposition of its use. Furthermore, other possible effects of corporal punishment that have not yet been researched will also be examined, such as the connection between corporal punishment in childhood and future adult child – parent relationships with the parent who used corporal punishment.
Background of the Problem
Corporal punishment has a long history that has evolved over time. Using physical discipline on children has been noted as far back as Biblical times (Greven,
1990). Corporal punishment has been found in almost all historical texts as a common practice among humans (Cooper, 1998). Though corporal punishment was widely accepted in historical literature, it began to be debated in the USA in the early 1800s and that debate continues today.
In today’s US society, corporal punishment has been found to be more acceptable to use for certain behaviors and less acceptable for other behaviors. A study by Simons and Wurtele (2010) found that parents are most accepting of using corporal punishment in response to behaviors that may affect a child’s safety, such as running across the street.
However, parents are less likely to be accepting of using corporal punishment for children violating a social norm or hitting a sibling. Despite the general disapproval of corporal punishment for these non-safety issues, still one fourth of those surveyed
4 approved of using corporal punishment for a child who hits a sibling. According to a telephone interview conducted by Andero and Stewart (2002), the number one reason why parents spank their children is disobedience.
Studies have shown that parents who share certain characteristics are more likely to spank their children. Vittrup and Holden (2010) found that parents who have lower socioeconomic status were more likely to report spanking their children more frequently.
Huang and Lee (2008) found that adolescent mothers were more likely to spank their children than older parents. Simons and Wurtele (2010) found that parents who are in stressful situations, are not married, have less financial resources or have lower education achievement are more likely to use corporal punishment with their children. Several studies have found that parents who were spanked as children are more likely to use spanking with their own children and approve of spanking as a form of discipline. A study by Buntain-Ricklefs et al. (1994) found that acceptance of corporal punishment was predicted by experience of corporal punishment. Douglas (2006) also found that of 7,371 university students who were surveyed, those who had experienced or witnessed family violence were more likely to be approving of corporal punishment as a favorable form of discipline. Simons and Wurtele (2010) also found the same results in their study.
However, Bell and Romano (2012) found that individuals, who experienced violence between parents and other violence in the home beyond corporal punishment, were less favorable towards spanking. Also, those who had a less warm and supportive upbringing and were also spanked, were less favorable towards spanking. Finally, those
5 individuals who rated their parents as impulsive were more likely to feel less favorable of spanking than individuals who rated their parents as less impulsive.
MacKenzie et al. (2012) also studied the parenting factors that are most common among those parents who spank. They found that mothers who experienced more stress were more likely to spank. Also, mothers who lived in a community where spanking was a normative practice, were also more likely to spank. However, mothers who had a supportive partner during pregnancy were less likely to spank and parents who were not
USA born were less likely to spank than those born in the USA. A study by Regalado et al. (2004) found that parents who report lower emotional wellbeing are more likely to use spanking and yelling as a method of discipline. However, mothers who were the main caretakers for their children were less likely to spank than mothers who used relatives or daycare as the primary caretaker for their children (Huang & Lee, 2008). In addition, not surprisingly, parents who had a positive attitude towards corporal punishment were also more likely to use it (Taylor et al., 2011).
The support for corporal punishment among the professional communities working with children has also changed over the years. According to Fritz (2008), fifteen years ago, two thirds of pediatricians supported mild spanking. Now almost all professionals working with children officially discourage the use of physical discipline.
Cain (2008) researched information on parenting strategies that are widely promoted through parenting literature in books and online. Cain found that parenting literature also gives conflict advice regarding corporal punishment, with some in support
6 of corporal punishment as a method of discipline and others in opposition to its use.
However, it was widely held that it is developmentally inappropriate to spank infants since they are not able to make the connection between their behavior and the consequence of that behavior. It is difficult for parents to make decisions about whether or not to use corporal punishment when the research and the literature on parenting provides conflicting information on corporal punishment as a discipline technique.
Regardless of this debate and conflicting information, it is conclusive that corporal punishment has many risks and no known long term benefits. So instead of debating the effects of corporal punishment, it might be more useful for child rearing experts, researchers, and professionals to focus their energy on providing parents with information on discipline techniques that would be effective.
Statement of the Research Problem
The purpose of the research problem is to explore the topic of corporal punishment as a method of discipline in childhood and its possible long term consequences on the parent-child relationship. Many parents are confused about the conflicting literature on the effects of corporal punishment and are given different guidelines about whether to use this method or not. There is a lack of literature on the effects of corporal punishment and long term parent and adult-child relationships. In this study, there is an attempt to provide more information to parents about corporal punishment and explore a new topic of corporal punishment and its connection to long term parent and adult-child relationship.
7
Study purpose. The purpose of this study is to explore the long term effects of corporal punishment on an adult child’s relationship with their parent that used corporal punishment. This study will use a quantitative approach to explore the data since it is definite and specific about what it attempts to find (Dudley, 2011). The goal of this study is to explore other possible consequences of a parents’ choice to use corporal punishment as a method of discipline. Since parents might be conflicted about using corporal punishment, it is hoped to explore in this study if there is any connection between a parents’ use of corporal punishment and their child’s relationship with that parent when the child reaches adulthood. Understanding the connection between corporal punishment and adult child-parent relationships may help us know the degree to which physical pain as a form of discipline negatively affects adult child - parent relationships. In other words, the goal in this study is to provide more information for both professionals and parents regarding how their choices of discipline may affect their future relationships with these children.
Research question. This study was designed to examine the following question:
What is the relationship between corporal punishment and adult child-parent relationships?
Theoretical framework. The theoretical theory most applicable to this study is the attachment theory. This researcher will explain the attachment theory and its application to the research on corporal punishment.
8
Attachment Theory. Bowlby (1969) is the original founding father of the attachment theory. According to this attachment theory, humans have an innate need for attachment as a source of survival and as a primary aspect of emotional regulation and the development of a sense of self (Lesser & Pope, 2011). The goal of the attachment relationship is for a child to gain protection, security, and comfort from their primary relationship. The relationship the infant develops with their primary caregiver becomes the model of relationships for this child, thus affecting future relationships as the child grows and develops. In addition, since this is the first relationship that a child has, the child develops an internal working model about relationships, themselves, and the world as a result of this relationship (Lesser & Pope). For example, if an infant has an inconsistent caregiver who does not respond to the infants cries for help, the infant will develop an internal working model with conclusions such as: “the world isn’t safe,” “I can’t count on anyone,” “I am not effective at getting what I need,” “I don’t matter,” “my needs don’t matter,” “something is wrong with me,” and/or “no one loves me.” The infant will operate with these internal working models as the he/she grows and interacts with other caregivers, peers, and the world at large (Lesser & Pope).
There are four primary purposes of the attachment bond, according to Davies
(2004). The first purpose is the regulation of affect and arousal. When a child expresses upset, i.e. arousal, the primary caregiver helps reduce the child’s distress by meeting the child’s need, such as feeding them, changing their diaper, and/or comforting them. When the primary caretaker meets the child’s need consistently and effectively, the child
9 develops trust in his/her caregiver (Erickson, 1963). In addition, the child learns strategies for self-soothing and self-regulating from his/her caregivers’ successful soothing of him/her. Another purpose of the attachment relationship is to provide a sense of security and protection for the child. When the child’s primary caregiver accurately meets the needs of the infant, the child develops a sense of trust and security in knowing that their needs will be meet and that they are valued. The third purpose of the attachment bond is the communication and expression of feelings. Children learn to identify and express their emotions from their attachment relationship. The final purpose of the attachment relationship is to provide a safe base for a child to explore. When a child is confident and secure in his/her attachment with a primary caregiver, a child develops a sense of confidence and safety in exploring the world and environment, knowing that their caregiver will keep them safe and be responsive to their needs. “When parents have been consistent and effective in helping the child feel safe, cope with anxiety and frustration, and evaluate potentially dangerous situations, the child gradually internalizes these abilities as part of her or his world models of self” (Lesser & Pope,
2011, p. 268).
Application of attachment theory. Corporal punishment could be examined in light of its effects on a child’s attachment relationship, which is essential to self-esteem, self-efficacy, self-control, and resiliency, as described in attachment theory. One of the goals of the attachment relationship is to teach a child that his/her primary caregiver is a safe and trusted base from which the child can explore the world (Lesser & Pope, 2011).
10
If this caregiver is inflicting physical pain on their child, as a form of discipline, there is a potential that it would negatively affect the child’s perception of their caregiver as safe and trusted. In addition, a child learns self-regulation and self-soothing through the relationship with their caregiver. “Children with histories of insecure attachment tend to have greater difficulty in developing self-regulation, presumably because they have not experienced adequate soothing from caregivers and, as a result, have not internalized effective regulatory strategies as part of their working models of self” (Lesser & Pope, p.
282). If a child is unable to self-regulate, i.e. continually acting “out of control,” the child may not have developed the skills of self-regulation and self-soothing that comes from a secure attachment figure. If this is the case and the child’s primary attachment figure resorts to corporal punishment as a way to deal with the “out of control” behavior, this negative interaction would continue to impede the attachment relationship, thus creating a negative, vicious cycle.
Furthermore, corporal punishment can affect a child’s internal working model.
Since the attachment relationship is fundamental in a child’s development of an internal working model, if a child’s attachment figure is using corporal punishment on the child, this too will be incorporated into the child’s internal working model. A child might conclude “hitting is a way to solve problems with other people” or “those who love you will hurt you”. Corporal punishment’s consequences could include negatively affecting a child’s view of the world and of his/her future relationship with others.
11
Corporal punishment may have a negative affect a child’s attachment and bonding with their primary caregiver and that should be considered when this method of discipline is chosen. For example, when a child has an insecure attachment, a child is found to have more externalizing behavior problems, such as anger and physical aggression (Lesser &
Pope, 2011). Corporal punishment is also linked with more externalizing behavior problems. Therefore, the consequences resulting from poor attachment and corporal punishment are the same and may be interconnected. “Decades of research have yielded solid evidence to support the view that the quality of the child’s attachment relationship with at least one primary attachment figure . . . has a significant effect on the child’s ability to develop age-appropriate cognitive and socio-emotional skills in childhood and adulthood” (Lesser & Pope, p.251). There could be a transaction effect between insecure attachment and corporal punishment. For example, if a child doesn’t have good socio- emotional skills, as a result of poor attachment, the child is more likely to act out and therefore more likely to get spanked, which also affects the child’s attachment. Corporal punishment could then be considered in light of its possible negative effects on attachment and thus the overarching negative consequences, as a result, to a child into adulthood.
Definitions of Terms
Terms related to corporal punishment for the purpose of this study are described below. These terms include:
12
Corporal punishment is a physical punishment not resulting in injury (Hicks-Pass, 2009) but with the intent of causing pain or discomfort (Middleton, 2012).
Spanking is using an open hand to strike a child on the buttocks or extremities (Saadeh et al., 2002).
Protestant is a major division of the Christian church and is separate from that of
Catholicism and the Eastern Church (Webster Dictionary, 2013).
Bible is the holy book of the Christian religion that includes both the Old Testament and the New Testament (Webster Dictionary, 2013).
Flagellation is the process of beating or whipping (Cooper, 1988).
Flogging is a form of flagellation, a severe beating or whipping (Cooper, 1988).
The Rod is a stick or bar or twig used in physical punishment (Hicks-Pass, 2009).
Assumptions
The assumptions to be considered in this research are: (1) parents are the main disciplinarians of their children and want to effectively alter their children’s undesirable behaviors. (2) It is assumed that the beliefs and assumptions parents’ have about children and discipline are varied and influence a parents’ decision to use corporal punishment.
(3) It is assumed that parents’ live in a community that influences the type of discipline they use on their children. (4) It is also assumed that the way a parent was disciplined as a child and their overall upbringing affects their relationship with their children and their chosen discipline technique, including corporal punishment.
13
Social Work Research Justification
There is a vast number of research studies about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of corporal punishment as a form of discipline. The majority of studies focus on the problem externalization behaviors and problem internalization behaviors that rise with the use of corporal punishment (Flynn, 1998; Gershoff et al., 2002; Gromoske
& Maguire-Jack, 2012; Lansford et al., 2002; Larzelere & Kuhn, 2005; Straus, 2001;
Straus & Mouradian, 1998; Turner & Muller, 2004). However, there is limited research on the effects of corporal punishment on children’s relationships with their parents.
McLoyd and Smith (2002) did find that children had less positive relationships with the parent that used spanking. However, there is no research about the child’s relationship with the parent when the child reaches adulthood. This research addresses this area of interest – if there a relationship between a parent’s use of spanking and their subsequent relationship with their child when their child reaches adulthood.
The issue of corporal punishment is an important topic for the social work profession. According to the National Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics, the social work profession’s mission is to “enhance human wellbeing and help meet the basic human needs of all people, with particular attention to the needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty” (“Code of Ethics of the
National Association of Social Workers”, n.d.). As the research shows, corporal punishment can play an important role in the wellbeing of children which ultimately
14 affects their success as adults. As a profession with a core values of respect, dignity and worth of a person, and the importance of human relationships the issue of corporal punishment is relevant to social work today (“Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers”, n.d.). The issue of discipline is important to the relationships between children and their parents. Since social workers hold a core value of the importance of human relationships, the impact of corporal punishment on the parent-child connection is important for social workers to be aware of and address when working with families. In addition, the social work profession includes the core values of respect and the dignity and worth of a person, regardless of age (“Code of Ethics of the National
Association of Social Workers”, n.d.). Children deserve to be treated with respect and dignity and worth. The use of physical discipline on a child undermines their dignity and worth and does not treat a child with the respect they deserve. Thus, it is important for social workers to know the impact of corporal punishment so social workers can help educate parents and the community to promote the wellbeing of children.
Study Limitations
In this study, the relationship is examined between a parents’ use of corporal punishment with a child and that child’s relationship with that parent when the child reaches adulthood. The limitations of this study are primary based on the methods used.
First, this study will use a secondary data analysis so the questions to be asked had to fit the available data. For example, one of the questions asked was, “Did your father use corporal punishment” and the participant’s response options were only: “yes or no.”
15
However, the data in the question format did not include a definition of the term
“corporal punishment,” therefore, participants may have had different interpretations of what corporal punishment meant. A participant might have put “no” because they did not think of spanking as corporal punishment while another participant might have answered
“yes” because they did think of spanking as corporal punishment. For reasons such as these, secondary data collected by another group for another purpose has limitations with reliability and validity concerns (Rubin & Babbie, 2008).
Another limitation is the population who filled out the surveys. The surveys were filled out by participants who were applying to adopt a child from a specific adoption agency and the participants may have given favorable responses as a result. Participants may have been concerned about being approved to adopt a child so their answers may have been untrue or incorrect if they felt their answers would affect their approval for an adoption. The participants may have been inclined not to admit to their parents’ use of corporal punishment with them or the participants may have rated their relationship with their parents more favorable than it actually was the case.
Summary
Chapter 1 is an introduction to the topic of corporal punishment and includes a background of the problem of corporal punishment. It also includes information on the purpose of this study and the research question. Chapter 1 includes a section of the theoretical framework of the attachment theory and its application to corporal
16 punishment. In Chapter 1, there is a section of the definition of terms and it concludes with assumptions, justification of this project, and finally, research delimitations.
Chapter 2 is a review of the literature on the subject of corporal punishment. It includes information on the definition of corporal punishment in the research as well as the history of corporal punishment. Chapter 2 reviews the research in opposition to corporal punishment and support of corporal punishment. Chapter 3 describes the methods of this research. Chapter 4 presents the results of this secondary data analysis.
Chapter 5 describes the findings of this research and the implications for social work and recommendations for future studies.
17
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This literature review will be organized into seven main sections: definitions of corporal punishment, history of corporal punishment, opposition to corporal punishment, support for corporal punishment, core factors linked with corporal punishment, and gaps in the literature. The last section will conclude with a summary.
Definitions of Corporal Punishment
Corporal punishment is most commonly defined as physical punishment not resulting in physical injury, including bruising, or physical harm (Hicks-Pass, 2009).
Corporal punishment in the literature is more commonly referred to as spanking. The
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) more specifically and narrowly defines spanking as “striking a child with an open hand on the buttocks or extremities with the intention of modifying behavior without causing physical injury” (Saadeh et al., 2002, p.88).
McLoyd and Smith (2002) define corporal punishment on a continuum with different levels of intensity with spanking being the most common form. On an international level, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, which is under the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, defines corporal punishment as “any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however light” (Middleton, 2012, p. 5).
Corporal punishment is generally defined along similar lines, as shown specifically above. The research discussed in this literature review uses the above
18 definitions of corporal punishment in their exploration of the subject and frequently uses corporal punishment and spanking interchangeably.
History of Corporal Punishment
Corporal punishment has a long and evolving history. The first written account of corporal punishment comes from the Old Testament in the Bible, in the book of Proverbs.
This time frame would be approximately as early as 10th century BCE (Before Common
Era). Though the classic phrase, “spare the rod, spoil the child” is used to support the use of corporal punishment, it is actually not from the Bible at all (Greven, 1990). However, similar sayings are found in the book of Proverbs, “Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beat him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell (Proverbs, 23:13-14)” (Greven, 1990). The
Bible’s book of Proverbs is the first written account that some people refer to for the support or justification of corporal punishment. “For many centuries, the Book of
Proverbs has provided parents, preachers, and teachers with the basic aphorisms that have justified their commitment to corporal punishment of children” (Greven, 1990, p.48).
The use of physical punishment on humans can be found throughout history in almost all books. Cooper (1988) describes corporal punishment as being “as old as sin”
(p.6). “The practice of flagellating the human body dates from the earliest ages of mankind” (Cooper, 1988, p. 2). Before Rome was founded, whipping slaves happened daily (Cooper, 1988). Furthermore, in the 5th century of the Christian era, people believed that if they were whipped/beat/flogged that they would pay a penance to God
19 which may save them from the wrath of God, which at the time was a plague. This fear of the plague resulted in people volunteering to be whipped as a way to save them
(Cooper, 1988). This belief that physical punishment is a way of saving people, i.e. children, from a bad future, has long roots in history.
Illustrations in history have shown the use of corporal punishment of children both at home and at school. There are numerous historical illustrations showing the use of a rod as a form of disciplining slaves, women, criminals, students, and children. There is an illustration from Hans Holbein’s Illustration to Eramus’ “Praise of Folly” titled
“The Mother’s Correction”, shows a mother with a child over her lap and her hitting the child on the buttocks with a whip (Cooper, 1988). A school scene in the Middle Ages shows a teacher using a whip on a student’s buttocks while other students sit at their desk, looking on, “the flogging scene at school appears to have been rather a favorite subject among the early caricaturists, for the scourge was looked upon as the grand stimulant to scholarship. In those good old times, when a man recalled to memory his schoolboy days, he did not say, ‘When I was at school,’ but ‘When I was under the rod’”
(Cooper, 1988, p. 250).
In the United States, the early settlers had a firm belief in the use of the rod as a way of instilling morality in people (Cooper, 1988). A whipping post was established in a public place and used for public lashings for the punishment of crimes (Cooper, 1988).
Furthermore, spanking was also used in the home. “Domestic flogging, or what is called
“spanking,” prevails more or less all over America, so far as the younger branches of
20 families are concerned. Whipping was a common punishment for both sexes in the time of the Puritans. Sons and daughters, we are told, had to endure the Rod till they were of a marriageable age” (Cooper, 1988, p.300).
In the United States, various literature points to the use of corporal punishment in
U.S. history. In the 17th century, a school in Massachusetts declared that the rod should be used for classroom discipline as ordered by God (Glenn, 1984). An autobiographical book, titled The Wandering Boy, was published in 1839 and narrated the life of Lane, born in 1788. This book pointed to the common use of corporal punishment in the late
18th and first half of the 19th century (Glenn, 1984). A book by Benjamin Wadsworth, titled The Well Ordered Family, published in the 18th century, stated that parents should use the rod to punish children (Glenn, 1984).
However, there became public concern regarding the use of corporal punishment with prisoners, navy men, men of war, and children during the late 1820s to the late
1850s (Glenn, 1984). In 1826, in Auburn, New York, people petitioned to end prisoner floggings. In 1847, the Brooklyn Daily Advertiser, Boston Post, New York Daily Globe, and the North American Review reported that corporal punishment should be abolished in schools. Horace Mann was the first Secretary of the Board of Education in
Massachusetts, serving from 1838 to 1849, to oppose corporal punishment in the schools.
Articles against corporal punishment were prominent in educational journals and the book, The Evil Tendencies of Corporal Punishment, was published during this time period as well, in 1847. The New York Tribune in 1850 reported that the common
21 practice of flogging men in the navy is cruel and that that practice should be abolished, and Congress did abolish it in 1850. Also, the public petitioned the US Congress to end flogging men of war in 1850. Furthermore, popular writings during this same time period, encouraged parents to use methods of discipline other than corporal punishment.
However, the crusade against corporal punishment declined in the 1850s due to a change in the U.S. society’s focus to issues of slavery and the Civil War (Glenn, 1984).
Corporal punishment became a debated topic in England surrounding the use of corporal punishment in schools. In the early 1890s in England, the use of corporal punishment in schools by teachers was widely debated (Middleton, 2012). At this time, many parents did not find corporal punishment, i.e. hitting children’s knuckles with slates or hitting children in the head with classroom pointers, to be an acceptable form of discipline in the classroom. However, it took over 100 years before corporal punishment became banned in British schools, which happened in 1987 (Middleton, 2012).
The issues of spanking became widely debated and discussed again in the US in the 1920s. The child development movement and Freudian psychiatry in the 1920s and
1930s were influential in the discussion about appropriate child rearing practices, including spanking (Evans & Fargason, 1998). The reality of the repercussions of certain child rearing practices was highlighted during this time and came to the public’s attention. The emotional traumas caused by childhood experiences became more widely known among the public. As a result, the discussion about corporal punishments’ effects
22 on children’s emotional development became a topic of debate that continues to this day
(Evans & Fargason, 1998).
The acceptable nature of corporal punishment as a form of discipline has evolved and changed over time. According to Straus (1996), in the late 1960s, 94% of US adults found spanking to be an acceptable way for parents’ to discipline their children. In a study by Straus and Stewart in 1999, the reporting of using spanking for three and four year old children was very high at 94%. However, in 2000, a poll by Yankelovich found that only 61% of US adults agreed with spanking as an acceptable method of disciplining children (Cummings, 2001).
Opposition to Corporal Punishment
There has been a lot of research on the effects of corporal punishment. Those in opposition to using corporal punishment to discipline children site research that points to the negative outcomes to children from this discipline method. They oppose corporal punishment since it can have emotional and psychological consequences to the child
(Andrew & Stewart, 2002; Benjet & Kazdin, 2003; Flynn, 1998; Gershoff et al., 2002;
Gromoske & Maguire-Jack, 2012; Hicks-Pass, 2009; Larzelere & Kuhn, 2005; McLoyd
& Smith, 2002; Straus, 1996 & 2001; Simons & Wurtele, 2010; Turner & Muller, 2004).
Andero and Stewart (2002) oppose corporal punishment on the basis that it is an ineffective discipline method. They argue that it is ineffective because it does not teach a child an alternative behavior to the undesirable behavior for which discipline is warranted. Instead, experiencing physical pain without the ability to defend oneself can
23 result in a child having feelings of anger, shame, humiliation and helplessness. As a result, the child ultimately learns to avoid getting caught for misbehaving so as to avoid these feelings that often accompany spanking.
Using the social learning theory, Benjet and Kazdin (2003) opposed corporal punishment because it teaches children that violence is a way to solve problems. In other words, children are learning every day from the modeling and behavior of their parents and the society around them. If parents use physical pain to handle a problem they have with their child, then they are teaching the child that hitting is an acceptable way to handle a problem. Furthermore, this teaches children to associate hitting with those who love them. In other words, this idea is that children learn from their parents how to behave in the world, including how to solve problems. Research has shown that children who are spanked are more likely to use hitting as a way to solve a problem with a sibling or other children (Simons & Wurtele, 2010). This research also found that the more children experienced corporal punishment, the more likely they would resort to hitting to solve small problems with other children. On the other hand, children who were not spanked did not choose to use hitting to solve a small or larger conflict with a peer or sibling.
Similarly to Benjet and Kazdin, Straus (1996) argued that spanking children contributes to societal violence. Straus philosophy is called “cultural spillover.” Straus argues that violence and overall crime would be lower in a society that does not use physical pain or violence with their children.
24
Furthermore, there have been many studies that have found that children who are spanked have more internalizing problems (Flynn, 1998; Straus, 2001; Straus & Stewart,
1999). Internalization problems are problems such as depression, suicidal ideation, and low self-esteem as well as having anxiety and withdrawn behaviors (Gromoske &
Maguire-Jack, 2012). Gromoske and Maguire-Jack also found that children who were spanked at age one, had more externalizing behaviors at age three and more internalizing behaviors at age five, suggesting a transactional effect over time.
A study by McLoyd and Smith (2002) also cautions against the use of spanking due to the emotional distress it can cause children. They found that spanking does evoke feelings of anger and other negative feeling states and can result in less positive relationships between the parent and their child over time. McLoyd and Smith’s study took place over a six year time period and they also found that spanking children was a predictor of an increase in problem behavior over these six years.
Corporal punishment has also been linked to children having more externalization behavior problems. Externalization problem behaviors include physically aggressive behaviors, defiant behavior, and delinquent behavior (Lansford et al., 2012). Several studies have found that adolescents who were spanked were more likely to have aggressive and delinquent behaviors (Straus, 2001; Straus & Mouradian, 1998; Turner &
Muller, 2004). In addition to adolescents, Gershoff et al. (2002) also found that frequency of spanking was positively correlated to child misbehavior and aggression.
Gromoske and Maguire-Jack (2012) found that children who were spanked at age one
25 had more externalizing behaviors at age three. Also, mothers who reported more externalizing behaviors in their children did report using spanking more frequently with that child or using a harsher spanking (Lansford et al., 2012).
High spanking frequency is related to more detrimental outcomes. Larzelere and
Kuhn (2005) found that children who were spanked one to three times per week had more detrimental outcomes as a result of spanking than those less frequently spanked.
Gershoff et al. (2002) also found that the higher the frequency of corporal punishment, the more detrimental the outcomes.
In addition to detrimental outcomes with spanking, the desire result of children learning more appropriate behaviors due to this discipline technique has not been supported. Lansford et al. (2012) found that spanking did not decrease the child’s problem behaviors. Therefore, Lansford et al. argues that spanking should not be used since it is not achieving the desired results while also having detrimental consequences.
Another opposition to corporal punishment is the possibility of spanking escalating into physical abuse. In a recent study by Lansford et al. (2012), he found that a parent who used mild spanking one year had a 50% chance of using heavy spanking a year later. In addition, according to Saadeh et al. (2002), the effectiveness of spanking decreases over time. Therefore, spanking may need to escalate to get the same behavior change that worked a year earlier. As a result, the line between spanking and abuse can be crossed and result in physical injury. The line can also be crossed when emotions are high (of the parent) and a child needs increased spankings for the same result. This
26 escalation from spanking into abuse and possible serious injury is one major caution against using this type of discipline method.
Since it is difficult to prove causality between spanking and negative behavior outcomes, there have been many debates over results found in the research as well as many research studies to address the debate and add to the body of knowledge currently in literature. To summarize the findings of the literature on corporal punishment,
Gershoff et al. (2002) analyzed 88 studies on corporal punishment and found that corporal punishment was linked to many negative outcomes for children, such as aggressive behavior, more delinquent and antisocial behaviors in children, lower levels of internalization of morals, lower levels of mental health, and a less positive relationship quality between a parent and their child.
A study by McLoyd and Smith (2002) supported Gershoff et al.’s findings. The researchers followed children over a four year period and found that children who were spanked at high levels had more behavior problems. When the spanking levels for these children decreased, their problem behaviors also decreased. This finding suggests a direct connection between spanking and subsequent problem behaviors.
As a result of these studies, the question of causality arose. There was a debate about whether spanking caused aggression or if children who are more aggressive are more likely to be spanked. To address this issue, a recent study was completed by
Gromoske and Maguire-Jack (2012) which found children’s externalization problem behaviors affects a parents’ discipline choice and parents’ choice of spanking also affects
27 a child’s externalization problem behaviors. The study found a transactional relationship between spanking and a child’s externalization behaviors. The same connection was not found for children’s internalization problem behaviors. For example, children’s internalization problem behaviors did not affect a parents’ discipline choice but parents’ choice of spanking did affect a child’s internalization problem behaviors.
Also, the goal of spanking is to deter the child from an undesired behavior but often spanking is a parents’ emotional response to a situation instead of a discipline only technique. According to Saadeh et al. (2002), most of the parents studied reported being angry at the time that they spank their child, thus indicating a more impulsive decision than a thoughtful discipline technique. The question than arises about whether parents are spanking due to their own stress levels, i.e. anger, or if they are spanking for the child’s actual behavior issue.
Despite all this research, corporal punishment, as defined in this literature review, is not against the law in any state in the United States. Physical punishment of a child is only illegal in the USA if it causes physical harm to a child (Benjet & Kazdin, 2003).
However, corporal punishment has become outlawed in eleven international countries:
Austria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Norway, and
Sweden.
The ban on corporal punishment is supported by Jenny (2009) in the article,
Spanking Should Not Be Lawful. Jenny argues that just because corporal punishment is legal, it does not make it right to hit children. She compares corporal punishment of
28 children to domestic violence between a husband and wife, which also use to be legal.
Jenny justifies this ban on corporal punishment by comparing the death rates of children in the USA to the death rates of children in Sweden, which outlawed corporal punishment in 1979. During the years 1980 to 1996, only one child in Sweden died from the physical abuse inflicted on them by a parent. In the USA, during the same 16 years, 26,000 children died at the hands of their parents’ physical abuse. Based on these results, Jenny argues that corporal punishment should be made illegal in the USA since it can have deadly consequences.
Despite the overwhelming research that links spanking and negative outcomes for children both in internal and external behavioral problems; spanking is still a common practice for parents in the United States. Other research outcomes support its practice.
Support for Corporal Punishment
Despite all the research in opposition to corporal punishment and the detrimental effects of spanking, there continues to be supporters of corporal punishment and other researchers that have found evidence that supports the use of corporal punishment.
Studies by Larzelere and Kuhn (2005) and Straus (2001) have shown that corporal punishment can be an effective way to raise obedient children. Furthermore, a meta- analysis of 70 studies by Paolucci and Violato (2004) found that there is no evidence that spanking causes several emotional or behavioral problems in children.
A study by Slade and Wissow (2004) found that spanking children before the age of two did not result in significant problem behaviors four years later. Instead, these
29 researchers found that problem behaviors displayed by children, four years later, who were spanked before the age of two, were equivalent to problem behaviors displayed by their non-spanked peers. This study did not find a connection between spanking and an increase in later externalization problem behaviors.
Those who support corporal punishment will sometimes argue that a child’s entire context in which they are reared needs to be considered in order to make an association between spanking and negative outcomes. Lansford et al. (2012) and Larzelere and Kuhn
(2005) found that some contexts in which children were raised resulted in spanking not being as harmful to these children. These researchers argue that some environments can actually decrease the possibility of harm that the child might experience from corporal punishment. For example, according to Benjet and Kazdin (2003), when a child feels accepted by their caregiver, as opposed to rejected, it results in less negative effects of the spanking. Also, the meaning children attach to their spanking influences how it affects them. Furthermore, the other contexts of the child’s environment, such as their age, sex, race, family structure, relationship with parents, all effects the outcome of spanking on a child’s later behaviors (Benjet & Kazdin, 2003).
Larzelere and Kuhn (2005) studied the context of a child’s age on the effects of spanking. The results of the study found that spanking benefited children who are under the age of six. Detrimental effects of spanking were found for children over the age of six. Gershoff et al. (2012) also found a more detrimental effect related to spanking as children got older, specifically an increase in child’s aggression and antisocial behavior.
30
McLoyd and Smith (2002) found that the context of a child’s relationship with their mother had an effect on the child’s outcomes from spanking. These researchers found children who had high emotional support from their mother, while also being spanked as a method of discipline, did not experience the increase in problem behaviors.
Instead, the children who had low levels of maternal emotional support had an association between spanking and behavior problems. MacKenzie et al. (2012) followed up on this study and found that maternal warmth did not moderate the effects of spanking. Instead, they found that all children who were spanked at the age of three, regardless of mother’s maternal warmth or emotional support, had more externalizing problem behaviors at the age of five.
There are some researchers that support corporal punishment as a discipline method that has positive outcomes. Larzelere and Kuhn (2005) found that corporal punishment can be beneficial for children age two to six who are given mild or occasional spankings. Benjet and Kazdin (2003) argue that spanking can be positive since it teaches children to respect authority. They further argue that not spanking a child can result in a child learning to be disrespectful of authority. This disrespect can result in these children becoming more unlawful as adults and more likely to be violent. Taylor et al. (2011) also argues a similar idea. They stated that spanking was used with past generations as a common method of discipline. They pointed out that adults from those generations grew up to be better functioning members of society than children in this current generation where spanking is less common (Taylor et al., 2011).
31
Most studies of the effects of corporal punishment have found that it does work in the short term. Larzelere and Kuhn (2005) and Gershoff et al. (2012) found that children who were spanked were more immediately compliant following the spanking.
In addition, according to a study by Benjet and Kazdin (2003), spanking as a form of punishment did not have any more detrimental effects than any other type of punishment. Benjet and Kazdin compared four types of punishment: verbal punishment, loss of privilege, grounding and spanking; and found that there are harmful effects from punishment as a whole; not specifically from the form of spanking.
Core Factors Linked with Corporal Punishment
There are several factors that play a role in the use of corporal punishment. This section discusses two factors researched in connection with corporal punishment: ethnicity and religion.
Corporal punishment and ethnicity. Corporal punishment has not been found to have the same detrimental effects among all ethnicity. A study by Stacks et al. (2009) found that spanking as a predictor of future aggression was only true for Caucasian families but not true for Hispanic or African American families. Previous research by
Deater-Deckard et al. (2003) and Lansford et al. (2005) found similar results and argued that ethnicity could be a moderating effect on spanking. These studies found that African
American children who were spanked did not have an increase in externalization problem behaviors. However, white children who were spanked did have more externalization problem behaviors. The researchers argue that the reason for this difference is based on
32 cultural norms. The African American culture generally has a more positive view of spanking and, subsequently, this view may affect the outcomes.
Most studies on ethnicity found that Black mothers used spanking more than other ethnicities. Huang and Lee (2008) found that black mothers were more likely to spank their children than white mothers. Gershoff et al. (2012) also found that of 11,040
American mothers, Black mothers spanked the most frequently. Hispanic mothers spanked more than White or Asian mothers. However, unlike the studies described above, Gershoff’s study did not find that there is a culture normative mediation effect of spanking. Instead, he found that the more children were spanked the more externalization problems behaviors they displayed and that there was not a difference in effects by race. McLoyd and Smith (2002) also found that spankings prediction of aggression was not different among the races.
Horn et al. (2004) studied discipline practices in the African American community. Horn found that Black parents used spanking regardless of their socioeconomic status. Another study by Vittrup and Holden (2010) found the opposite to be true. They found that there were no racial differences in spanking but that the difference was socioeconomic status. They found those with lower socioeconomic status spanked more frequently than those of higher socioeconomic status. The difference found in regards to black parents is based on the parents’ socioeconomic status, not race.
It is evident that there is conflicting research results on ethnicity and corporal punishment. Some studies (Deater-Deckard et al., 2003; Lansford et al., 2005; Stacks et
33 al., 2009) have found that ethnicity has a moderating effect on the negative aspects of spanking while other studies, Gershoff et al. (2012) and McLoyd and Smith (2002), do not find that to be true. A study by Vittrup and Holden (2010) found that discipline practices among black people are based on socioeconomic status while a study by Horn et al. (2004) found that discipline practices are based on race, not socioeconomic status.
Corporal punishment and religion. Support for corporal punishment is strongest among Conservative Protestants, who use spiritual passages from the Bible to support their claim about the acceptability of corporal punishment. The biblical perspective of
“spare the rod, spoil the child” not only supports the use of corporal punishment but suggests that not using corporal punishment would actually be detrimental to the child’s development (Andero & Stewart, 2002). Andrew and Stewart (2002) state:
Contemporary religious conservatives fear that children reared without proper
discipline will be unable and unwilling to submit themselves to the will of God
and, hence, will fail to enjoy the fruits of spiritual salvation. Therefore,
influential Conservative Protestant pastors and authors cite numerous scriptural
passages to support their claim that corporal punishment is the primarily biblically
ordained response to overt challenges to parental authority. (p. 92)
Therefore, Conservative Protestants are the most likely group of people to accept and utilize corporal punishment as a form of discipline (Petts & Kysar-Moon, 2012).
In some child rearing Christian literature, corporal punishment is endorse and advocated. Cain (2008) discusses a Christian child rearing expert, Pearl, who supports
34 the use of corporal punishment of children from the age of birth until seven years of age.
He advocates using a switch twice on a seven month olds’ legs who cries when put down to sleep as a correct discipline strategy for that child (Cain, 2008).
Though corporal punishment is most common among Conservative Protestants, some studies have shown that religious context in which a child was raised could have a moderating effect on the aftermath of spanking. Ellison et al. (2011) found that children who were spanked by Conservative Protestant mothers experienced less negative behaviors after the spanking than other children, possibly due to the mother’s positive, nurturing relationship with the child. Petts and Kysar-Moon (2012) also studied the religious context in which a child was raised and his research supported some of the research of Ellison et al. They found that in Conservative Protestant homes where both parents were Conservative Protestant and where the father spanked infrequently, those children displayed less externalization problem behaviors than children who were raised in homes where only one of the parents was Conservative Protestant. However, with spanking, these same children did have an increase in internalization problem behaviors.
In other words, Conservative Protestant homogenous homes were not a moderating effect against an increase in internalization problem behaviors with spanking used as a discipline technique. The study also found children who were raised in heterogeneous households, with one parent being conservative protestant, did show increase internalization problem behaviors and externalization problem behaviors with spanking use.
35
Gaps in Literature
The topic of corporal punishment has been widely debated in the literature. Due to the high debate of this topic, corporal punishment has been extensively and comprehensively researched. Despite all this research, the literature still has contradictory information on the topic. Further research needs to address the contradictory conclusions so the research can provide a conclusive answer on the effects of corporal punishment on children both in childhood and into adulthood.
The negative effects of spanking have been shown to be evident in many research studies, as shown by the meta-analysis of 88 studies over 62 years by Gershoff (2002).
Gershoff found an “association between parental corporal punishment and 11 child behaviors and experiences. Parental corporal punishment was associated with all child constructs, including higher levels of immediate compliance and aggression and lower levels of moral internalization and mental health” (p. 539). However, a recent meta- analysis by Ferguson (2013) of 45 studies found a minimal effect of spanking on externalization problem behaviors, internalization problem behaviors, and cognitive performance. Another meta-analysis of 70 studies by Paolucci and Violato (2004) did not find a connection between spanking and severe emotional or behavioral problems in children. Clearly there is conflicting information found by a large number of studies.
Therefore, this gap needs to be addressed to provide conclusive information on the correlation between spanking and possible negative outcomes.
36
Some studies have shown that certain factors have a moderating effect on the negative outcomes from spanking, such as: parental warmth, parental acceptance, and maternal warmth (Benjet & Kazdin, 2003; Lansford et al., 2012; McLoyd & Smith,
2002). However, MacKenzie et al. (2012) did not find that maternal warmth was a moderating effect of spanking. Gershoff et al. (2010), found that normativeness of the discipline practice was a moderator that impacted the child’s behavior. The authors concluded:
Our findings that children’s perceptions of the normativeness of discipline were
related directly to their behavior and that they moderated the associations between
parent discipline and child behavior confirm a potentially important role for
children’s perceptions of normativeness in understanding how parent discipline
impacts child behavior. We encourage more researchers to consider the role of
perceived normativeness in their studies of parental discipline and to assess the
opinions of those most affected by discipline, the children themselves (p. 500).
The literature needs to address more specifically the moderating factors on the negative effects of spanking since this could be an important issue to address when assessing and intervening with families and children.
Though the issue of the context in which a child is spanked has been researched, there is still a gap in the literature on the specific context in which a child is reared.
Maguire-Jack, Gromoske, and Berger (2012) state the importance of future research
37 investigating the specifics of the context in which a child is spank and how this context may be a moderating effect on the negative outcomes of spanking.
Research on adult attitudes about corporal punishment and the acceptability of corporal punishment needs to be further researched (Gagne et al., 2007). The factors that result in adults accepting corporal punishment as discipline practice for children needs further studies to determine whether these societal factors and changes can be addressed specifically through education of professionals and parents (Gagne et al., 2007).
Since the majority of parents’ ask for discipline advice from their pediatricians, more research needs to be conducted on the type of discipline education parents receive from their pediatricians (Vittrup, Holden, & Buck, 2006). In addition, since pediatricians are providing the discipline tactics to parents, studies need to include the type of education pediatricians receive on discipline tactics while in medical school. From this research, educational interventions can be identified for pediatricians who have influence over parents’ choices.
There is a need for more research on the effects of a variety of discipline methods, as shown by Benjedt and Kazdin (2003). Regardless of the type of punishment (verbal punishment, loss of privilege, grounding, and spanking), the authors found that punishment as a whole had harmful effects on children. Therefore, researchers need to conduct studies that address if other punishing discipline tactics, not involving corporal punishment, have similar detrimental effects. This study found that punishment as a whole had harmful effects on children, regardless of the type of punishment: verbal
38 punishment, loss of privilege, grounding, and spanking. Therefore, the literature needs to address if other punishing discipline tactics, not involving corporal punishment, have similar detrimental effects. It would also be helpful to compare parents who use positive discipline techniques and parents who use punishing techniques and see if the punishing techniques have the same detrimental outcomes found in studies on the detrimental outcomes of spanking.
There is a gap in the literature about religion and corporal punishment. The connection between the Protestant religion and corporal punishment has been extensively researched. However, there is little research on other religions and their association and religious beliefs regarding corporal punishment. In other words, there needs to be studies focused on the use of corporal punishment among other religions, not just Protestants, and compare whether religion, in general, is a moderating effect on negative outcomes from spanking.
Further research needs to be conducted on the possible moderating effect of religion on negative outcomes from corporal punishment. Ellison, Musick, and Holden
(2011) point to the need for observational studies on Protestant parents to discover specifically how Protestant parents are implementing corporal punishment; and if this implementation is a factor in the moderating effect that some researchers have found.
The children of Protestant parents also need to be studied to see if their perception of the discipline received is different among Protestant children from non-Protestant children
39
(Ellison, Musick & Holden, 2011). And if this perception could be the reason for the moderating effect of religion on the negative outcomes from corporal punishment.
To add to the body of knowledge on corporal punishment, this study focused on the relationship between the parent and their child when their child reaches adulthood.
This study explored if corporal punishment negatively affects the future relationship.
McLoyd and Smith (2002) did find that children had less positive relationships with the parent that used spanking. However, there is no research about the child’s relationship with the parent when the child reaches adulthood. Therefore, this study hopes to add to the literature on corporal punishment.
Summary
In this chapter, literature relevant to this project was reviewed and discussed.
The topics discussed in this chapter were definitions of corporal punishment, history of corporal punishment, opposition to corporal punishment, support for corporal punishment, core factors linked with corporal punishment, and gaps in literature. This literature review discussed the variety of views on corporal punishment, both for and against this discipline method with research supporting both sides. In the next chapter, the study’s methods are described.
40
Chapter 3
METHODS
This chapter provides a description of all the methods used in this study. In this chapter the sections included are the research question, research design, participants, sample population, instrumentation, data gathering methods, and data analysis plan. The final section will address how human subjects were protected during this study.
Study Objectives
The study was designed to examine the following question: What is the relationship between corporal punishment and adult child-parent relationships?
Study Design
In order to investigate the research question, an exploratory research design was used using existing survey data collected at the agency, The Family Network, Inc. The
Family Network, Inc. provided the researcher with this secondary data that addressed the topics of interest to the researcher from a survey already completed by participants.
Exploratory research often relies on secondary research.
The secondary data provided to the researcher included the following variables: gender, age, education level, religion of childhood, age of participants’ mother, age of participants’ father, use of corporal punishment by participants’ mother, use of corporal punishment by participants’ father, relationship with participants’ mother in adulthood, relationship with participants’ father in adulthood, frequency of participant talking and seeing his/her mother in adulthood, and frequency of participant talking and seeing
41 his/her father in adulthood; to determine the relationship between corporal punishment and adult child-parent relationships.
This quantitative data design approach was used to explore the closed ended questions of the study since quantitative data is definite and specific about what it attempts to find (Dudley, 2011) and the goal of this research is to find out about the relationship between corporal punishment in childhood and adult-parent child relationships. Quantitative research is used to study this relationship since “quantitative inquiries are fairly specific about they want to find out” (Dudley, 2011, p.222).
The study was quantitative since demographic data was used and numerical values were applied to the non-demographic data of short answered questions for the purpose of statistically analyzing the data. Quantitative research is used when the data is put into numerical form (Marlow, 2005). Also, quantitative data will be used since it involves supporting an existing explanation and uses forced response questions (Dudley,
2011).
There are several benefits to using quantitative research. Quantitative research “.
. . can provide standardized measures of a concept and more accurate measures generally” (Dudley, 2011, p.26). This standardization allows the researcher to make direct comparisons between the different responses of the participants. In addition, quantitative research is able to be statistically analyzed to determine significance to the larger population (Dudley, 2011).
42
There are limitations of quantitative research. First, coding data into numerical form has the capacity for human error. Also, with using secondary data, the researcher is limited to the survey questions that were already asked, which may not be the exact question the researcher wanted to ask. Furthermore, the data provided may not be the same across all the surveys and client surveys may not answer all the questions. In addition, some surveys may include detailed information on open-ended questions while other surveys may provide only one word answers (Dudley, 2011).
Obtaining data from surveys has both strengths and weaknesses. Surveys are a good way to obtain research information on a specific topic (Rubbin & Babbie, 1989).
The surveys from which this research data was obtained were helpful in getting information answered to many questions, though this researcher was only interested in the variables described above. Surveys can be a good way of “…describing the characteristics of a large population” (Rubbin & Babbie, 1993, p. 351). However, one of the weaknesses of surveys is that surveys are not often the best way to obtain information on complex topics (Rubbin & Babbie, 1993). The issues of corporal punishment and adult child parent relationships are complex topics that a survey might not be the best way to obtain information on these topics.
Study Population
The study population for this research consisted of individual adults who applied to adopt from The Family Network, Inc., a specific adoption agency and completed
43 questionnaires as part of the adoption home-study process. The population was selected based on convenience since the researcher had access to this secondary data.
The actual population for this study consisted of 48 individuals. The level of education ranged from high school graduate to completing a doctorate. There were an equal number of female and male participants; 24 females and 24 males. Participants ranged in age from 25 to 50. The religion in which the participants were raised was: 18
Catholics, 14 Christians, four were raised with no religion, three of each were Baptist, and Jewish, two Episcopalians, and one of each were Protestant, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Seventh Day Adventist. The self-identified ethnicities of participants were 35
Caucasian, three of each were Hispanic, and Hispanic-Caucasian, and Jewish, and one of each were Chinese, Native American-Caucasian, Black, and Portuguese. All participants were raised by two parents with a total of 96 parents represented. The parents of the participants who used corporal punishment were 41. The parents of the participants who did not use corporal punishment were 54. In one survey, the participant did not state whether the parent used corporal punishment. The age range of the participant’s parents at the time of the survey was between age 50 to age 88.
Sampling Procedures
The non-probability quota sampling design was used to select the files. In this type of sampling, the participants were stratified into subgroups and then selected. In non-probability sampling design, the chance of being selected into the sample is unknown (Dudley, 2011). The system used was questionnaires that were randomly
44 collected out of the adoption agency’s file cabinet; two questionnaires were collected for each letter of the alphabet. For each letter of the alphabet, one questionnaire was collected for a female participant and one questionnaire was collected for a male participant. There were no questionnaires for the letters I and Z, resulting in 48 participants instead of 52.
The variables of interest (gender, age, education level, religion of childhood, age of participants’ mother, age of participants’ father, use of corporal punishment by participants’ mother, use of corporal punishment by participants’ father, relationship with participants’ mother in adulthood, relationship with participants’ father in adulthood, frequency of participant talking and seeing his/her mother in adulthood, and frequency of participant talking and seeing his/her father in adulthood) were obtained from the surveys and organized onto a spreadsheet by the Executive Director.
The instrument being used is the secondary data that the Executive Director collected from the surveys already conducted by The Family Network, Inc., the adoption agency. The adoption agency gave the researcher via email the spreadsheet with the variables of interest (stated above). The spreadsheet is password protected. The
Executive Director collected the surveys using the sampling design above, extracted the variables of interest, and provided the researcher a spreadsheet with these variables.
The non-probability quota sampling has advantages and disadvantages.
Nonprobability sampling is often used in exploratory studies with the goal being to gain additional information but not to generalize to the population. Since the sample used is
45 not representative of the population of all adult children, then the non-probability sampling allows the researcher to gain insight from this sample population without having to represent the entire population (Dudley, 2011). Given the subject matter, the method of nonprobability sampling is cheaper, faster and easier to conduct (Royse,
1999). However, the disadvantage of non-probability sampling is that the results cannot be generalized to a larger population (Dudley, 2011).
Data collection procedures. Data was received directly from the Executive
Director of The Family Network, Inc., the adoption agency. The data was obtained from the surveys titled, “Getting to Know You”, that clients completed as part of the adoption homestudy process. The forms were collected using the sampling method discussed above. The data of interest from those surveys, noted above, was collected and results were reported on a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet was electronically sent to the researcher with a password protecting the information. The results of the specific data this researcher obtained are located in the appendix section of the publication.
Instruments. The instrument used was survey data already conducted by the adoption agency. This secondary data included both open-ended and close-ended questions. For the purpose of this study, the Executive Director provided this researcher with a spreadsheet that included the following variables from the survey: gender, age, education level, religion of childhood, age of participants’ mother, age of participants’ father, use of corporal punishment by participants’ mother, use of corporal punishment by participants’ father, relationship with participants’ mother in adulthood, relationship with
46 participants’ father in adulthood, frequency of participant talking and seeing his/her mother in adulthood, and frequency of participant talking and seeing his/her father in adulthood.
Data Analysis
The demographic data was analyzed using SPSS, a computer software program that does statistical analysis. Per Dudley (2011), statistics are used to analyze any data that is in quantitative form, such as this data with demographic data and data in numerical form. The data obtained was coded and imputed for all the participants. Descriptive statistics was used for all the variables. Chi-square tests were conducted to investigate the association between corporal punishment and adult child-parent relationships.
Protection of Human Subjects
In the spring semester of 2012, the researcher submitted the human subjects application to the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects at California State
University in Sacramento, CA Division of Social Work. The application was approved as exempt since the researcher is evaluating secondary data. The application included a letter from the President of the Board of The Family Network, Inc. giving this researcher permission to use the secondary data of the-+-+ surveys for the purpose of this study.
Summary
This chapter describes the methods that were used in this study. This study used secondary data analysis of variables from a survey received by The Family Network adoption agency as part of the participant’s homestudy process. This study attempts to
47 find more information about the relationship between corporal punishment and adult parent-child relationships. Research design, study population and sampling methods, instrumentation, data gathering procedures and data analyses were discussed. Approval from the human subjects committee was also obtained prior to any data analysis. The next chapter will include the results of the analysis of the data provided.
48
Chapter 4
STUDY FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
In this chapter, the results of this secondary data study are presented. This research question examined was: What is the relationship between corporal punishment and adult-child parent relationships? The secondary data includes demographic data, data on respondents’ parents’ use of corporal punishment, and data on respondents’ relationship with that parent. There is also a discussion of the demographics of the respondents, the answers to the questions regarding the respondents’ parents’ use of corporal punishment, as well as the respondents’ relationship with that parent. The relationship between variables is assessed using chi-square tests. A summary concludes this chapter.
Demographics
A total of 48 respondents were included in this study. The sampling was designed for an equal number of females and males. All the respondents were married. Of the respondents, the vast majority (83.3%) were Caucasian/White (Table 4.1). There was only one respondent that was Portuguese, one respondent who was Chinese, and only one respondent who was African American/black. The majority of the respondents were between the ages of 30 and 45, with only 6.3% who were ages 25 to 29 and 6.3% who were ages 46 to 50. Respondents ages 36 to 40 made up the largest age category at
33.3% (Table 4.2). Nearly half of the respondents identified their childhood religion as
Christians (47.9%) and more than one-third identified their childhood religion
49 specifically as Catholic. Finally, about two-fifths of the respondents had a college degree and nearly one-third had a Masters or Ph.D. degree (Table 4.4).
Table 4.1
Ethnicity
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Caucasian/White 40 83.3 83.3 83.3 Hispanic 4 8.3 8.3 91.7
Portuguese 2 4.2 4.2 95.8 Valid Chinese 1 2.1 2.1 97.9 African American/Black 1 2.1 2.1 100.0 Total 48 100.0 100.0
Table 4.2
Age of Respondents
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Age 25-29 3 6.3 6.3 6.3 Age 30-35 13 27.1 27.1 33.4 Age 36-40 16 33.3 33.3 66.7 Valid Age 41-45 13 27.1 27.1 93.8 Age 46-50 3 6.3 6.3 100.0 Total 48 100.0 100.0
50
Table 4.3
Religion
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Catholic 18 37.5 37.5 37.5 Christian 23 47.9 47.9 85.4 Valid Jewish 3 6.3 6.3 91.7
No religion 4 8.3 8.3 100.0
Total 48 100.0 100.0
Table 4.4
Education
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent HS diploma 4 8.3 8.3 8.3 Some college 10 20.8 20.8 29.2 College degree 19 39.6 39.6 68.8 Valid Master's Degree 9 18.8 18.8 87.5 PhD 6 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 48 100.0 100.0
Corporal Punishment and Adult-Child Parent Relationships
In this section, the relationship between corporal punishment and adult-child parent relationships will be examined. Demographic data of the respondents will be used to determine whether there is a relationship between corporal punishment and adult-child parent relationships.
Corporal punishment use. The respondents answered the question: as a child, did your father use corporal punishment? The respondent circled either YES or NO. The
51 responses were close with 52.1% of respondent’s answering YES to their fathers using corporal punishment and 45.8% answering NO for their father not using corporal punishment (Table 4.5). There was one participant who did not have a father involved in their life.
The respondents answered the same question regarding their mother’s discipline: as a child, did your mother use corporal punishment? The options were limited to circling YES or NO. About two-thirds of the respondents reported that their mothers did not use corporal punishment (Table 4.6).
Table 4.5
Father’s use of Corporal Punishment
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Yes 24 50.0 50.0 50.0
No 23 47.9 47.9 97.9 Valid No response 1 2.1 2.1 100.0 Total 48 100.0 100.0
Table 4.6
Mother’s use of Corporal Punishment
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent yes 15 31.3 31.3 31.3
Valid no 33 68.8 68.8 100.0 Total 48 100.0 100.0
Relationship with parent. The respondents had the open ended questions asked: describe your current relationship with your mother and describe your current
52 relationship with your father. The answers were coded into five categories with the top category labeled best friends, then close relationship, then good relationship, then limited relationship and finally an estranged or no relationship. There were two that had no responses regarding their relationship with their father. The majority of the answers were that the respondents have a close relationship with their father (45.8%) (Table 4.7).
Similar proportions also describe their relationship with their mother as close (41.7%)
(Table 4.8).
Table 4.7
Relationship with Father
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent close 22 45.8 45.8 45.8 good 14 29.2 29.2 75.0
limited 5 10.4 10.4 85.4 Valid Estranged/no relationship 4 8.3 8.3 93.8 No response 3 6.3 6.3 100.0 Total 48 100.0 100.0
53
Table 4.8
Relationship with Mother
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
best friends 11 22.9 22.9 22.9 close 20 41.7 41.7 64.6 Valid good 13 27.1 27.1 91.7
limited 4 8.3 8.3 100.0 Total 48 100.0 100.0
Use of corporal punishment and relationship with parent. The main purpose of this study was to explore if there is a connection between a parents’ use of corporal punishment with their child and their future relationship with that child when that child reaches adulthood. As shown above, half of the fathers used corporal punishment with their children (Table 4.5). There was no difference reported between those stating that they had a close relationship with their father in adulthood and whether that parent used corporal punishment (Table 4.9). However, of those fathers who used corporal punishment, 55.6% of the respondents described their relationship with their father as close, as opposed to good or limited. Of the fathers who did not use corporal punishment, 66.7% described their relationship with that father as close, as opposed to good or limited (Table 4.10). Even though more adults described a close relationship with their father who did not spank than those who had a father who spanked, the chi square test was not statistically significant.
54
On the other hand, for mother who use of corporal punishment, only one respondent described their relationship with their mother as “best friends” (Table 4.11).
However, of the mothers who did not use corporal punishment, 10 respondents described their relationship with their mother as “best friends.” Since there was only one respondent in the “best friend’s category, the chi square test was irrelevant. Overall, there were more respondents with positive relationships with their mother who did not use corporal punishment than those mothers who did use corporal punishment.
55
Table 4.9
Father’s Corporal Punishment and Relationship with Father
Relationship with father
Good/close Limited/none Total
Count 18 6 24
% within father's use of corporal 75.0% 25.0% 100.0% Yes punishment % within relationship 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% with father father's use of % of Total 37.5% 12.5% 50.0% corporal Count 18 6 24 punishment % within father's use of corporal 75.0% 25.0% 100.0% No or no punishment response % within relationship 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% with father
% of Total 37.5% 12.5% 50.0%
Count 36 12 48
% within father's use of corporal 75.0% 25.0% 100.0% Total punishment % within relationship 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% with father
% of Total 75.0% 25.0% 100.0%
56
Table 4.10
Father’s Corporal Punishment and Relationship with Father
Relationship with father
Close Good Total
Count 10 8 18
% within father's use of corporal 55.6% 44.4% 100.0% punishment Yes % within relationship with 45.5% 57.1% 50.0% father father's use of % of Total 27.8% 22.2% 50.0% corporal Count 12 6 18 punishment % within father's use of corporal 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% No or no punishment response % within relationship with 54.5% 42.9% 50.0% father
% of Total 33.3% 16.7% 50.0%
Count 22 14 36
% within father's use of corporal 61.1% 38.9% 100.0% punishment Total % within relationship with 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% father
% of Total 61.1% 38.9% 100.0%
57
Table 4.11
Mother’s Corporal Punishment and Relationship with Mother
Relationship with mother
Best Friends Close/Good Total
Count 1 13 14
% within mother's use of 7.1% 92.9% 100.0% corporal punishment Yes % within relationship 9.1% 39.4% 31.8% with mother mother's use of % of Total 2.3% 29.5% 31.8% corporal Count 10 20 30 punishment % within mother's use of 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% corporal punishment No % within relationship 90.9% 60.6% 68.2% with mother
% of Total 22.7% 45.5% 68.2%
Count 11 33 44
% within mother's use of 25.0% 75.0% 100.0% corporal punishment Total % within relationship 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% with mother
% of Total 25.0% 75.0% 100.0%
Religion and Use of Corporal Punishment
The parents’ use of corporal punishment was compared to the religion of the parents. Fathers who were Protestant Christian used corporal punishment more frequently (62.5%) than non-Protestant Christian fathers (37.5%). There was a statistically significant association shown in the chi-square test (χ2 = 4.09; df=1; p=0.043)
(Table 4.12). When comparing Protestant Christian fathers and Catholic fathers, again
58
Protestant Christian fathers used corporal punishment (68.2%) more than Catholic fathers
(31.8%), and this result was approaching significance (p=0.093) (Table 4.13).
Mothers who were Protestant Christian also used corporal punishment (66.7%) more than mothers who were not Protestant Christian (33.3%) and this result was approaching significance (p=0.08) (Table 4.14). When Protestant Christian mothers and
Catholic mothers were compared, the value approached significance (p=0.063) on the
Pearson chi square test, with only 23.1% of Catholic mothers using corporal punishment compared to 76.9% of Protestant Christian mothers (Table 4.15).
59
Table 4.12
Religion and Father’s use of Corporal Punishment
Father’s use of corporal punishment
Yes No or no response Total
Count 15 8 23
% within religion 65.2% 34.8% 100.0%
Christian % within father's use of 62.5% 33.3% 47.9% corporal punishment
% of Total 31.2% 16.7% 47.9% religion Count 9 16 25
% within religion 36.0% 64.0% 100.0% Other % within father's use of religion 37.5% 66.7% 52.1% corporal punishment
% of Total 18.8% 33.3% 52.1%
Count 24 24 48
100.0% % within religion 50.0% 50.0% Total % within father's use of 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% corporal punishment
% of Total 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%
60
Table 4.13
Christian vs. Catholic and Father’s use of Corporal Punishment
Father’s use of corporal punishment
Yes No or no response Total
Count 15 8 23
% within religion 65.2% 34.8% 100.0%
Christian % within father's use of 68.2% 42.1% 56.1% corporal punishment
% of Total 36.6% 19.5% 56.1% 1religion Count 7 11 18
% within religion 38.9% 61.1% 100.0%
Catholic % within father's use of 31.8% 57.9% 43.9% corporal punishment
% of Total 17.1% 26.8% 43.9%
Count 22 19 41
% within religion 53.7% 46.3% 100.0%
Total % within father's use of 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% corporal punishment
% of Total 53.7% 46.3% 100.0%
61
Table 4.14
Religion and Mother’s use of Corporal Punishment
Mother’s use of corporal punishment
Yes No Total
Count 10 13 23
% within religion 43.5% 56.5% 100.0%
Christian % within mother's use of 66.7% 39.4% 47.9% corporal punishment
% of Total 20.8% 27.1% 47.9% religion Count 5 20 25
% within religion 20.0% 80.0% 100.0%
Other religion % within mother's use of 33.3% 60.6% 52.1% corporal punishment
% of Total 10.4% 41.7% 52.1%
Count 15 33 48
% within religion 31.2% 68.8% 100.0%
Total % within mother's use of 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% corporal punishment
% of Total 31.2% 68.8% 100.0%
62
Table 4.15
Christian vs. Catholic and Mother's use of Corporal Punishment
Mother’s use of corporal punishment
Yes No Total
Count 10 13 23
% within religion 43.5% 56.5% 100.0%
% within mother's Christian use of corporal 76.9% 46.4% 56.1% punishment
% of Total 24.4% 31.7% 56.1% religion Count 3 15 18
% within religion 16.7% 83.3% 100.0%
% within mother's Catholic use of corporal 23.1% 53.6% 43.9% punishment
% of Total 7.3% 36.6% 43.9%
Count 13 28 41
% within religion 31.7% 68.3% 100.0%
% within mother's Total use of corporal 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% punishment
% of Total 31.7% 68.3% 100.0%
Parent’s Age and Use of Corporal Punishment
The age of the parents of the respondents was compared to the parents’ use of corporal punishment. Unexpectedly, fathers who were younger than 67 years old used corporal punishment at a higher rate (68%) than fathers who were older than 68 years old
(32%) (Table 4.16). Per the Pearson chi square test, this result approached significance
63
(p=0.095). No significance was found for the age of the mother and her use of corporal punishment.
Table 4.16
Father’s age and use of Corporal Punishment
Father’s use of corporal punishment
Yes No or no response Total
Count 15 10 25
% within father’s age 60.0% 40.0% 100.0% 67 and % within father's use of younger 68.2% 43.5% 55.5% corporal punishment
% of Total 33.3% 22.2% 55.5% Father’s age Count 7 13 20
% within father’s age 35.0% 65.0% 100.0% 68 and % within father's use of older 31.8% 56.5% 44.5% corporal punishment
% of Total 15.6% 28.9% 44.5%
Count 22 23 45
% within father’s age 48.9% 51.1% 100.0%
Total % within father's use of 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% corporal punishment
% of Total 48.9% 51.1% 100.0%
Gender and Relationship with Parent
The respondents’ gender was compared to their relationship with their parent.
Over eighty percent of respondents reported having a “best friends” relationship with their mother compared to less than one-fifths of males reporting a “best friends” relationship with their mother (Table 4.17). There was a statistically significant association shown in chi-square test (χ2=5.939; df=1;p=0.015). Regarding their
64 relationship with their father, almost two-thirds of females described a close relationship with their fathers as compared with more than one-third of males (Table 4.18). Despite this difference, the chi-square test was not statistically significant.
Table 4.17
Gender and Relationship with Mother
Relationship with mother Total Best friends Close/Good
Count 9 13 22
% within gender 40.9% 59.1% 100.0%
female % within relationship 81.8% 39.4% 50.0% with mother
% of Total 20.5% 29.5% 50.0% gender Count 2 20 22
% within gender 9.1% 90.9% 100.0%
male % within relationship 18.2% 60.6% 50.0% with mother
% of Total 4.5% 45.5% 50.0%
Count 11 33 44
% within gender 25.0% 75.0% 100.0%
Total % within relationship 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% with mother
% of Total 25.0% 75.0% 100.0%
65
Table 4.18
Gender and Relationship with Father
Relationship with father
close good Total
Count 14 6 20
% within gender 70.0% 30.0% 100.0%
female % within relationship 63.6% 42.9% 55.6% with father
% of Total 38.9% 16.7% 55.6% gender Count 8 8 16
% within gender 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%
male % within relationship 36.4% 57.1% 44.4% with father
% of Total 22.2% 22.2% 44.4%
Count 22 14 36
% within gender 61.1% 38.9% 100.0%
Total % within relationship 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% with father
% of Total 61.1% 38.9% 100.0%
Gender and Use of Corporal Punishment
The gender of the respondent was compared to their parents’ use of corporal punishment. Mothers used corporal punishment more often with their sons (60%) than with their daughters (40%) but this difference was not statistically significant using the
Pearson chi square test (Table 4.19). Fathers used corporal punishment almost equally among their sons and daughters (Table 4.20).
66
Table 4.19 Gender and Mother’s use of Corporal Punishment
Mother's use of corporal punishment
Yes No Total
Count 6 18 24
% within gender 25.0% 75.0% 100.0%
female % within mother's use of 40.0% 54.5% 50.0% corporal punishment
% of Total 12.5% 37.5% 50.0% gender Count 9 15 24
% within gender 37.5% 62.5% 100.0%
male % within mother's use of 60.0% 45.5% 50.0% corporal punishment
% of Total 18.8% 31.2% 50.0%
Count 15 33 48
% within gender 31.2% 68.8% 100.0%
Total % within mother's use of 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% corporal punishment
% of Total 31.2% 68.8% 100.0%
67
Table 4.20
Gender and Father’s use of Corporal Punishment
Father's use of corporal punishment Total
Yes No or no response
Count 11 13 24
% within gender 45.8% 54.2% 100.0%
female % within father's use of corporal 45.8% 54.2% 50.0% punishment
% of Total 22.9% 27.1% 50.0% gender Count 13 11 24
% within gender 54.2% 45.8% 100.0%
male % within father's use of corporal 54.2% 45.8% 50.0% punishment
% of Total 27.1% 22.9% 50.0%
Count 24 24 48
% within gender 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%
Total % within father's use of corporal 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% punishment
% of Total 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%
Ethnicity and Use of Corporal Punishment
The ethnicity of the respondents was compared to the respondent’s parent’s use of corporal punishment. Fathers who were not Caucasian used corporal punishment less
(12.5%) when compared with Caucasian fathers (87.5%) (Table 4.21). However, due to the small numbers of non-white respondents, the chi square test was irrelevant. In addition, mothers who were Caucasian had higher rates of using corporal punishment
68
(93.3%) than mothers who were not Caucasian (6.7%) (Table 4.22). Again, due to the small numbers of non-white respondents, the chi square test was irrelevant.
Table 4.21
Ethnicity and Father’s use of Corporal Punishment
Father’s use of corporal punishment
Yes No or no response Total
Count 21 19 40
% within ethnicity 52.5% 47.5% 100.0%
White % within father's use of 87.5% 79.2% 83.3% corporal punishment
% of Total 43.8% 39.6% 100.0% ethnicity Count 3 5 8
% within ethnicity white 37.5% 62.5% 100.0% vs. nonwhite Other % within father's use of 12.5% 20.8% 16.7% corporal punishment
% of Total 6.2% 10.4% 16.7%
Count 24 24 48
% within ethnicity white 100.0% 50.0% 50.0% vs. nonwhite Total % within father's use of 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% corporal punishment
% of Total 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%
69
Table 4.22
Ethnicity and Mother’s use of Corporal Punishment
Mother’s use of corporal punishment
Yes No Total
Count 14 26 40
% within ethnicity 35.0% 65.0% 100.0%
White % within mother's use 93.3% 78.8% 83.3% of corporal punishment
% of Total 29.2% 54.2% 83.4% ethnicity Count 1 7 8
% within ethnicity 12.5% 87.5% 100.0%
Other % within mother's use 6.7% 21.2% 16.7% of corporal punishment
% of Total 2.1% 14.6% 16.7%
Count 15 33 48
% within ethnicity 31.2% 68.8% 100.0%
Total % within mother's use 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% of corporal punishment
% of Total 31.2% 68.8% 100.0%
Summary
This chapter presented the results of this study. The relationship between a parents’ use of corporal punishment and that parents’ future relationship with their adult child was examined. Other variables of the study were also compared and presented.
The next chapter will analyze and discuss these results and present the conclusions, limitations, and implication for social work and future practice and policy.
70
Chapter 5
CONCLUSION, SUMMARY, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter summarizes the results found in this study. The research question was tested, comparing the variables of the use of corporal punishment and the adult child- parent relationship. The demographics of this study were also compared with the variables use of corporal punishment and the adult child-parent relationship. The study’s limitations will be presented as well as the implications for social work practice, policy, and future research.
Summary
This research study was an analysis of secondary data from The Family Network adoption agency. This study explored the relationship between the use of corporal punishment and future adult child-parent relationships. Though extensive research has been conducted on the subject of corporal punishment, there is no research on the connection between the use of corporal punishment and the parent-child relationship.
The use of corporal punishment and adult-child parent relationships were explored. The use of corporal punishment and the adult-child parent relationships were compared and there were no statistically significant results. However, this study did find that mothers who used spanking had a less positive relationship with their child than mothers who did not use spanking. This was not statistically significant since there was only one respondent in one cell so the chi square test could not be completed.
71
The use of corporal punishment was compared with demographic data. This study found a statistically significant association between a father’s and mother’s use of corporal punishment and their religion of Protestant Christian. Furthermore, when comparing Catholic parents and Protestant parents, Protestant parents used corporal punishment more often than Catholic parents and this association was approaching significance. Fathers who were age 67 or younger used corporal punishment more than fathers age 68 or older and this result was approaching significance. There was a statistical association between more female respondents having a best friends’ relationship with their mother than male respondents. Females also reported having a close relationship with their father more than male respondents but this was not statistically significance. Ethnicity was compared with the use of corporal punishment but due to the small number of respondents who were not White, no statistical significance could be determined.
Discussion
This study researched the association between the use of corporal punishment and adult parent child relationships. There was no statistically significant data found between these two variables. Corporal punishment use by one’s father did not result in any difference in the future relationship with that father. The results did show that only one respondent who was spanked by their mother as a child reported a best friends’ relationship with their mother in adulthood. However, of mothers’ who did not spank, ten respondents reported a best friends’ relationship; 90% more than mothers who
72 spanked. This result could be explained using the attachment theory as a model. Since the mother is usually the primary caretaker of the children, if the mother spanked their child, this could impede the attachment bond and result in a less strong relationship between the mother and child, as this study shows. Since one of the goals of the attachment relationship is to teach a child that their primary caregiver is a safe and trusted base to explore the world, if the caregiver inflicts physical pain on the child as a form of discipline, there is the potential of the child perceiving the caregiver negatively thus impacting their relationship (Lesser & Pope, 2011). This study’s result would support that idea since mothers who did not spank their children were significantly more likely
(90% more) to have a best friend relationship with their child when their child became an adult.
This study supported the previous literature that corporal punishment was more favorably used among Conservative Christians (Andero & Stewart, 2002). This study found that Protestant Christians spanked their children more often than non-Protestant parents. The association was found to be statistically significant. A recent study by Petts and Kysar-Moon (2012) also found that Conservative Protestants were the group that was most likely to accept and utilize corporal punishment as a form of discipline.
This study supported the previous research regarding gender differences in spanking. This study found that mothers used corporal punishment more frequently with their sons (60%) than their daughters (40%), though this result was not statistically significant. Literature does support the claim that sons are more likely to be spanked
73 than daughters (MacKenzie et al., 2011). On the other hand, this study found that fathers spanked their sons and daughters equally.
Ethnicity and corporal punishment have been studied frequently in the literature
(Deater-Deckard et al., 2003; Horn et al., 2004; Huang & Lee, 2008; Gershoff et al.,
2012; Lansford et al., 2005; McLoyd & Smith, 2002; Stacks et al., 2009; Vittrup &
Holden, 2010). However, since over eighty percent of the respondents in this study were identified as Caucasian/White, there was not enough variation to examine the association of ethnicity and corporal punishment.
The age of the parents who used the corporal punishment was compared with their use of corporal punishment. This study unexpectedly found that fathers who were
67 years old or younger used corporal punishment more than fathers who were age 68 or older. The results approached significance using the Pearson chi square test. This result is not supported by the literature. According to the literature (Straus, 1996; Cummings,
2001), adults’ acceptance of corporal punishment has declined over time with adults in the late 1960s highly supporting spanking but adults in the year 2000 were less likely to support spankings. Therefore, it is unclear why this study found that the younger generation spanked more than the older generation since the opposite has been found in the literature.
This study also compared the respondents’ gender and their relationship with their parent. A statistically significant association was found (p=0.015) with female respondents reporting a best friend relationship with their mother more than male
74 respondents. It is a commonly held belief that daughters and mothers have stronger bonds as adults than sons and mothers. According to Butler and Shalit-Naggar (2008),
“mothers are predisposed to create more intimate relations with daughters” (p.837).
There is also the socially acceptable relationship between a son and his mother. There is an old saying “a son is a son till he takes a wife, a daughter is a daughter your entire life”
(“Search Quotes,” n.d.). Since all the respondents in this sample were married and often the wife takes on the role of the mother after marriage, this could account for the men in the sample reporting a less close relationship with their mothers than the female respondents. In addition, it is not as socially acceptable for boys to be best friends with their mothers. The term “momma’s boy” is used as a derogatory term to indicate a boy who is so close to his mother that he lacks masculinity and independence (Risch, 1987).
Hence, it is not socially acceptable for a male to label his relationship with his mother as best friends, thus possibly accounting for this statistical significant association.
Limitations
There are several limitations of this study. One limitation is the small sample size of 48 participants. Given this small number, there were comparisons made in the statistical analysis that had small cells. Additionally, this study used secondary data, which has its own limitations. This data was collected from a private adoption agency so the age range of the respondents and their ethnicity was not representative of the public population. Since the data was taken from a private adoption agency, which is an expensive process to adopt, the respondents had financial resources and were in a high
75 socioeconomic bracket of society. In addition, all the respondents were married; therefore singles, widowers, and divorcees were not sampled. Furthermore, the questionnaire was filled out by adoptive parents applying to adopt a child and they may have given more favorable responses about their relationships with their parents in order to demonstrate positive relationships to the adoption agency staff. In other words, the respondents might have been affected by the social desirability bias to show personal positive parenting relationships for fear that they may not be viewed by the adoption agency staff as good enough parents to adopt a child. The questions on the questionnaire also had limitations. One of the questions analyzed was about whether the respondents’ parent used corporal punishment or not. The definition of corporal punishment was not given, so it was left open to interpretation. Therefore, the interpretation may not have been uniform. For example, some respondents may have considered spanking not to be corporal punishment while other respondents may have considered spanking to be corporal punishment. Also, the description of the respondents’ relationship with their parent was an open ended question that was coded into categories by the researcher. This coding was open to interpretation and may have differed among other researchers.
Further research could include a larger sample that is more representative of the differences in society with individuals of different socioeconomic classes, ethnicities, and other relationship statuses represented. Also, future research could customize the questionnaire to explain specifically the definition of corporal punishment and allow for
Likert scale types of items to define the relationship with one’s parent more uniformly.
76
Implications for Social Work Practice and Policy
This study shows implications for social work practice and policy. Since there is little research on the long term implications of using corporal punishment on the adult parent-child relationship, future research is necessary. In addition, these results show an impact of corporal punishment on the mother-child relationship in adulthood, indicating a possible effect of corporal punishment on the attachment bond that needs to be addressed further in research studies.
The study also supports some of the values of social work, shown by the National
Association of Social Work’s (2008) code of ethics, of respect, dignity and worth of a person, and the importance of human relationships. This study confirms the idea that treating children with respect, dignity, and worth is very important in the formation and strength of future human relationships. This study indicates that the maternal relationship can be impacted by corporal punishment and children who are treated with respect, dignity and worth even when disciplined and have a better relationship with their mother when they reach adulthood.
On a micro level, it is important for individuals and families to be aware of the possible impact of corporal punishment on the attachment bond, the subsequent effects of this impact, as well as other negative impacts of corporal punishment. The more families are aware of the negative effects of corporal punishment and the research in support of other discipline methods, the more empowered families would be to make informed decisions about their use of corporal punishment.
77
On a mezzo level, this study’s results can be used to inform social workers, pediatricians and community workers, including pastors, about the populations at higher risk for using corporal punishment. Since Protestant Christian parents use corporal punishment more often than all other parents, this information can support the community workers in identifying these parents. This knowledge and subsequent development of interventions may benefit families to learn about the impact of corporal punishment and other effective discipline methods. In this study, the Protestant Christian community is identified as a community that needs to be targeted to address their beliefs in corporal punishment and inform them about the negative consequences of this type of punishment and present them with alternatives.
On the macro level, this study supports the policy to ban corporal punishment in the United States. Since corporal punishment may have a negative effect on the attachment bond that is fundamental to human relationships and child development, the importance of banning this type of punishment is even more necessitated. In addition, by banning corporal punishment, a policy can focus on educating families about alternative methods. Since corporal punishment is still legal, parents are not required to look for alternative methods. However, if it became illegal, parents and professionals might be more motivated to develop alternative methods that may lead to having more emotionally healthy families and children.
Further research could be conducted to continue to explore the connection between corporal punishment use and parent-child relationships, especially as it relates to
78 the attachment bond. In addition, more research could be completed to explore the reasons behind the high level of corporal punishment use among Protestant Christians in order to develop interventions that address these factors.
Recommendations
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between a parent’s use of corporal punishment and their future relationship with their child when their child reaches adulthood. Below is a list of recommendations developed for families, social workers, and other community workers to address the topic of corporal punishment and parent-child relationships:
Pediatricians come into the most contact with children and families since children
have frequent well baby visits as infants and have annual physicals as part of
attending school. Pediatricians could give parents literature on age appropriate
discipline techniques along with the information on child developmental
milestones that is already standardly provided. This literature could include
positive ways to discipline a child as well as information on the negative effects
of corporal punishment (Evans & Fargason, 1998).
Policymakers could focus on making corporal punishment illegal due to its
detrimental effects. Corporal punishment is no longer legal in many states in the
school system. The same policy could include the family due to the consequences
to the child from this type of discipline. If parents are found guilty of using
corporal punishment, parents could be mandated to take a positive discipline class
79 in order to empower them with other discipline methods (Fritz, 2008 & Jenny,
2009).
Hospitals and schools could offer free parent classes on positive discipline techniques. Similar to classes on baby care and breastfeeding, these classes could present parents with discipline techniques that are effective and that do not use physical pain as a form of discipline. These classes can include role playing and exercises to allow parents to practice different methods in order to gain these skills. The more likely parents are empowered with alternative methods, the less often will parents need to rely on ineffective methods, such as corporal punishment.
Further research needs to be conducted to examine the relationship between attachment and the use of corporal punishment. The research could specifically address the connection between the attachment relationship with the parent and child and the use of corporal punishment and the frequency of its use. The research could compare children who are securely attached to children who are insecurely attached and their parent’s use of corporal punishment and the frequency of its use. Furthermore, this study needs to be conducted among a larger and more diverse sample to continue to examine the relationship between corporal punishment and adult child-parent relationships.
80
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between corporal punishment and adult child-parent relationships. The study was also conducted to contribute to the research on corporal punishment and address a topic about corporal punishment that has not yet been explored, including the effect on future adult child- parent relationships. This study supported previous research on corporal punishment, which indicated that corporal punishment is most frequently used by Protestant Christian parents and mothers spanked their sons more than their daughters. This study unexpectedly found that respondents whose fathers were 67 years old or younger, at the time of the survey, spanked more frequently than fathers who were over age 67 (this result approached significance). This study did find that mothers who did not spank their children had a higher incidence of having a best friend relationship with their mother in adulthood than mothers who spanked their children; however, the small sample size could not determine significance. Therefore, further research studies with larger and representative samples must be completed to address whether parent-child relationships are affected by spanking.
81
Appendix A. Consent for Agency Secondary Data use
Date: January 1, 2013
Dear Ms. Audrey Leonard:
I have approved your request to conduct a research project using information from surveys obtained by The Family Network, Inc. We provided you with a spreadsheet with the following variables: gender, age, education level, religion of childhood, age of participants’ mother, age of participants’ father, use of corporal punishment by participants’ mother, use of corporal punishment by participants’ father, relationship with participants’ mother in adulthood, relationship with participants’ father in adulthood, frequency of participant talking and seeing his/her mother in adulthood, and frequency of participant talking and seeing his/her father in adulthood; to protect the confidentiality of our clients while also giving you the information needed for this research. The spreadsheet will be provided to you with a password to safeguard our clients’ data. We request that you keep the spreadsheet password protected on your computer only and that your computer be password protected as well in order to ensure maximum safeguarding of our clients’ data. The Family Network, Inc. gives you permission to use this data for the purpose of your research project.
Sincerely,
Drew Roth President of the Board The Family Network, Inc.
82
References
Andero, A. A., & Stewart, A. (2002). Issue of corporal punishment: Re-examined.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29(2), 90.
Bell, T., & Romano, E. (2012). Opinions about child corporal punishment and
influencing factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(11), 2208-2229.
doi:10.1177/0886260511432154
Benjet, C., & Kazdin, A. E. (2003). Spanking children: the controversies, findings, and
new directions. Clinical Psychology Review, 23(2), 197.
Buntain-Ricklefs, J. J., Kemper, K. J., Bell, M., & Babonis, T. (1994). Punishments:
What predicts adult approval. Child Abuse & Neglect, 18, 945-955.
Butler, R., & Shalit-Naggar, R. (2008). Gender and patterns of concerned responsiveness
in representations of the mother–daughter and mother–son relationship. Child
Development, 79(4), 836-851. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01162.x
Cain, D. S. (2008). Parenting online and lay literature on infant spanking: Information
readily available to parents. Social Work in Health Care, 47(2), 174-184.
doi:10.1080/00981380801970343
Cooper, W. M. (1988). An illustrated history of the rod. Hertfordshire, Great Britain:
Wordsworth Editions Ltd.
Cummings, M.S. (2001). Political correctness: Social transformation in the United States.
London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
83
Deater-Deckard, K., Pettit, G. S., Lansford, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Bates, J. E. (2003).
The development of attitudes about physical punishment: An 8-year longitudinal
study. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(3), 351-360. doi:10.1037/0893-
3200.17.3.351
Douglas, E. M. (2006). Familial violence socialization in childhood and later life
approval of corporal punishment: A cross-cultural perspective. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, 76(1), 23-30. doi:10.1037/0002-9432.76.1.23
Dudley, James R. (2011). Research methods for social work: Being producers and
consumers of research (Updated Ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Ellison, C. G., Musick, M. A., & Holden, G. W. (2011). Does Conservative Protestantism
moderate the association between corporal punishment and child outcomes?
Journal of Marriage & Family, 73(5), 946-961. doi:10.1111/j.1741-
3737.2011.00854.x
Evans, H. H., & Fargason, C. A. (1998). Pediatric discourse on corporal punishment: A
historical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3(4), 357-368.
Ferguson, C. J. (2013). Spanking, corporal punishment and negative long-term outcomes:
A meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Clinical Psychology Review,
33(1), 196-208. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2012.11.002
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(1), 21-37.
84
Fritz, G. K. (2008). Should spanking a child be unlawful? Brown University Child &
Adolescent Behavior Letter, 8.
Gagne, M. H., Tourigny, M., Joly, J., & Pouliot-Lapointe, J. (2007). Predictors of adult
attitudes toward corporal punishment of children. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 22(10), 1285-1304.
Gershoff, E. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and
experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin,
128(4), 539.
Gershoff, E. T., Grogan-Kaylor, A., Lansford, J. E., Chang, L., Zelli, A., Deater-Deckard,
K., & Dodge, K. A. (2010). Parent discipline practices in an international
sample: Associations with child behaviors and moderation by perceived
normativeness. Child Development, 81(2), 487-502. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2009.01409.x
Gershoff, E. T., Lansford, J. E., Sexton, H. R., Davis-Kean, P., & Sameroff, A. J. (2012).
Longitudinal links between spanking and children's externalizing behaviors in a
national sample of White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian American families. Child
Development, 83(3), 838-843. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01732.x
Glenn, M. C. (1984). Campaigns against corporal punishment: Prisoners, sailors, women,
and children in antebellum America. Albany, New York: State University of New
York Press.
85
Greven, P. J. (1990). Spare the child: The religious roots of punishment and the
psychological impact of physical abuse. New York: Random House, Inc.
Gromoske, A. N., & Maguire-Jack, K. (2012). Transactional and cascading relations
between early spanking and children's social-emotional development. Journal of
Marriage & Family, 74(5), 1054-1068. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01013.
Hicks-Pass, S. (2009). Corporal punishment in America today: Spare the rod, spoil the
child? A systematic review of the literature. Best Practice in Mental Health, 5(2),
71-88.
Horn, I. B., Cheng, T. L., & Joseph, J. (2004). Discipline in the African American
community: The impact of socioeconomic status on beliefs and practices.
Pediatrics, 113(5), 1236-1241.
Huang, C., & Lee, I. (2008). The first-three years of parenting: Evidence from the Fragile
Families and Child Well-Being study. Children & Youth Services Review, 30(12),
1447-1457. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.05.001
Jenny, C. (2009). Spanking should not be lawful. Brown University Child & Adolescent
Behavior Letter, 25(5), 8.
Lansford, J. E., Wager, L. B., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., & Dodge, K. A. (2012). Forms of
spanking and children's externalizing behaviors. Family Relations, 61(2), 224-
236. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00700.x
86
Larzelere, R. E., & Kuhn, B. R. (2005). Comparing child outcomes of physical
punishment and alternative disciplinary tactics: A meta-analysis. Clinical Child &
Family Psychology Review, 8(1), 1-37. doi:10.1007/s10567-005-2340-z
MacKenzie, M. J., Nicklas, E., Waldfogel, J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2012). Corporal
punishment and child behavioural and cognitive outcomes through 5 years of age:
Evidence from a contemporary urban birth cohort study. Infant & Child
Development, 21(1), 3-33. doi:10.1002/icd.758
MacKenzie, M. J., Nicklas, E., Brooks-Gunn, J., Waldfogel, J. (2011). Who spanks
infants and toddlers? Evidence from the fragile families and child well-being
study. Child Youth Service 33(8), 1364-1373. doi:
10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.04.007
Maguire-Jack, K., Gromoske, A. N., & Berger, L. M. (2012). Spanking and child
development during the first 5 years of life. Child Development, 83(6), 1960
1977.
Marlow, C. R. (2005). Research methods for generalist social work. Belmont, California:
Brooks/Cole.
Middleton, J. (2012). Spare the rod. History Today, 62(11), 5-6.
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 & Family, 64(1), 40-53.
87
Paolucci, E., & Violato, C. (2004). A meta-analysis of the published research on the
affective, cognitive, and behavioral effects of corporal punishment. Journal of
Psychology, 138(3), 197-221.
Petts, R., & Kysar-Moon, A. (2012). Child discipline and Conservative Protestantism:
Why the relationship between corporal punishment and child behavior problems
may vary by religious context. Review of Religious Research, 54(4), 445-468.
doi:10.1007/s13644012-0080-3
Regalado, M., Sareen, H., Inkelas, M., Wissow, L. S., & Halfon, N. (2004). Parents'
discipline of young children: Results from the national survey of early childhood
health. Pediatrics, 1131952-1958.
Risch, B. (1987). Women's derogatory terms for men: That's right, “dirty” words.
Language in Society, 16, 353-358. doi:10.1017/S0047404500012434.
Royse, D. (1999). Research methods in social work (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (1989). Research methods for social work. Belmont, California:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (1993). Research methods for social work (2nd ed.). Pacific
Grove, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Saadeh, W., Rizzo, C. P., & Roberts, D. G. (2002). Spanking. Clinical Pediatrics, 41(2),
87-91.
88
Search quotes. (n.d.). Unknown quotes. Retrieved April 7, 2013 from
http://www.searchquotes.com/quotation/A_son_is_a_son_till_he_gets_a_wife%3`
B_a_daughter_is_a_daughter_for_the_rest_of_her_life./278049/
Simons, D. A., & Wurtele, S. K. (2010). Relationships between parents’ use of corporal
punishment and their children's endorsement of spanking and hitting other
children. ChildAbuse & Neglect, 34(9), 639-646.
doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.01.012
Slade, E. P., & Wissow, L. S. (2004). Spanking in early childhood and later behavior
problems: A prospective study of infants and young toddlers. Pediatrics, 113(5),
1321-1330.
Stacks, A., Oshio, T., Gerard, J., & Roe, J. (2009). The moderating effect of parental
warmth on the association between spanking and child aggression: a longitudinal
approach. Infant & Child Development, 18(2), 178-194. doi:10.1002/icd.596
Straus, M. A. (1996). Spanking and the making of a violent society. Pediatrics, 98(4),
837.
Straus, M. A. (2001). New evidence for the benefits of never spanking. Society, 38(6),
52-60.
Straus, M. A., & Mouradian, V. E. (1998). Impulsive corporal punishment by mothers
and antisocial behavior and impulsiveness of children. Behavioral Sciences & The
Law, 16(3), 353-374.
89
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 & Family Psychology Review,
2(2), 55-70.
Taylor, C. A., Hamvas, L., Rice, J., Newman, D. L., & DeJong, W. (2011). Perceived
social norms, expectations, and attitudes toward corporal punishment among an
Urban community sample of parents. Journal of Urban Health, 88(2), 254-269.
doi:10.1007/s11524-011-9548-7
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(6), 761-782. doi:10.1177/0192513X03258313
Vittrup, B., & Holden, G. W. (2010). Children's assessments of corporal punishment and
other disciplinary practices: The role of age, race, SES, and exposure to spanking.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(3), 211-220.
doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2009.11.003