The Instrumental Side of Corporal Punishment: Parents' Reported Practices and OutcomeExpectanciesAuthor(s): George W. Holden, Pamela C. Miller, Susan D. HarrisSource: Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 61, No. 4 (Nov., 1999), pp. 908-919Published by: National Council on Family RelationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/354012Accessed: 25/01/2010 19:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfr.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of Marriage and Family.

http://www.jstor.org

GEORGE W. HOLDEN University of Texas at Austin

PAMELA C. MILLER University of Houston*

SUSAN D. HARRIS Northern Arizona University**

The Instrumental Side of Corporal Punishment:

Parents' Reported Practices and Outcome Expectancies

We conducted two studies to assess the relations between parental disciplinary practices and out- come expectancies. In the first study, mothers of 36-month-old children responded to vignettes about child misbehaviors. Mothers who reportedly used corporal punishment at least once a week believed that it was more likely to result in positive outcomes, including immediate child compliance, better child behavior in the long term, and less maternal guilt than mothers who never spanked or mothers who spanked only occasionally. Study 2 extended those findings by including fathers, other expectancies, and different types of misbehaviors. No significant differences between mothers and fathers were found, though effects due to member- ship in the group of parents who spanked were present.

Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, Mezes Hall 330, Austin, TX 78712 (holden@psy.utexas.edu).

*Psychology Department, University of Houston, 4800 Calhoun Road, Houston, TX 77204-5341.

**Department of Psychology, Northern Arizona University, P.O. Box 15106, Flagstaff, AZ 86011.

Key Words: corporal punishment, discipline, outcome ex- pectancies, parenting.

One of the most controversial parenting practices is the use of corporal punishment. Although the effects of corporal punishment on children is undergoing rigorous scientific debate (e.g., Larzerele, 1996; Straus, 1994), less attention has been devoted to why parents spank their children. The available re- search indicates that the determinants of corporal punishment are manifold, including cultural norms (Piesner, 1989), child characteristics (Day, Peterson, & McCracken, 1998), parental characteristics and beliefs (Socolar & Stein, 1995), and contextual ef- fects, such as momentary outbursts of anger (e.g., Vasta, 1982). Our studies focus on examining as- pects of parents' beliefs as determinants of parents' use of corporal punishment.

Although spanking may, indeed, be the product of an angry interaction, there is evidence that many parents regard the disciplinary technique as appro- priate, effective, and justifiable (Graziano, Ham- blen, & Plante, 1996). Simons, Whitbeck, Conger, and Chyi-In (1991) reported that parents who be- lieved in strict, physical discipline were more likely to use corporal punishment than other parents. In an interview study, Socolar and Stein (1995) found that mothers' beliefs in spanking were reliably correlated with their reported spanking practices, r[204] = .46, p < .001. When attitudes toward spanking are related to reported spanking practices, the association gets even stronger. Holden, Cole- man, and Schmidt (1995) discovered that mothers

Journal of Marriage and the Family 61 (November 1999): 908-919 908

Spanking Expectations

with more positive attitudes toward corporal pun- ishment reported that they spanked more frequently, r[39] = .73, p < .001. This instrumental orientation toward corporal punishment is perhaps most evident in conservative Protestant parents who are often instructed to correct the misdeeds of their children with physical reprimands (Ellison, 1996).

But what drives these instrumental beliefs? A look at social information-processing mechanisms (Crick & Dodge, 1994) provides a theoretical model to more systematically examine the instrumental view of corporal punishment. The model includes

steps of encoding of cues (e.g., perceiving the ap- propriate information), interpreting of cues (e.g., attributing the cause), clarifying goals (e.g., deter- mining the objective), generating responses (e.g., response access or construction), selecting the re-

sponse (e.g., response decision), and enacting be- havior (e.g., engaging in the action). This approach prompts several hypotheses about why some par- ents use corporal punishment. For example, one par- ent may interpret a child's transgression as more serious and, therefore, more deserving of harsh dis-

cipline than another parent. At the stage when re- sponses are generated, parents who resort to corpo- ral punishment may not be able to think of as many alternative disciplinary strategies as other parents. Or when selecting a response, a parent may believe that corporal punishment will result in better out- comes than alternative responses.

Among the different stages of information pro- cessing, most of the research concerning discipli- nary encounters has been devoted to the interpreta- tion of cues, with a focus on attributions. (See the review by Miller, 1994.) For instance, parents per- ceive misbehaviors as more serious when children's transgressions are viewed as intentional and when children are thought to have the ability to control their behavior (Dix, Ruble, & Zambarano, 1989). Some research attention has also examined par- ents' ability to generate alternative disciplinary strategies. For example, Azar, Robinson, Hekimian, and Twentyman (1984) found that abusive mothers were less able to generate alternative disciplinary responses than mothers in a comparison group. But to date, parental expectancies of outcomes have gone largely ignored. With only a few exceptions (e.g., Kuczynski, 1984), research into parental ex- pectancies has neglected parents' instrumental, goal- directed behavior and, instead, has focused on ex- pectations about children's development (Goodnow, 1995).

Expectancies represent a prime variable to differ- entiate parents who spank from those who do not.

Several interview studies have revealed that many parents consider spanking an effective childrearing technique. Sears, Maccoby, and Levin (1957) found that 55% of the mothers they interviewed thought spanking does at least some "good." Anecdotal re- ports of mothers also indicate that they believe spanking is a useful socialization technique (Stolz, 1967). A more systematic study of adults' beliefs about corporal punishment conducted in Barbados found that the four most commonly listed advan- tages of spanking included: promotes obedience in the immediate situation and in the long term, deters future misbehavior, instills discipline, and teaches right from wrong (Payne, 1989). Recently, Durrant (1996) discovered that many Canadian adults held both positive and negative outcome beliefs. Although about one quarter of the sample believed that spanking helped teach acceptable behavior and encouraged respect for parents, many adults also anticipated the outcomes of feeling guilty or causing the child emotional distress.

Our studies were designed to extend the previous work into the relations between corporal punishment and outcome expectancies in several ways. First, we systematically collected expectancies from par- ents of 3-year-old children, including fathers in the second study. Second, we investigated links between self-reported spanking practices and positive and negative outcome expectancies. We predicted that parents who report that they frequently spank will hold positive outcome expectancies about its use, in contrast to the negative outcomes anticipated by those who do not spank. We expected occasional spankers to fall in the middle.

However, we predicted that parental expectations would be strongly affected by the type of transgres- sion (Catron & Masters, 1993; Chilamkurti & Mil- ner, 1993). We expected that vignettes concerned with misbehavior that posed a danger to the child (e.g., running into the street) or that reflected moral transgressions (e.g., stealing) would be judged more appropriate for corporal punishment than vignettes concerned with socially conventional misdeeds (e.g., failing to pick up toys).

STUDY 1

Based on prior research, we selected six expectan- cies, reflecting both positive and negative outcomes. The first three focused on child-based outcomes and included immediate compliance-one of the docu- mented positive outcomes of spanking (Larzelere, 1996), long-term socialization (Durrant, 1996; Payne, 1989), and emotional distress (Durrant,

909

Journal of Marriage and the Family

1996; Turner & Finkelhor, 1996). We predicted that mothers who report using spanking as a disciplinary technique would believe that corporal punishment results in greater child compliance and appropriate socialization but would discount child distress as a likely outcome. To give a balanced assessment of

potential outcomes, we also assessed three parent- based outcomes. These judgments concerned whether the use of corporal punishment was appro- priate (Catron & Masters, 1993), whether the re-

sponse provided the opportunity for either the mother or the child to calm down (Sears et al., 1957), and whether the mother would experience feelings of guilt after using it (Durrant, Rose-Krasnor, &

Broberg, 1998; Graziano et al., 1996). Mothers who

reported spanking were expected to rate the disci-

plinary technique as more appropriate, to believe it breaks the mood and thereby affords a time for in- dividuals to calm down, and to think they would feel less guilty after using it than other mothers.

For comparison, mothers also rated the same outcome expectancies for two alternative discipli- nary responses: reasoning and using time out. We

predicted that frequent spankers would believe that both alternative responses are less effective tech-

niques in terms of compliance and appropriate socialization and thereby would reveal more of their

underlying rationale for using corporal punishment. We did not anticipate any gender of child differences due to the young age of the children (Holden et al., 1995).

METHODS

Participants

Sixty-one mothers of 36-month-old children (range = 35-37 months) participated. We selected this age because it is a peak age of spanking (Straus, 1994). Thirty-two of the children were girls. The mothers ranged in age from 23 to 47 years (M = 35). Most (90%) of the mothers were White; the rest of the sample consisted of three or fewer Hispanics, African Americans, and Asian Americans. A major- ity (64%) of the mothers worked either full-time or part-time outside the home. The working mothers had a mean Hollingshead (1975) occupational score of 6.8 (SD = 1.20, range = 3-8) indicating minor professionals (managers, small business owners). Sixty-nine percent of the mothers had at least a col- lege degree or a graduate or professional degree. All the other mothers had high school degrees. Only one mother was not currently married. The families contained an average of two children (range = 1-6)

and almost all (95%) had incomes over $30,000 a

year, with 37% of the families reporting an annual income of more than $60,000 a year.

Materials and Procedure

Mothers were recruited from a database derived from newspaper birth announcements in a mid-sized

city in the Southwestern United States. An initial re-

cruiting letter was sent indicating the study con- cerned how mothers think about normally occurring parent-child interactions; the specific focus of the

study was not mentioned. Follow-up telephone calls were made to schedule appointments. Upon arrival at the university research laboratory, mothers filled out a form with background information and the nine-item Parental Responses to Child Misbehavior (PRCM) questionnaire (Holden et al., 1995). Moth- ers rated how often, in an average week, they use different responses to child misbehaviors (e.g., rea- son, divert, time-out, spank or slap, and withdrawal of privileges). Only the spank-slap item was used in these analyses. (The item included the term "slap" in order to be more completely assess the use of

corporal punishment following the convention of Straus, 1979). The spank-slap item on the PRCM has been found to correlate reasonably well with daily reports of spanking taken over a fortnight, r(39) = .68, p < .001 (Holden et al., 1995).

Next, the mothers operated a personal com-

puter that had been programmed with a series of

vignettes and follow-up questions. This method, labeled computer-presented social situations, has several advantages over standard paper and pencil questionnaires. The interactive nature of the com- puter, as well as the insertion of the child's name into the vignettes, makes this data collection pro- cedure particularly engaging for parents (Holden, Coleman, & Ritchie, 1991). By having the partici- pants input their answers on the computer, the data can be automatically reduced. In addition, there is evidence of the validity of the method: Mothers' behavioral reports on a computer-presented social situation program were found to correspond reason- ably well with observed behavior (Holden, Ritchie, & Coleman, 1992).

The core of this particular program consisted of four vignettes depicting different types of transgres- sion: peer aggression (child hits a friend), defiance using an object (child opens a friend's birthday pres- ent after being told not to), tantrum and destruction (child throws a tantrum and destroys a cake), and defiance with food (child eats some candy when told not to). These vignettes, taken from mothers' reports

910

Spanking Expectations

of actual disciplinary incidents in a prior naturalistic

study (Holden et al., 1995) were rated by a sample of 10 mothers as "serious," "intentional," and "typi- cal" transgressions for children of this age.

After each vignette appeared on the screen, mothers were instructed by the computer to rate how often their children engaged in that misbehav- ior. Mothers reported that each type of misbehavior occurred, on average, at least once a month. Next, mothers were asked to imagine themselves spank- ing, reasoning, or using time out with their children after each transgression. Mothers then rated the like- lihood of the six outcomes on 7-point Likert-type scales. The three child-based outcome ratings con- cerned whether the child will: (a) behave appropri- ately right away, (b) learn to behave appropriately in the future, and (c) experience distress. Parent-based outcomes consisted of rating that her response: (d) was appropriate, (e) allows time for calming of the mother and child, and (f) results in feeling guilty. The same questions for all three disciplinary re- sponses followed each vignette. The order of pre- sentation of the vignettes and outcomes was fixed, but the order of the disciplinary responses were randomized.

Data Analyses

Mothers were divided into three spank groups based on how frequently they reported on the PRCM using spanking-slapping (item #6) in an average week. Never spankers reported they did not spank or slap (n = 15, M = 1.0, SD = 0). Occa- sional spankers indicated they spank-slap less than once a week (n = 26, M = 2.0, SD = 0), and fre- quent spankers revealed they spank-slap at least once or twice a week (n = 20, M = 4.0, SD = 1.2). The three groups differed reliably from each other on this rating, F(2, 58) = 87.78, p < .001. However, the groups did not differ on reports of the fre- quency that their children misbehaved, F(2, 58) =

1.19,p> .05. When comparing the three groups on six back-

ground variables (maternal age, race, family in- come, mother's and father's education, number of children), the MANOVA was significant, F(12, 94) = 2.37, p < .05. Follow-up ANOVAs indicated the only significant group difference was in maternal age, F(2, 53) = 6.60, p < .01. Frequent spankers were younger (M = 33.5 years) than occasional spankers (M = 36.5), or never spankers (M = 38.7).

Preliminary analyses revealed no effects of child gender. Therefore, we dropped that variable from the analyses. A 3 (spank group) x 3 (discipli-

nary response) x 4 (transgression) mixed model repeated measures MANOVA then was analyzed as a doubly multivariate design (using SPSS, 1997) with disciplinary response and transgression as the within-subject measures. Because responses were expected to differ between spank groups only after spank response, we predicted a signifi- cant interaction of spank group x disciplinary re- sponse. Bonferroni-corrected simple effects were used when appropriate.

To gauge how similarly the mothers responded to the three vignettes, coefficient alphas were com-

puted for each outcome following each of the three

disciplinary responses. For example, the rating of the likelihood of the outcome of "immediate com-

pliance" following a spank response was compared across the four vignettes. Moderately high consis- tency was found. Alphas ranged from .53 to .93 (Mdn = .77). The most similarity was found follow- ing spank responses (Mdn = .86), compared with time out responses (Mdn = .77) and reasoning re- sponses (Mdn = .72).

RESULTS

As predicted, there was a significant spank group x

disciplinary response interaction, F(24, 408) = 3.17, p < .001, indicating the spank groups, depending on the particular disciplinary response, had different outcome expectations. Univariate analyses revealed a significant interaction of spank group x discipli- nary response on all but one of the six outcomes (child experiences distress).

The pattern of responses was similar for all of the five significant univariate analyses. In each case, the never spank group differed significantly from the frequent spank group. (See Table 1.) The moth- ers who spanked regularly thought that a spank was a more appropriate disciplinary practice and would result in more immediately appropriate behavior, more appropriate behavior in the future, allow more time for calming, and be associated with less ma- ternal guilt than the mothers who never spanked. Similarly, the occasional spank group differed sig- nificantly from the frequent spank group on four of the outcome ratings. The occasional spank group did not differ significantly from the never spank group on any rating, although in each case the group mean fell between the two other groups.

Fewer differences between spank groups were found with expectancies following reasoning or using time out. Group differences were found on three of the five significant univariate analyses fol- lowing a reasoning response, but only one follow-

911

Journal of Marriage and the Family

el 0 C) In - ON O C' 0 00 00 14 cl; 1-4 6 -4 Cc;

-I C In oo a' C I"-d "00 N WI 00 Cf

oo00 00 r oo 0

^t" . . . . ^

C -ct u

. . .0 .0 . Nm cm 00 fn eCn :-; d: v6 t mc c-i

00 0 '0 0 -\ e eni eni \o \o r c\i

0 V Z 00

0.-~ 0 '0.

COC

C O 4- .. s -

I | ?, S? | I C ai " g~3 Id v, ^

It-

nc

0

0

0

ct C

o rt

~S

CLt

I O

II

COr

.

ca * *

0o

05

*0

11 -0

.

V

Co

ing a time out response. On all three significant ANOVAs following a reasoning outcome, the never spank group differed significantly from the frequent spank group (Table 1). On two outcomes, the occa- sional spank group also differed from the frequent spank group. Following time outs, the never spank group had a higher mean rating of feeling guilty than the other two groups.

When comparing outcomes across the three dis- ciplinary responses, we found that the groups dif- fered in their expectations of the appropriate be- havior in the future following reasoning and spanking. However, no significant group differ- ence in expectations was observed following using time out. This result is depicted in Figure 1. Not surprisingly, the frequent spank group rated rea- soning as less effective in the long-term than the never spank or occasional spank groups, which did not differ. Appropriateness ratings reflected a similar pattern. Mothers in the never spank and occasional spank groups rated spanking as far less appropriate than either reasoning or using time out. In both of these groups, time out was rated as slightly less appropriate than reasoning, but this difference was significant only in the occasional spank group.

Although no significant three-way interaction was present, a statistically significant disciplinary response x transgression was found, F(36, 1872) = 2.52, p < .001. Examination of the four significant univariate tests revealed no systematic pattern. Because this interaction did not bear directly on the objectives of the study, those results will not be considered further but are available from the first author.

This study demonstrates that mothers' reported spanking practices are associated with differential outcome expectancies. Mothers who frequently spanked their children believed that spanking

FIGURE 1. SPANK GROUP X DISCIPLINARY RESPONSE INTERACTION FOR THE OUTCOME EXPECTANCY OF

APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR IN THE LONG TERM

s

'3 , 3 [] Occasionally spanks

i e ?L Frequently spanks 5-

C;

Spank Reason Time out

Type of Disciplinary Response

912

0 H

0 -

0 0

0 0

0

0 -e =

0.

CC 1 000

0 =

O 0

0

0 0 00 0

0

0 14-

0

0

0

0 0

00

04

rC.

I

0 U) 00

z

Q

0

><

z

00 ra

c;

m

0 0

z

0

o Z P. 0

0Q

00 k 00

Z00

0 4- 00 00=

;zz 000.

PC3

ct cn 00 CO

0

0 0

0

(U

Spanking Expectations

would result in more positive and less negative effects than mothers who occasionally or never spank their children. In particular, the frequent spankers, compared with the other groups, indi- cated they believed corporal punishment was more effective through inducing immediate compliance and appropriate long-term socialization. They also thought it was suitable to use, as inferred from their appropriateness ratings. In addition, corporal punishment was less emotionally charged for them in terms of their lower guilt ratings than mothers who did not spank or spanked only occasionally. The mean ratings from the occasional spanker group fell consistently between those of the other two groups. Thus, this study provides clear support for the hypothesis that mothers who use spanking relatively frequently believe in its instrumentality.

STUDY 2

We conducted a second study to expand the results of the first study in three ways. First, we wanted to extend the generalizability of the results by adding a sample of fathers. Given the paucity of informa- tion about fathers' orientations toward corporal punishment (Day et al., 1998; Straus, 1994), we made no predictions about parental gender effects. A second goal of this study was to clarify some of the outcome expectancies and include three new ones. One new outcome concerned teaching respect for parental authority, a rationale given by some parents for the use of corporal punishment (Dur- rant, 1996). A second new outcome tapped the parents' expectation of raising a children's sense of guilt over their misbehavior, a necessary ingredi- ent to promote internalization (e.g., Kochanska, 1993). Child distress in Study 1 was differentiated into "child feel upset" and "child feel badly about the misbehavior." The third new outcome, assessing expectations of recurrences of the transgression, was intended to assess more sharply whether par- ents anticipated that spanking would result in a decrease in the future occurrence of the specific transgression or rather promote better behavior in general. The long-term socialization outcome was differentiated into two outcomes: "not repeat the misbehavior" and "child learn the behavior is wrong." Frequent spankers were expected to be- lieve that spanking would help teach respect for parental authority and reduce the likelihood of re- currence of the specific transgression. The immedi- ate compliance outcome was reworded as "imme- diate compliance with parent wishes." We made no prediction about raising the child's sense of guilt.

The only outcome that was identical to those used in the first study was "parent feels guilty," included to replicate the first study's results and see whether fathers also reported this emotion.

A third goal was to more systematically investi- gate the effects of two categories of transgressions, given the significant vignette effects found in Study 1. Several studies have found that the type of trans- gression engaged in-whether in the prudential (safety), moral, or socially conventional domain- affects mothers' disciplinary judgments or behavior (e.g., Chilamkurti & Milner, 1993; Smetana, 1989). For example, mothers perceived that prudential and moral violations were more serious and, thus, more worthy of corporal punishment than social viola- tions (Catron & Masters, 1993). We sought to exam- ine whether the type of transgression was also sys- tematically related to outcome expectancies.

A second dimension designed into the vignettes was escalated conflictual interaction. Escalation is a key attribute of incidents that result in punitive discipline (McCloskey, Figueredo, & Koss, 1995; Ritchie, 1999), so we sought to test whether esca- lated transgressions affected outcome expectancies. We anticipated that frequent spankers, compared with other parents, would expect children to comply immediately and show respect for parental author- ity after being spanked, particularly when chal- lenged in escalated incidents.

METHOD

Participants

Forty-two mothers and 42 fathers of 36-month-old children (range = 35-37 months) participated. They were recruited in the same way as in Study 1. About half (n = 43) of the children were girls. To maintain the independence of the data, we only in- cluded mothers and fathers who were not married to each other. Most (85%) of the sample was Euro- pean American, with some Hispanics (12%), African Americans (2%), or parents of mixed eth- nicity (1%). Almost all (96%) of the parents were married. Parents had an average of two children (range = 1-5) and 88% had an income of at least $30,000 per year. Half of these families made over $60,000 per year.

Mothers' age ranged from 25 to 45 years (M = 34). Twenty (48%) were full-time homemakers, nine (29%) worked part-time, 12 (29%) worked full-time, and one (2%) was a student. The average maternal Hollingshead (1975) occupational score was 6.5 (range = 4-9), indicating professions from

913

Journal of Marriage and the Family

technician to minor professional or manager. Most mothers had earned a college degree (50%) or a graduate or professional degree (19%). All of the other mothers had all graduated from high school (31%).

Fathers ranged in age from 29 to 46 years (M = 36). Hollingshead (1975) scores for paternal occu- pation (all but 9% worked full-time) averaged 7.4 (range = 3-9), indicating minor professionals to ad- ministrative officers. One-third of the fathers held high school degrees. The others had earned college degrees (43%) or graduate or professional degrees (24%).

Materials and Procedure

Like the first study, parents filled out a background information form and then the Parental Responses to Child Misbehavior questionnaire. Participants next operated a new computer presented social sit- uation program. Six new computer vignettes were developed for this study: one nonescalated and one escalated for each of three types of child transgres- sions (prudential, moral, and social). Each pair of vignettes was rated by mothers in a pilot sample (n = 17) as equally serious (Mp = 5.7, 5.6, Mm = 5.1, 5.0, Ms = 3.4, 3.3), although the magnitude of the seriousness inevitably differed by the type of vignette. The content of the vignettes, taken from parents' reports of misbehavior in a prior study, dif- fered for each vignette to avoid the possibility of carry-over effects. The social nonescalated vignette consisted of a child interrupting an important phone conversation. The escalated scenario involved a child sneaking out of room after the parent had repeatedly tried to put the child to bed for the night. The moral nonescalated vignette dealt with a child hitting a peer. The escalated scenario concerned an angry child first throwing a book at the parent and then kicking the parent. The prudential nonescalated vi- gnette concerned a child opening some medicine. The escalated scenario involved the child running from the parent in a busy parking lot after the parent asked the child to hold hands. Internal reliabilities of the outcome expectancies were high across the vi- gnettes. Cronbach alphas ranged from .70 to .96 (Mdn = .85).

After reading each vignette, parents were in- structed to rate how frequently this type of situation happens with their children. On average, such mis- behaviors occurred about once a month. As a ma- nipulation check, parents then were requested to rate how likely (on a 7-point scale) they were to spank their children for that type of misbehavior.

Next, parents were instructed to imagine that they spanked their children for the misbehavior. Parents then rated on a 7-point scale the likelihood of the seven outcomes: immediate compliance with parent wishes, child not repeat the misbehavior, child learns the behavior is wrong, child feels upset, child feels badly about the misbehavior, child learns to respect parental authority, and parent feels guilty. These outcomes appeared in a fixed order; the order of presentation of the six vignettes was randomized.

Data Analysis

Like the first study, parents were divided into three spank groups based on their reported frequency of spanking or slapping (PRCM item #6). Never spankers reported they had not even once spanked their children (n = 18 mothers, 17 fathers, M = 1.0, SD = 0). Occasional spankers reported they spank less than once a week (n = 15 mothers, 17 fathers, M = 2.0, SD = 0), and frequent spankers reported they spank their children at least once or twice a week (n = 9 mothers, 8 fathers; M = 3.9, SD = 1.1). The groups differed reliably from each other on this variable, F(2, 81) = 200.45, p <.001. Spank groups also showed a trend to differ on background variables (age, race, mother's and father's educa- tion, family income) assessed by a MANOVA, F(10, 50) = 1.8, p = .06. Follow-up ANOVAs indi- cated that frequent spankers (Mfs = 3.0) reported a significantly lower family income than the other two groups (Mns = 3.3, Mos = 3.5; F[2, 81] = 3.35, p < .05) and a trend toward less maternal education than the other groups (Mfs = 3.4, Mns = 3.9, Mos = 3.8, F(2, 81)= 2.9, p = .06).

As a further validity check of the group compo- sition, the question assessing the likelihood of spank- ing presented after each vignette was analyzed for spank group effects. The ANOVA was highly sig- nificant, F(2, 78) = 32.26, p < .001, and follow-up t tests indicated that parents in the frequent spank group were significantly more likely to report they would spank (M = 3.5) than the occasional spank (M = 2.5) or never spank (M = 1.4) groups. Further, parents in the occasional spank group indicated they would spank significantly more frequently than the never spank parents. There were two other main effects found on this variable. Parents were more likely to spank for prudential and moral (Ms = 2.5) than social conventional misdeeds (M = 1.6, F(2, 77) = 23.69, p < .001). In addition, parents reported being more prone to spank for escalated than non- escalated transgressions (2.6 vs. 1.8; F(l, 78) = 54.87, p < .001).

914

Spanking Expectations

As in the first study, preliminary analyses re- vealed no significant effects for gender of child; therefore this variable was collapsed. A series of 3 (spank group) x 2 (parent gender) x 6 (transgres- sion) repeated-measures, mixed-model MANOVAs were conducted, using a doubly-multivariate de- sign and analyzed with SPSS (1997). Follow-up Bonferroni-corrected simple effects were tested for when appropriate.

Results

The overall analysis revealed a significant spank group x transgression interaction, F(70, 88) = 1.47, p < .05, but there was no significant main effect for or interactions with parent gender. The source of the multivariate effect was investigated by comput- ing univariate ANOVAs in each vignette for each of the outcome expectancies. Statistically significant spank group effects were found for all scenarios

except one: the unescalated prudential vignette in-

volving the child opening some medicine. In that vignette, all parents, regardless of reported spanking practices, responded similarly.

On two of the seven outcomes (respect for parental authority and parent guilt) in each of the other five scenarios, significant spank group dif- ferences were found. As Table 2 reveals, frequent spankers were significantly more likely to expect that a spank would help their children learn to re- spect parental authority than the other two groups. Consistent group differences were also found with expectations about feeling guilty after spanking a child. The never spank group had a significantly higher mean rating than the frequent spank group on all five vignettes, and higher than the occasional spank group on three vignettes. The occasional spank group had a mean rating consistently higher

than the never spank but lower than the frequent spank; they differed significantly from the frequent spank group on four of the five vignettes.

On two other outcomes, significant spank group effects were also discovered. In expectations regarding whether a spanked child will learn that a behavior is wrong, parents who never spanked differed from the occasional spank group in one vi- gnette. They also differed from the frequent spank group in one other vignette. Similarly with expec- tations about the child feeling bad after being spanked, parents who never spanked differed from occasional spankers in one vignette and frequent spankers in another vignette. Statistically significant differences between spank groups were not found on the other three outcome expectancies (immediate compliance to parents' wishes, child upset, and child feel badly about the transgression), although the means were in the predicted direction.

One other spank group effect was found. When parents' reports of the frequency of child misbe- havior were added up for the six vignettes (but not on the PRCM), there was a significant main effect, F(2, 83) = 4.01, p < .05. Follow-up tests indicated that the frequent spank group reported that their children engaged in more frequent misbehavior (M = 4.2) than the children of the never spank group (M = 3.3).

To summarize Study 2, no effect of parents' gen- der was found in the ratings. Instead, like the first study, the significant effects were found for spank group as well as transgression. The two expectan- cies that showed consistent spank-group differences were teaching the child respect and parental guilt. In each of the five vignettes that showed significant differences, frequent spankers differed in their ex- pectations from those who did not spank and they differed half the time from occasional spankers.

TABLE 2. SIGNIFICANT SPANK GROUP EFFECTS (F TESTS) BY OUTCOME AND TYPE OF TRANSGRESSION (STUDY 2)

Child Child Sneaks Child Child Runs Interrupts Out of Room Child Hits Aggresses Away in

Phone Call at Bed-Time Peer on Parent Parking Lot

Child will learn that behavior is wrong 3.11 * 3.95* NS < OSt NS < FS

Child will feel bad 2.92t 3.22* NS > OS NS < FS

Spanking teaches respect for parental authority 6.00** 7.63*** 4.16* 5.74** 5.19** NS<FS NS<OS<FS NS<OS,FS NS < FS NS < OS, FS

Parent will experience guilt 9.01*** 9.54*** 18.38*** 10.52*** 12.20*** NS<FS NS,OS>FS NS>OS>FS NS,OS>FS NS, OS > FS

Note: df = (2, 78). NS = never spanks, OS = occasionally spanks, FS = frequently spanks. Group differences were as- sessed by Bonferroni-corrected simple effects.

tp<.10. *p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.

915

Journal of Marriage and the Family

DISCUSSION

These studies provide evidence that parents hold dif- ferentiated expectations about the consequences- for both parent and child-of particular disciplinary practices. These expectancies are sensitive to such variables as the type of parental disciplinary re-

sponse employed (Study 1) and the nature of the transgression (both studies). For instance, mothers, in general, anticipated that a spank would result in more child distress and more maternal guilt than reasoning or time out. The transgression effects found in both studies attest to the situationally spe- cific thinking that characterizes parental social

cognition. These results complement the contextual model of parental discipline advanced by Grusec and Goodnow (1994) by showing that parents also hold outcome expectancies that vary depending on the misdeed and type of disciplinary response.

Beyond simply recognizing the presence of ex-

pectancies associated with disciplinary practices, the novel contribution of this work is to show that outcome expectancies are systematically linked to

reported parenting behavior. Given the difficulties that researchers have had in documenting belief- behavior consistencies (e.g., McGillicuddy-DeLisi & Sigel, 1995), this is no small feat. Across both studies, in 75% of the vignettes, at least one ex- pectancy was found to differ between spanking groups. In general, parents who disclosed that they spank at least weekly thought that spanking would result in the increased likelihood of positive out- comes (e.g., appropriate short and long-term behav- ior in Study 1; respect of parent in Study 2). Con- versely, parents who did not spank indicated that they believed the disciplinary practice would, in fact, undermine parent-child relationships by in- hibiting the development of respect for parents and causing parental guilt. Occasional spankers, more often than not, held expectations that fell between the two groups.

How similar were the results across the two stud- ies? The one outcome that was identical in both studies (parental guilt) was consistently found to differentiate the spank groups. However, in Study 2, efforts to further specify the Study 1 outcomes were not entirely successful. For example, when we mod- ified the outcome "behave appropriately right away" to read "immediate compliance with parental wishes," the significant group effect disappeared. Perhaps the revised phrase was too explicit, and par- ents who spank recognized that spanked children, although not continuing the misbehavior, do not necessary oblige parental wishes. Two other word-

ing changes in outcomes used in Study 2 were partially successful. In two out of the six vignettes, some spank-group differences were found con- cerning expectations about the child feeling badly about the transgression and the child learning the behavior was wrong. Why these expectations did not vary across spank groups in more of the vi- gnettes is best answered with open-ended inter- views.

One unexpected finding was the negativity sur- rounding spanking that even the frequent spankers acknowledged. In Study 1, all groups ranked spank- ing as the least appropriate technique of the three disciplinary responses. Furthermore, most parents recognized that they would feel at least some guilt after using it. This investigation reveals that even regular spankers are not sanguine in their use of the practice. Apparently they use it because of their conviction about its importance for socialization. Whether frequent spankers differ systematically from other parents in other childrearing practices remains an unanswered question. However, our finding of group differences on only one third of the outcomes following reasoning and time-out in- dicates group differences may not be broad-based but rather circumscribed and limited to certain dis- ciplinary practices. As Baumrind (1973) has found, we suspect that spanking is not necessarily related to a particular parenting style but rather linked to specific beliefs.

Another somewhat surprising finding concerned the lack of gender differences. Although we did not expect to find that mothers had different practices or expectations based on their children's gender, the unrelated mothers and fathers in the second study provided remarkably similar data. Fathers, like mothers, were about equally divided into the three spank groups, and they reported spanking at almost the same weekly frequency as mothers and shared similar expectancies as mothers. Although this re- sult was consistent with the lack of parenting gender effects found in a meta-analysis by Lytton and Rom- ney (1991), it is at odds with the work by Day et al. (1998) and Straus (1994), who found mothers spank more frequently than fathers. We suspect this find- ing may be a function of the higher level of involve- ment, and hence more frequent discipline, of the fathers in our sample. In contrast to other studies, the present samples were composed of parents who were generally college educated and middle class.

Several key questions about the relations be- tween expectancies and reported behavior remain unanswered by this study. First, we have not shown that expectancies determine spanking practices.

916

Spanking Expectations

Do expectancies develop after engaging in the be- havior, or do they, in fact, drive behavior, as theo- rized in the social information-processing model (Crick & Dodge, 1994)? Although some of the out- come expectancies may have been observed or ex-

perienced (e.g., immediate compliance, parental guilt), others appear to be based more on hope than

anything else (i.e., long-term socialization, learning to respect parental authority). Evidently, a longitu- dinal study, begun before the onset of corporal pun- ishment, is necessary to answer that question.

A related issue concerns the source of the ex-

pectations. Developmentally, when do individuals begin believing that spanking represents a useful

disciplinary technique? Certainly by late adoles- cence there is evidence that even those who are not

parents hold opinions about the use of corporal punishment (e.g., Graziano & Namaste, 1990), and presumably outcome expectancies play a role in these thoughts. Also, some preschool-aged and el- ementary children think that corporal punishment is acceptable (Catron & Masters, 1993; Chilamkurti & Milner, 1993) and several studies have found evi- dence for the intergenerational transmission of cor- poral punishment (e.g., Holden & Zambarano, 1992; Kelder, McNamara, Carlson, & Lynn, 1991; Simons et al., 1991). Again, a longitudinal study can shed light on when individuals develop expectancies about particular disciplinary practices.

The fact that almost two thirds of the out- comes that we assessed revealed significant spank- group effects indicates that research pursuing the expectancy-behavior link is a fruitful direction in which to proceed. Indeed, it is surprising that so little systematic attention has been devoted to out- come expectancies in parents, despite the success it has enjoyed as a correlate of behavioral prac- tices found in social and clinical psychology (e.g., Fromme, Katz, & Rivet, 1997; Leigh, 1989). Future investigations into parents' outcome expectations with regard to spanking could be extended by ex- amining other types of outcomes, such as beliefs about childhood aggression and feelings of resent- ment or fear of the parent. The degree of accuracy between parents' outcome expectancies and their children's actual behavior is another question wor- thy of examination. For example, are children who are frequently spanked less distressed by it and more likely to comply in the short term as their mothers expected in Study 1, or are the mothers discounting and rationalizing?

Although this study has found support for the instrumental explanation for corporal punishment, the emotional route to corporal punishment should

not be forgotten. Evidently, not all parents spank for instrumental reasons, and including them may have attenuated some of the results. In fact, it is likely that at least some of those parents in the oc- casional spank group were emotional spankers. Their beliefs indicated some ambivalence, and they generally agreed with those who never spank but sided with the frequent spank group in terms of teaching respect. Unfortunately, this hypothesis could not be evaluated with the present data. Future

investigations should separate emotional from in- strumental spankers as is beginning to be done (e.g., Straus & Mouradian, 1998).

There are several limitations to this work. The major one is that we focused on only one determi- nant of spanking. However, in a few cases, either background variables (maternal age in Study 1, family income in Study 2) or parents' reports of their children engaging in the transgressions de- scribed in the vignettes (Study 2) were also found to differentiate the spank groups. Although the spank groups may, indeed, share some similarities beyond outcome expectancies, that finding does not negate the results reported here. A potential methodological limitation was the use of vignettes to probe parents' thinking. The expectations elicited were neither generated by the parent nor in re- sponse to actual transgressions (although the par- ents did report the vignettes represented commonly occurring misdeeds). We also artificially separated reasoning from spanking and time out in Study 1 when, in fact, these responses often occur together (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994). Nor did we assess the validity of parental reports of their use of corporal punishment. However, a study by Holden and his colleagues (1995) provided some evidence indicat- ing that reports about spanking frequency on the PRCM questionnaire correlated moderately highly with daily telephone interviews about whether spanking occurred that day. It is possible that if there was a more comprehensive measurement of the parents' reported practices, group membership may have been slightly altered, but it is unlikely that such changes would have dramatically affected the results. A final limitation was the restriction of the sample to predominantly White middle-class parents. Expectancies in parents from other back- grounds need to be investigated (e.g., Kelley, Power, & Wimbush, 1992).

Given the unusual data collection method used here, one issue that merits consideration is whether the computer presented social situations method affected parental responses. A previous investiga- tion (using a different program) found that results

917

Journal of Marriage and the Family

from mothers' responses on the computer did not differ significantly from those obtained by the con- ventional questionnaires or interviews (Holden et al., 1991). However, we suspect that the interactive

quality and varying computer screens helped make

responding to the repetitive rating scales in these studies more interesting and palatable for partici- pants.

This work not only provides a better understand-

ing of the determinants of parental behavior, but it holds clear implications for intervention or pre- vention. Although parent education programs have

typically focused on raising awareness, dispensing information, and teaching new skills (e.g., Bries- meister & Schaefer, 1998), the significance of this

study for intervention is clear. For certain behaviors

already established in the parent's repertoire or belief system, change may only come if attention is directed at modifying outcome expectancies.

NOTE

This research was supported by Grant 1 RO1-HD26574- 01A1 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Portions of the data were pre- sented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Re- search in Child Development, Indianapolis, March 1995. We thank Jill Byram, Brenda Barnes, Gloria Immer, Susanne Moutrie, Kathy Osbor, Amy Riffino, and Elton Woolsey for assistance with data collection and Patrick Randall for his help with data analysis.

REFERENCES

Azar, S. T., Robinson, D. R., Hekimian, E., & Twentyman, C. T. (1984). Unrealistic expectations and problem- solving ability in maltreating and comparison mothers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 687-691.

Baumrind, D. (1973). The development of instrumental competence through socialization. In A. Pick (Ed.), Minnesota symposia on child psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 3-46). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

Briesmeister, J. M., & Schaefer, C. E. (1998). Handbook of parent training: Parents as co-therapist for chil- dren's behavior problems (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Catron, T. F., & Masters, J. C. (1993). Mothers' and chil- dren's conceptualizations of corporal punishment. Child Development, 64, 1815-1828.

Chilamkurti, C., & Milner, J. S. (1993). Perceptions and evaluations of child transgressions and disciplinary techniques in high- and low-risk mothers and their children. Child Development, 64, 1801-1814.

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and re- formulation of social information-processing mecha- nisms in children's social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74-101.

Day, R. D., Peterson, G. W., & McCracken, C. (1998). Predicting spanking of younger and older children by

mothers and fathers. Journal of Marriage & the Fam- ily, 60, 79-94.

Dix, T., Ruble, D. N., & Zambarano, R. J. (1989). Moth- ers' implicit theories of discipline: Child effects, parent effects, and the attribution process. Child Development, 60, 1373-1391.

Durrant, J. E. (1996). Public attitudes toward corporal punishment in Canada. In D. Frehsee, W. Horn, & K.-D. Bussmann (Eds.), Violence against children in the family (pp. 107-118). Berlin: de Gruyter.

Durrant, J. E., Rose-Krasnor, L., & Broberg, A. G. (1998). Maternal beliefs about physical punishment in Sweden and Canada. Manuscript under review.

Ellison, C. G. (1996). Conservative Protestantism and the corporal punishment of children: Clarifying the issues. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 35, 1-16.

Fromme, K., Katz, E., & Rivet, K. (1997). Outcome ex- pectancies and risk-taking behavior. Cognitive Ther- apy and Research, 21, 421-442.

Goodnow, J. J. (1995). Parents' knowledge and expecta- tions. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parent- ing, Vol. 3: Status and social conditions of parenting (pp. 305-332). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Graziano, A. M., Hamblen, J. L., & Plante, W. A. (1996). Subabusive violence in childrearing in middle-class American families. Pediatrics, 98, 845-851.

Graziano, A. M., & Namaste, K. A. (1990). Parental use of physical force in child discipline: A survey of 679 college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 449-463.

Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the child's interaliza- tion of values: A reconceptualization of current points of view. Developmental Psychology, 30, 4-19.

Holden, G. W., Coleman, S., & Ritchie, K. L. (1991, April). Computer-elicited parental self-reports: Reac- tions to, reliability, and behavioral validity, in G. W. Holden (Chair), Innovative uses of microcomputers in social development research. Symposium conducted at the biennial meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA.

Holden, G. W., Coleman, S., & Schmidt, K. L. (1995). Why 3-year-old children get spanked: Parent and child determinants in a sample of college-educated mothers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 41, 431-452.

Holden, G. W., Ritchie, K. L., & Coleman, S. D. (1992). The accuracy of maternal self-reports: Agreement be- tween reports on a computer simulation compared with observed behavior in the supermarket. Early De- velopment and Parenting, 1, 109-119.

Holden, G. W., & Zambarano, R. J. (1992). Passing the rod: Similarities between parents and their young children in orientations toward physical punishment. In I. E. Sigel, A. V. McGillicuddy-DeLisi, & J. J. Goodnow (Eds.), Parental belief systems: The psy- chological consequences for children (2nd ed.) (pp. 143-172). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four factor index of social status. New Haven, CT: Yale University.

Kelder, L. R., McNamara, J. R., Carlson, B., & Lynn, S. J. (1991). Perceptions of physical punishment: The rela- tion to childhood and adolescent experiences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6, 432-445.

Kelley, M. L., Power, T. G., & Wimbush, D. D. (1992). Determinants of disciplinary practices in low-income Black mothers. Child Development, 63, 573-582.

918

Spanking Expectations

Kochanska, G. (1993). Toward a synthesis of parental socialization and child temperament in early develop- ment of conscience. Child Development, 64, 325-347.

Kuczynski, L. (1984). Socialization goals and mother- child interaction: Strategies for long-term and short- term compliance. Developmental Psychology, 20, 1061-1073.

Larzelere, R. E. (1996). A review of the outcomes of parental use of nonabusive or customary physical punishment. Pediatrics, 98, 824-828.

Leigh, B. C. (1989). In search of the seven dwarves: Is- sues of measurement and meaning in alcohol ex- pectancy research. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 361- 373.

Lytton, H., & Romney, D. M. (1991). Parents' differen- tial socialization of boys and girls: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 267-296.

McCloskey, L. A., Figueredo, A. J., & Koss, M. P. (1995). The effects of systemic family violence on children's mental health. Child Development, 66, 1239-1261.

McGillicuddy-DeLisi, A. V., & Sigel, I. E. (1995). Parental beliefs. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting, Vol. 3: Status and Social conditions of parenting (pp. 333-358). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Miller, S. A. (1994). Parents' attributions for their chil- dren's behavior. Child Development, 66, 1557-1584.

Payne, M. A. (1989). Use and abuse of corporal punish- ment: A Caribbean view. Child Abuse & Neglect, 13, 389-401.

Piesner, E. S. (1989). To spare or not to spare the rod: A cultural-historical view of child discipline. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), Child development in cultural con- text (pp. 111-141). Lewiston, NY: Hogrefe & Huber.

Ritchie, K. L. (1999). Maternal behaviors and cognitions during discipline episodes: A comparison of power

bouts and single acts of noncompliance. Developmen- tal Psychology, 35, 580-589.

SPSS. (1997). Advanced Statistics 7.5. Chicago, IL: Au- thor.

Sears, R. R., Maccoby, E. E., & Levin, H. (1957). Pat- terns of childrearing. Evanston, IL: Row Peterson.

Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., Conger, R. D., & Chyi- In, W. (1991). Intergenerational transmission of harsh parenting. Developmental Psychology, 27, 159-171.

Socolar, R. R. S., & Stein, R. E. K. (1995). Spanking in- fants and toddlers: Maternal belief and practice. Pedi- atrics, 92, 105-111.

Smetana, J. (1989). Toddlers' social interactions in the context of moral and conventional transgressions in the home context. Developmental Psychology, 25, 499-508.

Stolz, L. M. (1967). Influences on parental behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics Scale. Journal of Mar- riage and the Family, 41, 75-88.

Straus, M. A. (1994). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in American families. New York: Lexington.

Straus, M. A., & Mouradian, V. E. (1998). Impulsive corporal punishment by mothers and antisocial be- havior and impulsiveness of children. Behavioral Sci- ences and the Law, 16, 353-374.

Turner, H. A., & Finkelhor, D. (1996). Corporal punish- ment as a stressor among youth. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 155-166.

Vasta, R. (1982). Physical child abuse: A dual-compo- nent analysis. Developmental Review, 2, 125-149.

r------------------_----_

Certified Family Life Educator's (CFLE) Mailing List Rental

only $75.00 for 700 mailing labels Cheshire * pressure sensitive * zip sort ? alpha sort * key code

Contact NCFR toll free at 888-781-9331 * 612-781-9331 * Fax: 612-781-9348 * E-mail: ncfr3989@ncfr.com JMF 1199

L6 __-----_______---- _i---____J

919