The Instrumental Side of Corporal Punishment: Parents' Reported Practices and Outcome

Expectancies
Author(s): George W. Holden, Pamela C. Miller, Susan D. Harris
Source: Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 61, No. 4 (Nov., 1999), pp. 908-919
Published by: National Council on Family Relations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/354012
Accessed: 25/01/2010 19:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may 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 at
http://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 printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of 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 to
Journal of Marriage and Family.

http://www.jstor.org
 GEORGE
W. HOLDEN University of Texas at Austin
C. MILLER University of Houston*
PAMELA
SUSAND. HARRIS Northern Arizona University**
The InstrumentalSide of CorporalPunishment:
Parents'ReportedPracticesand OutcomeExpectancies
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.
Departmentof Psychology,The Universityof Texasat Austin,
MezesHall330, Austin,TX 78712 (holden@psy.utexas.edu).
Universityof Houston,4800 Calhoun
*PsychologyDepartment,
Road,Houston,TX 77204-5341.
**Departmentof Psychology, NorthernArizonaUniversity,
P.O.Box 15106,Flagstaff,AZ 86011.
Key Words: corporal punishment, discipline, outcome ex-
pectancies, parenting.
908 Journal of Marriage and the Family 61 (November 1999): 908-919
One of the most controversialparentingpractices is
the use of corporalpunishment.Although the effects
of corporal punishment on children is undergoing
rigorous scientific debate (e.g., Larzerele, 1996;
Straus, 1994), less attentionhas 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 determinantsof 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 reportedspanking practices,
the association gets even stronger. Holden, Cole-
man, and Schmidt (1995) discovered that mothers
Spanking Expectations
with more positive attitudes toward corporal pun-
ishment reportedthat they spankedmore frequently,
r[39] = .73, p < .001. This instrumentalorientation
towardcorporalpunishmentis perhapsmost 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 theoreticalmodel
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.,
attributingthe 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 corporalpunishment.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 punishmentmay not be able to think of as many
alternative disciplinary strategies as other parents.
Or when selecting a response, a parentmay 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).
Expectanciesrepresenta prime variableto differ-
entiate parents who spank from those who do not.
909
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 quarterof 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 relationsbetween corporalpunishment
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 investigatedlinks 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 predictedthatparentalexpectations
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
appropriatefor 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-basedoutcomes 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,
910
1996; Turner& Finkelhor, 1996). We predictedthat
mothers who reportusing spankingas 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 corporalpunishment was appro-
priate (Catron & Masters, 1993), whether the re-
sponse provided the opportunity for either the
motheror 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; Grazianoet 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 therebywould reveal more of their
underlying rationalefor using corporalpunishment.
We did not anticipateany 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
mothersrangedin 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 graduateor professionaldegree. All
the other mothers had high school degrees. Only
one mother was not currentlymarried.The families
contained an average of two children (range = 1-6)
Journal of Marriage and the Family
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 newspaperbirthannouncementsin a mid-sized
city in the SouthwesternUnited 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 ParentalResponses 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 standardpaper 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
situationprogramwere found to correspondreason-
ably well with observed behavior (Holden, Ritchie,
& Coleman, 1992).
The core of this particularprogramconsisted of
four vignettes depicting differenttypes of transgres-
sion: peer aggression (child hits a friend), defiance
using an object (child opens a friend'sbirthdaypres-
ent after being told not to), tantrumand 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
Spanking Expectations
of actual disciplinaryincidents in a priornaturalistic
study (Holden et al., 1995) were rated by a sample
of 10 mothers as "serious,""intentional,"and "typi-
cal" transgressionsfor 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 reportedthat 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
aftereach transgression.Mothersthen ratedthe 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 appropriatelyin
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-
911
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 similaritywas 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
disciplinaryresponse interaction,F(24, 408) = 3.17,
p < .001, indicating the spank groups, depending
on the particulardisciplinaryresponse, 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 significantunivariateanalyses. In each case,
the never spank group differed significantly from
the frequent spank group. (See Table 1.) The moth-
ers who spankedregularlythought that a spank was
a more appropriate disciplinary practice and would
result in more immediately appropriate behavior,
more appropriatebehavior 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,althoughin 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-
 V

912 Journal of Marriage and the Family

ing a time out response. On all three significant

H
0
ON
el 0
C'
O
C)
0
In
00
-
00
0 ANOVAs following a reasoning outcome, the never
14 cl; 1-4 6 -4 Cc; spank group differed significantly from the frequent
spank group (Table 1). On two outcomes, the occa-
nc
sional spank group also differed from the frequent
-
0 spank group. Following time outs, the never spank
group had a higher mean rating of feeling guilty
than the other two groups.
0
0 When comparing outcomes across the three dis-
0 0
00 ct
0 C
0 ciplinary responses, we found that the groups dif-
0 0 0 fered in their expectations of the appropriate be-
0
havior in the future following reasoning and
0
spanking. However, no significant group differ-
I ence in expectations was observed following using
"00
-I C N WI
In oo 00
C Cf
a' I"-d time out. This result is depicted in Figure 1. Not
0
U) surprisingly, the frequent spank group rated rea-
00
14- soning as less effective in the long-term than the
0
never spank or occasional spank groups, which
0-e did not differ. Appropriateness ratings reflected a
>< =
0. similar pattern. Mothers in the never spank and
z
occasional spank groups rated spanking as far less
000
appropriate than either reasoning or using time
^t" . . . .
CC 1 ^

0
0 =
out. In both of these groups, time out was rated as
r
oo00 00 0oo o
0 0
rt slightly less appropriate than reasoning, but this
0 O 0 difference was significant only in the occasional
04 0
z spank group.
c;
Q 00 k 00
Although no significant three-way interaction
CLt was present, a statistically significant disciplinary
m -ct u
C
ra
00
0
0
Z00 response x transgression was found, F(36, 1872) =
~S 2.52, p < .001. Examination of the four significant
00
IO univariate tests revealed no systematic pattern.
0
0 0 4-
00 Nm cm. 00 .0 fn .0eCn Because this interaction did not bear directly on
00= . .
0 :-; d: v6 t mc c-i the objectives of the study, those results will not be
z considered further but are available from the first
;zz
000. author.
PC3
This study demonstrates that mothers' reported
00 0 0
rC. ct cn eni eni \o
'0
\o
-\
r
e
c\i COr
spanking practices are associated with differential
o0P. 00
CO outcome expectancies. Mothers who frequently
Z II

spanked their children believed that spanking

05
FIGURE 1. SPANK GROUP X DISCIPLINARY RESPONSE
*0
INTERACTIONFOR THE OUTCOME EXPECTANCY OF
0Q 11
Z000
V APPROPRIATEBEHAVIOR IN THE LONG TERM
-0
. .
s
Co

ca*
*
'3 , 3 [] Occasionally spanks
0.-~ 0 '0. 0o i e
5-
?L Frequently
spanks
COC
.. 4- - C;
sC O

?, S? |I |IC v,
0
ai g~3
" Id ^
00(U Spank Reason Time out
It-
0 Typeof Disciplinary
Response
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 appropriatelong-term socialization. They also
thought it was suitable to use, as inferred from
their appropriatenessratings. 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.
STUDY2
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 thirdnew 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-
currenceof the specific transgression.The immedi-
ate compliance outcome was reworded as "imme-
diate compliance with parentwishes." We made no
prediction about raising the child's sense of guilt.
913
The only outcome that was identical to those used
in the first study was "parentfeels 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' disciplinaryjudgments or behavior
(e.g., Chilamkurti& Milner, 1993; Smetana, 1989).
For example, mothers perceived that prudentialand
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 transgressionwas also sys-
tematically relatedto 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 transgressionsaffected 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 recruitedin 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
914
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%).
Fathersranged 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' reportsof misbehavior in a prior study, dif-
fered for each vignette to avoid the possibility of
carry-overeffects. The social nonescalated vignette
consisted of a child interruptingan importantphone
conversation.The escalatedscenarioinvolved a child
sneaking out of room afterthe parenthad 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 prudentialnonescalated vi-
gnette concerned a child opening some medicine.
The escalated scenario involved the child running
from the parentin a busy parkinglot afterthe parent
asked the child to hold hands. Internalreliabilitiesof
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-
structedto rate how frequentlythis 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.
Journal of Marriage and the Family
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 appearedin a fixed order;the order
of presentationof 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 maternaleducation
than the other groups (Mfs = 3.4, Mns = 3.9, Mos =
3.8, F(2, 81)= 2.9, p = .06).
As a furthervalidity check of the group compo-
sition, the questionassessing 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 frequentlythan
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, parentsreported
being more prone to spank for escalated than non-
escalated transgressions (2.6 vs. 1.8; F(l, 78) =
54.87, p < .001).
Spanking Expectations 915

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-correctedsimple effects were tested for
when appropriate.
Results
The overall analysis revealed a significant spank
group x transgressioninteraction,F(70, 88) = 1.47,
p < .05, but there was no significant main effect
for or interactionswith parentgender.The source of
the multivariateeffect was investigated by comput-
ing univariate ANOVAs in each vignette for each
of the outcome expectancies. Statisticallysignificant
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,regardlessof reportedspanking
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
spankersin anothervignette. Statisticallysignificant
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 summarizeStudy 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-groupdifferences
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 ParkingLot
Child will learnthatbehavioris wrong 3.11* 3.95*
NS < OSt NS < FS
Child will feel bad 2.92t 3.22*
NS > OS NS < FS
Spankingteaches respect for parentalauthority 6.00** 7.63*** 4.16* 5.74** 5.19**
NS<FS NS<OS<FS NS<OS,FS NS < FS NS < OS, FS
Parentwill 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 = frequentlyspanks. Group differences were as-
sessed by Bonferroni-correctedsimple effects.
tp<.10. *p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.
916
DISCUSSION
These studies provide evidence thatparentshold dif-
ferentiatedexpectations about the consequences-
for both parentand child-of particulardisciplinary
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., appropriateshort 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 similarwere the results across the two stud-
ies? The one outcome that was identical in both
studies (parental guilt) was consistently found to
differentiatethe spank groups. However, in Study 2,
efforts to furtherspecify the Study 1 outcomes were
not entirely successful. For example, when we mod-
ified the outcome "behaveappropriatelyright away"
to read "immediate compliance with parental
wishes," the significant group effect disappeared.
Perhapsthe 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-
Journal of Marriage and the Family
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 rankedspank-
ing as the least appropriatetechnique 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 spankersare 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 rathercircumscribed 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 surprisingfinding 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 reportedspanking at almost
the same weekly frequency as mothers and shared
similar expectancies as mothers. Although this re-
sult was consistent with the lack of parentinggender
effects found in a meta-analysisby 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
unansweredby this study. First, we have not shown
that expectancies determine spanking practices.
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 appearto 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 corporalpun-
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-
ementarychildren think that corporalpunishmentis
acceptable(Catron& Masters, 1993; Chilamkurti&
Milner, 1993) and several studies have found evi-
dence for the intergenerationaltransmission of cor-
poralpunishment(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 particulardisciplinary 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
917
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 reportthe vignettes representedcommonly
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 dramaticallyaffected
the results. A final limitation was the restriction
of the sample to predominantlyWhite middle-class
parents. Expectancies in parents from other back-
groundsneed 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
918
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 betterunderstand-
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 interventionis clear. For certainbehaviors
already established in the parent's repertoire or
belief system, change may only come if attentionis
directed at modifying outcome expectancies.
NOTE
Thisresearchwas supportedby Grant1 RO1-HD26574-
01A1 from the NationalInstituteof Child Healthand
HumanDevelopment.Portionsof 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,SusanneMoutrie,KathyOsbor, Amy Riffino,
and Elton Woolsey for assistancewith data collection
andPatrickRandallforhis helpwithdataanalysis.
REFERENCES
Azar,S. T.,Robinson,D. R., Hekimian,E., & Twentyman,
C. T. (1984). Unrealisticexpectationsand problem-
solvingabilityin maltreating andcomparisonmothers.
Journalof Consultingand ClinicalPsychology,52,
687-691.
Baumrind,D. (1973). The developmentof instrumental
competencethroughsocialization.In A. Pick (Ed.),
Minnesotasymposiaon childpsychology(Vol.7, pp.
3-46). Minneapolis:Universityof Minnesota.
Briesmeister,J. M., & Schaefer,C. E. (1998).Handbook
of parent training:Parentsas co-therapistfor chil-
dren'sbehaviorproblems(2nd ed.). New York:John
Wiley& Sons.
Catron,T. F., & Masters,J. C. (1993).Mothers'andchil-
dren's conceptualizationsof corporalpunishment.
ChildDevelopment,64, 1815-1828.
Chilamkurti, C., & Milner,J. S. (1993). Perceptionsand
evaluationsof child transgressionsand disciplinary
techniquesin high- and low-risk mothersand their
children.ChildDevelopment,64, 1801-1814.
Crick,N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A reviewandre-
formulationof social information-processing mecha-
nisms in children'ssocial adjustment.Psychological
Bulletin,115,74-101.
Day, R. D., Peterson,G. W., & McCracken,C. (1998).
Predictingspankingof youngerandolderchildrenby
Journal of Marriage and the Family
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 attributionprocess. Child Development,
60, 1373-1391.
Durrant, J. E. (1996). Public attitudes toward corporal
punishmentin 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). Parentaluse
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 currentpoints
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.
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
r------------------_----_
Certified Family Life Educator's (CFLE)
Mailing List Rental
only $75.00 for700 mailinglabels
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
L6 __-----_______----
919
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). Intergenerationaltransmission 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.
JMF1199
_i---____J