Child, Maternal, and Family Characteristics Associated with Spanking

Author(s): Jean Giles-Sims, Murray A. Straus, David B. Sugarman

Source: Family Relations, Vol. 44, No. 2 (Apr., 1995), pp. 170-176
Published by: National Council on Family Relations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/584804
Accessed: 23/01/2010 19:50

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
Family Relations.

http://www.jstor.org
 CHILD, MATERNAL,AND FAMILYCHARACTERISTICS
ASSOCIATEDWITH SPANKING*
Jean Giles-Sims, Murray A. Straus, and David B. Sugarman"
This article presents descriptive data on frequency and distribution of spanking by mothers in the National Longitudinal Sur-
vey of Youth (NLSY). Spanking rates are high for all groups, but patterns also vary by age, sex, SES, marital status, ethnicity, re-
ligion, region, and community type. Policy discussion focuses on reevaluation of spanking norms, arguments for using the
term corporal punishment in research and policy, and strategies to reduce the use ofphysicalforce as discipline.
A lmost all children in the United
[S States are spanked by their par-
nts at some point in their lives.
Spanking as a form of discipline receives
support based on religious traditions
(Greven, 1991) and widespread beliefs
in the positive effects of corporal pun-
ishment on children (Graziano & Na-
maste, 1990; Straus, 1991); however, re-
search indicates that spanking increases
a child's risk of both short- and long-
term negative side effects (Straus &
Kaufman Kantor, in press). Having been
spanked as a child and/or adolescent is
related to later psychological problems
including an increased chance of being
depressed and thinking about suicide
(Straus, in press), becoming violent and
delinquent (Straus, 1991), and experi-
encing alienation and lower economic
achievement (Straus & Gimpel, 1992;
Straus, in press). Because information
about these side effects raises policy
concerns, family practitioners need to
know as much as possible about this dis-
ciplinary strategy, starting with an un-
derstanding of how frequently and
chronically parents use it and how it
varies according to the social character-
istics of parents and children.
This article describes patterns of
legally permissible violence (spanking)
as preliminary to more extensive re-
search on the causes and consequences
of corporal punishment and to discus-
sions of policy-related issues. Descrip-
tive data inform family life educators and
policy makers on the extent of the prob-
lem and whether it is limited primarily
to particular groups. Description also
provides a basis for research on poten-
tial correlational or causal factors. This
article, therefore, provides: (a) national
estimates of mothers' patterns of spank-
ing by the age of child; (b) analyses of
the relationships between selected
child, maternal, and family characteris-
tics and rates of spanking preschoolers;
and (c) a discussion of spanking norms
and policy recommendations for reduc-
ing the use of physical force as punish-
ment. Data will be presented on two as-
170
pects of spanking: prevalence and
chronicity. Prevalence is the percentage
of mothers who reported spanking their
children during the last week and
chronicity refers to the frequency of ma-
ternal spanking among only those moth-
ers who reported that they had spanked
their children in the referent week.
Some people use the term spanking
to mean a specific type of physical pun-
ishment, such as slapping a child's but-
tocks. Other people use it as a generic
term to include other legal forms of cor-
poral punishment, such as slapping a
child. As the research and policy arena
of corporal punishment receives increas-
ing attention, it is essential to clarify the
terminology that legitimizes spanking. In
the discussion, we recommend that re-
searchers, family life educators, and poli-
cy makers use more clearly defined ter-
minology to describe the use of physical
force on children that does not carry an
a priori legitimizing meaning.
Prevalence and Chronicity
Prevalence data (i.e., the percentage
of children spanked during a given time
period) consistently indicate very high
rates of spanking, especially for toddlers
and preschool children. Data from a na-
tionally representative sample of 2-, 3-
and 4-year-olds indicate that 95% were
spanked by parents during the preced-
ing 12 months (Straus, 1983); Sears,
Maccoby and Levin (1957) found that
99% of parents had spanked 5-year-old
children at least once. Additional studies
support these prevalence rates (Clausen,
1966; Frude & Gross, 1979; Newson &
Newson, 1963). More recent studies of
high school to college age students indi-
cate that 80% to 95% can remember
being spanked at some point (Bryan &
Freed, 1982; Deley, 1988; Graziano &
Namaste, 1990).
Research on chronicity (i.e., among
those spanked, how often the spanking
FAMILY
RELAON
occurs) is much less common than re-
search on prevalence, and also poses
measurement problems because parents
may not be able to remember how many
times they spanked a child over a month
or year. For most parents and children,
spanking and slapping are mundane and
taken-for-granted events and many or
most instances are likely to be forgotten
even after short lapses of time. Studies
that ask respondents about spanking fre-
quency over relatively lengthy periods,
such as a month or a year, underesti-
mate true rates (e.g., Straus, 1991,
1994). In fact, Goodenough (1931/1975)
noted that the frequency of spanking as
recalled during an interview was six
times lower than the frequency as
recorded in a parenting diary. Straus
(1994) assumed that the interviewed
parents could remember only a small
fraction of the actual number of times
they had hit their children in the past
year, and argued that many preschoolers
are hit almost daily.
A diary method such as The Disci-
pline Record (Larzelere, Schneider, &
Rose, 1988) probably provides the most
complete data, but is usually applicable
only to relatively small volunteer sam-
ples. In research on frequently occur-
ring behaviors (e.g., spanking as punish-
ment) with large probability samples, a
shorter recall period (e.g., one day or
one week) is preferable to a longer refer-
*This article is part of a research program on corporal
punishment at the Family Research Laboratory, University of
New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824. A program descrip-
tion and publication list will be sent on request. The work
has been supported by grants from several organizations, in-
cluding National Institute of Mental Health grants
(ROIMH40027 and T32MH15161) and the University of New
Hampshire.
**Jean Giles-Sims is a Professor of Sociology at Texas
Christian University, Fort Worth, TX 76129. Murray A. Straus
is Co-Director of the Family Research Laboratory at the Uni-
versity of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824. David B.
Sugarman is a Professor of Psychology at Rhode Island Col-
lege, Providence, RI 02908.
Key Words: children, corporal punishment, family vio-
lence, parenting, spanking.
(Family Relations, 1995, 44, 170-176.)
April 1995
ent period (e.g., one month or one
year).
Data obtained by asking adults
about spanking they had experienced as
children are even more likely to under-
estimate chronicity of spanking because
of the too lengthy and removed recall
periods and selective memory. In adult
recall studies, it is almost certain that
many spanking instances were forgotten
(Straus & Donnelly, 1993).
In view of these problems, it is usu-
ally desirable to measure spanking in ref-
erence to an immediately preceding and
short reference period. This article pre-
sents data on the prevalence of spanking
in the past week for preschool and
school age groups, and also, for the
preschool children, prevalence during a
one-hour home observation. However,
prevalence in the past week has some
limitations as the basis for estimates of
total spanking frequency. Children not
spanked in the past week, but spanked
in other weeks, are not included in
weekly prevalence rates.
Age and Sex of Child
Age of the child. As previously
noted, the classic study of American
childrearing by Sears, Maccoby, and
Levin (1957) found that almost all par-
ents of preschool age children (99%)
spanked them. Surprisingly few studies
have made systematic age comparisons,
but those that have done so show a de-
crease in spanking as children age from
the peak of over 90% at ages 2 to 4
(Straus, 1991; Wauchope & Straus,
1990). However, the rate of decrease is
slow. Two studies show that over half of
American children ages 13 and 14 are
still being spanked (Bachman, 1967;
Straus & Donnelly, 1993). This study
compares spanking as punishment by
mothers of children in four age groups:
0 to 2 years, 3 to 5 years, 6 to 9 years,
and 10 years and older.
Sex of the child. Although boys are
spanked more than girls, the difference
is small (Graziano & Namaste, 1990;
Straus, 1994; Straus & Gelles, 1990). Fur-
ther research is needed to determine if
the small difference between the rate for
boys and girls occurs across age and so-
cioeconomic status groups.
Maternal Characteristics
Age of the mother. Straus (1994)
found that older parents spank much
less often than younger parents, even
after controlling for age of the child. The
sample in the present study includes 25-
to 33-year-old mothers, excluding moth-
ers under 25 who, research suggests, are
most likely to use spanking. Age differ-
April 1995
ences are likely to occur even within
this restricted age range.
Marital status. Research focused on
rates of severe violence toward children
(physical abuse) by marital status has
found higher rates among single parents
and stepparents (Bolton & MacEachron,
1986; Giles-Sims & Finkelhor, 1984;
Kalmuss & Seltzer, 1989; Kimball, Stew-
art, Conger, & Burgess, 1980). Explana-
tions of an association between single
parenting and violence emphasize the
socioeconomic consequences of divorce
for women, and lack of social support
(Kalmuss & Seltzer, 1989). These theo-
retical and empirical explanations sug-
gest that single parents, and perhaps
stepparents, use spanking as punish-
ment more often than married parents,
but no direct empirical support links
spanking to marital status. The analyses
reported here test for differences in
spanking of married versus unmarried
mothers, controlling for socioeconomic
status (SES) effects, but the data pre-
clude analyses for stepparents because
mothers were interviewed about their
biological children only.
Educational level. There is a ten-
dency for the physical abuse of children
to decrease as educational levels in-
crease (Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz,
1980), but the relationship between ed-
ucation and spanking is unclear.
Family Characteristics
Theoretical explanations of family
violence often focus on social-structural
characteristics as antecedents or corre-
lates of violent attitudes and behaviors.
Socio-cultural groups may vary in disci-
plinary norms and in stress levels associ-
ated with their position, socioeconomic
opportunities, and with levels of
parental responsibility and support. Re-
search on the social group correlates of
spanking has produced some conflicting
findings. More research is needed on
how social group characteristics relate
to spanking.
Socioeconomic status (SES). Re-
search on the physical abuse of children
finds higher rates among lower income
parents (Gelles, 1978; Gil, 1970; Parke &
Collmer, 1975; Straus, Gelles, & Stein-
metz, 1980). However, most studies of
legally permissible violence (i.e., spank-
ing) have found few or no income relat-
ed differences (Erlanger, 1974a, 1974b;
Straus, 1994). Nevertheless, there is
enough evidence suggesting a relation-
ship (Straus & Camacho, 1993) to war-
rant further research and also to control
for SES when investigating other social
characteristics such as ethnicity.
FAMILY
Other variables related to income
explored in this research include pover-
ty status, Aid to Families with Depen-
dent Children (AFDC) participation, and
number of weeks employed/unem-
ployed in the past year. We interpret
these factors as indicators of stress,
rather than inherent characteristics.
Since previous research has found that
stress is linked to physical abuse of chil-
dren (Justice & Justice, 1976; Straus &
Kaufman Kantor, 1987), it is plausible
that these stressful conditions are also
associated with an increased use of
spanking.
Racial/ethnic group. Research on
differences between racial/ethnic
groups in rates of spanking has yielded
contradictory findings. Some studies
find European American parents more
likely to spank than African Americans
(Cazenave & Straus, 1990; Straus, 1994)
and others find no differences (Stark &
McEvoy, 1970). Straus and Camacho
(1993) report lower prevalence and
chronicity rates for spanking among His-
panic than among Anglo parents. The
present data permit us to expand the
range of ethnic groups to include
African Americans, European Americans,
Hispanic Americans, Native Americans,
and others.
Religion. Although Greven (1991)
and Elison and Sherkat (1993) found that
Fundamentalist Protestants strongly be-
lieve in spanking their children, they did
not differentiate between other religious
groups such as other Protestants,
Catholics and those with no religious
preference. Research on religious
groups also has not compared data on
rates of spanking. The data here on reli-
gion permit us to compare four groups:
Protestants, Catholics, those with no re-
ligious preference, and others.
Community type. Community type
in these analyses compares rural and
urban community rates of spanking.
Press coverage and media presentations
lead people to link urban and violence
almost automatically, but rural areas also
have characteristics of family isolation
and lower access to parental education,
which may lead to higher rates of spank-
ing in rural areas. Analyzing rates of fam-
ily violence in cities and in the country,
Straus et al. (1980) found that large
cities had higher rates of families with
physical abuse of children; however, we
do not know if a similar pattern exists
for spanking.
Geographic region. Flynn (1993)
found that respondents in the South had
more favorable attitudes toward spank-
ing than those in the other regions, but
the majority of respondents in all four
171
regions favored corporal punishment.
After controlling for several relevant so-
ciodemographic variables, Flynn identi-
fied the Northeast as the region with the
least favorable attitudes towards spank-
ing. These differences in attitudes may
not lead to differences in actual use of
spanking. Many parents who do not sup-
port spanking in principle may use it in
practice. In addition, Straus et al. (1980)
found that the South was not the region
with the highest rates of physical abuse
of children. The present study con-
tributes a missing piece of the needed
information by providing data on the
prevalence and chronicity of spanking in
all regions.
Sample
Data for this article are from the
1990 National Longitudinal Survey of
Youth (NLSY) conducted at the Ohio
State University Center for Human Re-
source Research. (See Baker, Keck,
Mott, and Quinlan, 1993, for a complete
description of sampling procedures and
sample characteristics.) These data are
part of a longitudinal program of re-
search. Women aged 14 to 21 were origi-
nally interviewed in 1979. In 1990,
those women were between 25 and 33
years old. By 1986, 7,725 women had
had children, and their 8,513 children
were added to the ongoing longitudinal
research. The numbers of mothers and
children in each analysis depend on age
and group characteristics as well as the
availability of data.
Measures
Spanking. The spanking data are
from the age-specific forms of the Home
Observation for Measurement of the En-
vironment (HOME) scales (Caldwell &
Bradley, 1984). The first prevalence vari-
able, available only for preschool chil-
dren, ages 0 to 2 years and 3 to 5 years,
is whether the interviewer observed the
mother spank her child during the hour-
long HOME interview. The HOME inter-
view also includes questions asking
mothers whether and how often they
spanked their children as discipline for
not minding. The NLSY data offer no in-
formation on spanking by fathers or
other caretakers.
Prevalence and chronicity mea-
sures, available for ages 3 to 5, 6 to 9,
and over 10, were derived from the fol-
lowing question: "Sometimes kids mind
pretty well and sometimes they don't.
About how many times, if any, have you
had to spank your child in the past
week?" Prevalence rates report the per-
172
centage of mothers who used spanking
in the past week. Chronicity indicates
the number of times the mothers who
spanked did so in the past week. Be-
cause the distribution of these responses
was positively skewed, treating chronici-
ty as a continuous variable would have
resulted in outliers. Consequently,
chronicity was recoded using the follow-
ing categories: 1, 2, 3, 4-5, 6-9, 10-14
and 15+ times spanked in the past week.
SES index. The measure of SES com-
bines three indicators: (a) occupational
status of the mother's most recent job in
1990, (b) total net family income, and
(c) highest grade completed by the
mother. The decision was made to use
the 1970 U.S. Census classification cate-
gories for the occupational status vari-
able in the combined index. The 1970
categories were judged to have more
face validity as an ordinal variable than
the categories used for the 1980 Census.
That judgment was supported by our
finding a higher correlation between oc-
cupational status and both income and
education using the 1970 categories
than using the 1980 categories.
To create the SES measure, the
three indicators were factor analyzed.
To reduce the number of cases lost be-
cause of missing data on one of the indi-
cators, a predicted score was substituted
when an indicator was missing. Each SES
indicator was regressed against the
other two to derive a regression equa-
tion, which was then used to generate a
predicted score for missing data on an
individual indicator. If values for two in-
dicators were missing, the case was
treated as missing. Factor analyses of the
combined SES variable with substitu-
tions for missing values exhibited a simi-
lar factor structure to the original analy-
ses with a listwise deletion. To control
for outliers that might affect subsequent
analyses, the SES index was transformed
to a normalized stanine score.
Other social characteristics. The
NLSY data included indicators for each
of the child, maternal, and family charac-
teristics listed in the introduction.
Statistical Analyses and
Weighing
The analyses of relationships be-
tween spanking and the maternal and
family characteristics are for children
aged 3 to 5 years. This age group was se-
lected for more in-depth analyses be-
cause preschoolers are those most likely
to be spanked (Straus, 1983, 1991).
Multivariate analyses of covariance
(MANCOVA) and ANCOVA tested for
group differences in prevalence (per-
centage using spanking), and chronicity
FAMILY
RElAlONS
(times per week of spanking) control-
ling for the effect of SES. SES was not
used as a covariate with income related
variables because of conceptual and sta-
tistical redundancy.
The descriptive statistics in Tables 1
and 2 on prevalence and chronicity by
age of child used NLSY weights to trans-
form the data to represent a national
sample of U.S. mothers aged 25 to 33
years. These weights corrected for over-
representation of low income respon-
dents and minorities. The data in these
tables provide the basis for making na-
tional estimates of prevalence and
chronicity by age groups. Further analy-
ses in Tables 3 and 4 used unweighted
data because weighing is not needed to
establish relationships between vari-
ables, and because the type of weighting
used to adjust disproportionate samples
is not appropriate for multivariate analy-
ses (Rogers, 1993).
Prevalence and Chronicity by
Age of Child
Table 1 shows that approximately
5% of the mothers of preschool children
spanked them while the HOME inter-
view was taking place (about one hour).
The unweighted percentages are actual-
ly about 25% higher (61/4%).In this case,
weighing for national estimates reduced
the estimated prevalence.
Table 1 also shows that well over
half (61%) of mothers of 3- to 5-year-old
children spanked them in the past week,
with a mean of about three times that
week. For 6- to 9-year-olds, the one-
week prevalence rate declines by almost
half to just over a third, with a mean of
about two spankings that week. Spank-
ing rates drop again, to 16%, for children
over 10 with spanking occurring a mean
of 2.4 times. Table 2 indicates that
among those who were spanked, chron-
icity of more than once that week de-
creases after the preschool period (3-5
years old). However, chronicity does not
change very much after this age period.
Those who spank children are spanking
older children as frequently as younger
children.
The correlations between SES and
the prevalence and chronicity of spank-
ing (not included in tables) indicate sig-
nificant relationships between SES and
spanking rates. As SES increases, the
prevalence of spanking goes down
slightly (rf 1312] = -.09, p < .001).
Among those who spank, chronicity also
decreases as SES increases (r4827] =
April 1995 r,A
Table 1 Marital status. The percentage of
Prevalence and Mean Frequency of Maternal Spanking by Age of Child, 1990 (Weighted) unmarried mothers who spank did not
Prevalence of Spanking Mean Frequency differ from married mothers after con-
of Spanking trols for SES, but they showed a different
Age of Child During Interview In Past Week in Past Week pattern. Unmarried mothers who did
0-2 5.4% na na spank reported a much higher mean fre-
3-5 4.9% 60.7% 3.1 quency of spanking in the past week
6-9 na 36.5% 2.1 than did those who were married. Analy-
10+ na 16.3% 2.4
ses such as these, which control for SES,
Note. na = Data not available for children in this age group. essentially ask: "If single mothers had
the same SES as married mothers, how
Table 2 would they compare in rates of spank-
Chronicity of Maternal Spanking in Past Week, 1990 (Weighted) ing?" In the real world, married and un-
married mothers differ in financial status
Age of Child
and in stress associated with money, par-
3-5 6-9 10+ enting, and other issues. Therefore, it is
Chronicitya Years Years Years also appropriate to examine the relation-
Once per week 33.1% 54.0% 56.7% ship between marital status and spank-
Twice per week 24.0% 21.0% 21.5% ing without removing the variance of
3 times per week 17.4% 9.9% 6.0% SES.
4-5 timesperweek 14.3% 11.1% 10.9%
6-9 times per week 6.5% 3.0% 2.5% Without controls for SES, fewer
10-14 times per week 3.1% 1.1% 2.0% married mothers spanked their children
15+ times per week 1.5% 0.0% 0.4%
in the previous week than did unmar-
aChronicity measures the frequency of spanking among only those children who have been ried mothers (60.8% and 67.1% respec-
spanked during the referent week. tively, F[ 1, 1385] = 5.10, p = .024). Simi-
larly, removing controls for SES, married
mothers who spanked did so a mean of
Education, Employment, and Age of mother. Even within the re- 2.8 times per week compared to 3.7
stricted age range of 25 to 34, older moth- times for unmarried mothers (F[1, 870]
Poverty Status ers (30-34) were less likely to spank their = 16.18, p < .001). Comparison of analy-
The percentages under the preva- children than younger ones. Chronicity ses with and without SES as a covariate
lence column in Table 3 show that the did not differ by age of mother. suggest that, although lower SES increas-
rate of spanking for 3- to 5-year-olds is es the chance of spanking at all, being
higher for children living in poverty, re-
ceiving AFDC, or whose mothers were Table 3
not employed at least 40 weeks in the Maternal Spanking in Past Week of 3- to 5-Year-Old Children, by Income Related Variables,
year. Most of these findings replicate 1990
findings from research on physical abuse Prevalence Chronicity
of children, but contrary to research on (Among those Spanked)
physical abuse, increases in the educa- Characteristics % Spanked Total N Mean SD N Spanked
tion of the mother are not associated
with lower rates of spanking. Education of Mother
I Iyears or less 62.3 229 3.48 3.72 134
The chronicity column in Table 3 12 years 64.4 679 3.09 3.07 418
shows only one significant difference: 13 or more 64.6 467 3.18 2.92 268
Of those mothers who spanked, those ANOVA F=.11 F= .71
receiving AFDC did so more often than Poverty Status
No 60.7 885 3.04 3.06 537
those not receiving AFDC. Yes 70.1 311 3.30 2.95 218
ANOVA F = 8.82** F= 1.15
The Relation Between Child, AFDC Recipient
Maternal, and Family No
Yes
61.6
70.7
1,159
225
2.98
4.12
2.83
4.34
709
160
Characteristics and ANOVA F = 8.00** F = 17.30***
Prevalence and Chronicity Number of Weeks Worked
0 62.9b 450 3.26 3.24 283
of Spanking 1-20 76.5a 149 3.17 2.90 114
21-40 64.3b 182 3.49 3.81 117
Table 4 indicates that prevalence 40+ 59.lb 606 3.01 3.01 358
and chronicity rates of spanking 3- to 5- ANOVA F= 5.30*** F= .79
year-old children vary by several child, Number of Weeks Unemployed
maternal, and family characteristics after 0 62.1 1,093 3.21 3.22 679
controlling for SES. 1-10 63.4 131 3.07 2.82 83
11-25 64.8 54 3.46 3.60 35
Sex of child. A larger percentage of 26+ 80.6 36 2.76 2.26 29
preschool sons were spanked than were ANOVA F= 1.73 F=.31
daughters. However, of those preschool- Note. Prevalence is the percentage of mothers who reported spanking their children during the
ers who were spanked, no significant last week, and chronicity refers to the frequency of maternal spanking among only those moth-
sex differences existed in frequency per ers who reported that they spanked their children in the referent week.
abMeans with different superscripts are significantly different from each other at the .05 level
week. (two-tailed test) using an unprotected t test of the difference between means.
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.

Aprl1995 173
rt FAMILY
Table 4 gions, but chronicity comparisons show
Matenal Spanking in Past Week of 3- to 5-Year-Old Children, by Child, Maternal, and Family no significant differences.
Characteristics (Controllingfor SES), 1990
Prevalence Chronicity
(Among those Spanked)
Characteristics % Spanked Total N Mean SD N Spanked Overall, the present analyses of the
Sex of Child NLSY data found very high prevalence
Male 67.4 673 3.31 3.28 454 and chronicity rates of spanking. Al-
Female 58.4 639 2.96 2.99 373 though this data set enhances the
ANCOVA F= 11.43*** F= 2.56 chances of accurate recall because of
Age of Mother the short and immediately preceding re-
25-29 66.7 605 3.03 2.92 408
3.30 3.42 402 porting period, several limitations may
30-34 60.5 673
ANCOVA F= 5.06* F= 1.39 still contribute to the underestimation of
Marital Status
true spanking rates and a lack of under-
Married 62.8 940 2.87 2.57 542 standing of all aspects of parental spank-
Not married 65.2 447 3,74 3.97 285 ing. First, some children not spanked in
ANCOVA F=.67 F= 12.88*** the past week may have been spanked
Race during other weeks of the year. This fac-
Black 69.4a 392 3.43 3.44 264 tor reduces total prevalence estimates
White 59.5b 644 2.97 2.97 363
Hispanic 6i.8, 272 3.02 2.84 152 within these analyses. The 61% preva-
American Indian 68.7ab 43 3.96 4.18 30 lence rate in this study compares to 90
Other 54.1ab 29 2.62 2.85 15 to 99% prevalence rates reported for
ANCOVA F= 2.83* F= 1.43 toddlers and pre-schoolers in previous
Religion studies that used longer referent periods
None 63.3ab 52 3.61 4.14 33
Protestant 67.8b 675 3.28 3.14 442 (Sears, et al., 1957; Straus, 1983). Sec-
Catholic 55.la 514 2.84 2.75 254 ond, underestimation may be due to the
Other 71.3b 145 3.60 3.74 96 taken-for-granted nature of spanking and
ANCOVA F = 7.79*** F = 1.86 to the lack of a clear definition of spank-
Community Type ing behavior. For example, a "quick
Rural 68.9 292 2.88 2.75 197 swat on the butt," when sending a reluc-
Urban 61.6 1,060 3.23 3.22 612
ANCOVA F= 5.08* F= 1.87 tant child to bed may not even be
thought of as a spanking by many par-
Region
Northeast 57.5b 195 2.98 2.94 101 ents and consequently may not have
North Central 58.91 344 2.96 2.82 196 been reported. Third, the mothers in the
South 71.6a 533 3.14 3.01 364 NLSY sample, being older than other
West 56.4b 294 3.34 3.70 159 maternal samples, underrepresented
ANCOVA F = 8.85*** F= .50
younger mothers who use spanking as a
Note. All means are adjusted for SES. Prevalence is the percentage of mothers who reported disciplinary technique more frequently
spanking their children during the last week, and chronicity refers to the frequency of maternal (Straus, 1994). Fourth, these estimates
spanking among only those mothers who reported that they spanked their children in the refer-
ent week. report only mothers' behaviors and do
a,bMeans with different superscripts are significantly different from each other at the .05 level not assess the spanking of other care-
(two-tailed test) using an unprotected t test of the difference between means. givers. Finally, these analyses based on
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001. the NLSY data neglect important dimen-
sions of spanking. For example, to fully
an unmarried mother has more impact racial/ethnic status contribute to differ- describe spanking behaviors requires in-
on the frequency with which spanking ences in prevalence rates of spanking formation about the spanking's severity
occurs. children. (i.e., how hard the child was spanked)
and its impulsivity (i.e., whether the
Racial/ethnic group. Comparisons Religion. Religious groups also dif- spanking was administered while the
of mothers of 3- to 5-year-olds indicate fer in the use of spanking. Post hoc t parent was emotionally out-of-control or
that racial and ethnic groups differ in tests comparing pairs of means indicate not).
the use of spanking. Post hoc t tests that Catholics differ from all other
groups by their lower use of spanking. To compare NLSY chronicity data to
comparing each pair of statistical means
Protestants and those with other reli- estimates based on other time periods,
indicate that a higher percentage of
gious preferences more commonly one could multiply the one week data
African American mothers spank their
spank their children, but, for those who by 52 to compare to yearly data. This
children than do mothers in other
spank, no significant differences exist in product suggests that 3- to 5-year-old
racial/ethnic groups. The category of
the mean number of times spanked per children are spanked a mean of more
Other includes a small number of Asians
week. The same pattern of lower rates than 150 times a year. That estimate is
and those who self-identified as Other.
of spanking by Catholics was found about 10 times greater than the chronici-
African American mothers had the high-
when SES is not controlled. ty estimate obtained by Straus on the
est chronicity rates, but the differences
basis of asking mothers how many times
from other racial/ethnic groups are not Community type and region. More the child was spanked in the past year.
statistically significant. Without controls rural mothers reported spanking than Straus (1994) argues that yearly figures
for SES, African American mothers' did urban mothers. Chronicity rates did vastly underestimate true rates, which
prevalence rates are again higher than not differ significantly. With respect to probably lie closer to the NLSY esti-
other racial/ethnic groups (F[4, 13751 = region, post hoc tests indicate that mates.
4.04, p = .003) and chronicity rates again prevalence rates of spanking are much
do not differ. Thus, both SES and higher in the South than in other re-

174 FAMILY April 1995

FREATION
 In addition to examining the issue
of overall prevalence and chronicity of
spanking, the present study investigated
between-group differences in spanking.
Consistent with other research (Straus,
1991), toddler and pre-school children
were spanked more than older children
and boys were spanked more than girls.
Gender role expectations likely con-
tribute heavily to this sex difference. For
example, parents believe male children
are more aggressive and require greater
physical discipline. Paradoxically, par-
ents' spanking also teaches boys to be
more aggressive, thus reinforcing the
traditional gender norms.
A number of maternal and family
characteristics were related to patterns
of maternal spanking. Mothers of lower
age, lower income, lower overall socioe-
conomic status, and those who were
employed less frequently reported high-
er prevalence and/or chronicity rates.
Outside employment may increase finan-
cial stability for the family and reduce a
child's risk of spanking from the mother.
In contrast to previous research on phys-
ical abuse (Straus, et al., 1980), unem-
ployment is not related in these data to
either prevalence or chronicity of spank-
ing. Most previous research focused on
the unemployment of fathers; the mean-
ing of mothers' unemployment may dif-
fer from fathers', and may include less
degradation and loss of self-esteem.
Being an unmarried mother, living
in an urban community, living in the
South, and being an African American
were also associated with more spank-
ing. The finding for African Americans is
inconsistent with previous work by
Cazenave and Straus (1990), Stark and
McEvoy (1970), and Straus (1994).
Overall, these findings support a
stress theory (justice & Justice, 1976;
Straus & Kaufman Kantor, 1987; Turner,
in press). Being poor, African American,
and/or an unmarried mother all bring
added stress to the parenting experience
because of discrimination and restricted
economic opportunity. In addition to
stress associated with low income, a
greater chance of an authoritarian par-
enting style in low SES groups (Kohn,
1977) may explain some of the differ-
ences in spanking. Despite the signifi-
cant difference in SES groups, a high
percentage of mothers in all SES levels
reported spanking their children, and
the combined SESvariable only accounts
for a small percentage of the variance in
spanking rates. Although some differ-
ences in rates of spanking remain after
controlling for SES, in reality, SES and
these group characteristics are not sepa-
rate.
[ii April 1995
Higher rates for Southerners and
rural mothers and lower rates for
Catholics suggest that cultural and sub-
cultural norms influence patterns of
spanking net of the differences based on
SES. These mothers may also differ in re-
sources and support for parenting. For
example, children may spend more time
with parents in rural communities, and
urban mothers may be influenced by
more current parenting information sug-
gesting that there are alternatives to
spanking.
No single factor will explain even a
majority of the variation in rates of
spanking, but each piece of the puzzle
contributes to our understanding. A se-
ries of factors may add up to a more
thorough understanding. More research
is needed to explain the spanking differ-
ences found by child, maternal, and fam-
ily characteristics. In addition, research
is needed on the exact meanings parents
attach to spanking, on the severity and
impulsiveness of spanking, on spanking
by fathers and other caregivers, on
spanking across the full range of family
types and household composition, and
on spanking rates across a greater range
of individual and social variables.
- force used on the child's body to cause
*:e mrsu Ig ua rp.I wec)
The extremely high prevalence and
chronicity of spanking found by this re-
search suggest a serious threat to the
well-being of American children. Re-
search consistently indicates that spank-
ing harms children by increasing the
chances of physical aggression (Kandel,
1991; Straus, 1991) and delinquency
(Straus, 1991). In addition, even after
controlling for SES and a number of
other potential confounds, spanking has
been found to be associated with social
and psychological problems of adults,
such as depression (Straus, in press),
wife beating (Straus, 1991, 1994), and
reduced occupational achievement
(Straus & Gimpel, 1992; Straus, 1994).
On the basis of the accumulating re-
search on the negative side effects of
spanking, we recommend replacing
spanking in the parenting discipline
repertoire with less harmful, but equally
or more effective, disciplinary proce-
dures. To do so requires several major
changes in parenting norms and behav-
iors.
First, we suggest reevaluating norms
that support using physical force on
children. Currently, the majority of par-
ents from all segments of society, profes-
sionals, and policy makers favor spank-
ing as an appropriate disciplinary tech-
nique (Anderson & Anderson, 1976; Ray-
Keil, 1988; West, 1994; White, 1993).
FAMILY
Researchers and family life educators
must educate individuals about the nega-
tive side effects of spanking and must
also provide training in effective alterna-
tives to spanking.
Second, the term spanking itself re-
quires reexamination. For policy and re-
search our terminology must be clari-
fied. One alternative is to more clearly
assess how parents and others define
spanking and then to maintain consis-
tent definitions. This task presents two
problems. First, the term spanking is al-
ready used in both a specific and a
generic way, causing confusion. Second,
spanking carries a strong legitimization
that would be hard to eliminate even in
the face of evidence of the negative con-
sequences. Thus, future work in the area
would benefit by using a more specific,
less legitimating term. We suggest using
the term corporal punishment, defined
as follows:
The use of physical force with the
intention of causing a child to expe-
rience pain, but not injury, for the
purpose of correction or control of
the child's behavior.
This terminology is more specific, less
legitimizing, and indicates all physical
pain.
Third, we recommend parenting ed-
ucation on alternative disciplinary strate-
gies. These programs could be directed
to: (a) all parents, (b) professionals and
opinion leaders expected to reeducate
parents, and/or (c) specific target
groups at high risk of spanking. As we
expected, certain groups (i.e., low in-
come, unmarried, rural, and Southern
mothers) have higher spanking rates
than do others. Although these group
differences are statistically significant,
the differences pale in comparison to
the high overall prevalence and chronic-
ity of spanking by almost all parents. In
35 subgroups of mothers broken down
by child, maternal, and family character-
istics, a clear majority of the mothers
spanked their children during the past
week. Moreover, in every group, moth-
ers who spanked averaged doing so
more than twice a week. Thus, although
we found that the rates are higher for
some groups, spanking is so common in
all social groups that its reduction or
elimination will require change by most
parents. We suggest that family life edu-
cators follow any or all of these recom-
mended educational strategies.
This research also indicated a signif-
icant relationship between spanking and
access to and control of socio-economic
resources. Some of this association is
likely due to differences in educational
175
experience and parenting norms, but
the stress of low incomes and lack of re-
sources to meet the needs of a family
also influence spanking directly. Thus,
attempts to eliminate family violence, in-
cluding spanking, require changes in the
basic socioeconomic conditions of soci-
ety. If societal norms change to reduce
spanking of children, and if the stress of
low socioeconomic resources decrease,
these group differences might decrease
or disappear.
Finally, we recommend that elimi-
nating spanking become a public health
agenda. The combination of the preva-
lence and chronicity of spanking report-
ed in this study and the research on its
harmful side effects suggests that reduc-
ing spanking can be a useful component
of primary prevention strategies to re-
duce overall violence, delinquency, wife
beating, depression, suicide, alienation,
and other mental and physical health
problems.
Anderson, K. A., & Anderson, D. E. (1976). Psychologists and
spanking.Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 5, 46-49.
Bachman, J. G. (1967). Youth in transition. Ann Arbor: Insti-
tute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
Baker, P. C., Keck, C. K., Mott, F. L., & Quinlan, S. V. (1993).
NLSY Child Handbook. Columbus, OH: Ohio State Univer-
sity, Center for Human Resource Research.
Bolton, F., Jr., & MacEachron, A. (1986). Assessing child mal-
treatment risk in the recently divorced parent-child rela-
tionship.Journal of Family Violence, 1, 259-275.
Bryan, J. W., & Freed, F. W. (1982). Corporal punishment:
Normative data and sociological and psychological corre-
lates in a community college population. Journal of
Youth and Adolescetnce, 11, 77-87.
Caldwell, B., & Bradley, R. (1984). Home observation for
measuirement of the environment. Little Rock, AK: Uni-
versity of Arkansas.
Cazenave, N. A., & Straus, M. A. (1990). Race, class network
embeddedness, and family violence: A search for potent
stupport systems.Journal of Comparative Family Studies,
10, 280-99.
Clausen, J. A. (1966). Family structure, socialization and per-
sonality. In L. W. Hoffman & M. L Hoffman (Eds.), Review'
of child development research (pp. 1-53). New York: Rus-
sell Sage Foundation.
Deley, W. (1988). Physical punishment of children: Sweden
and the USA.Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 19,
419-43 1.
An error occurred in the printing of "Parent Education Outcomes: Insights Into
Transformative Learning" by Joy A. First and Wendy L. Way in the January 1995 issue
of Family Relations. Pages 106 and 107 were reversed. The text on page 107 should
appear before the text on page 106. Corrected reprints are available from the authors.
We regret the error.
176
Ellison, C. G., & Sherkat, D. E. (1993). Conservative Protes-
tantism and support for corporal punishment. American
Sociological Rev'iew, 58, 131-144.
Erlanger, H. S. (1974a). Social class and corporal ptunishment
in childrearing: A reassessment. American Sociological
Review, 39, 68-85.
Erlanger, H. S. (1974b). Social class differences in parents' use
of physical punishment. In S. K. Steinmetz & M. A. Straus
(Eds.), Violence in the Family (pp. 150-158). New York:
Harper & Row.
Flynn, C. P. (1993, August). Regiotnal differences in attituides
touward corporal punishmetnt. Paper presented at the an-
nual meeting of the American Sociological Association,
Miami, FL.
Fnide, N., & Gross, A. (1979). Parental anger: A general popu-
lation survey. ChildAbuse and Neglect, 3, 331-333.
Gelles, R. J. (1978). Violence toward children in the United
States. American Journal of Orthop.svchiatry, 48, 580-
592.
Gil, D. G. (1970). Violence against children: Physical child
abuse in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UJni-
versity Press.
Giles-Sims, J., & Finkelhor, D. (1984). Child abtuse in step-fam-
ilies. Family Relations, 36, 407-413.
Goodenough, F. L. (1975). Anger in young children. West-
port, CT: Greenwood Press. (Original work published
1931)
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.
(ireven, P. (1991). Spare the child. The religious roots of
physical punishment anzd the psychological imipact of
physical abuse. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
justice, B., & Justice, R. (1976). The abusing family. NY:
Human Services Press.
Kalmuss, D., & Seltzer, J. A. (1989). A framework for studying
family socialization over the life cycle: The case of family
violence.Journal of Famnilj Issues, 3, 339-358.
Kandel, E. (1991). Physical punishment and the develop-
ment of aggressive and violent behavior: A revliew. Un-
published manuscript, IJniversity of New Hampshire, Fam-
ily Research Laboratory, Durham, NH.
Kimball, W. H., Stewart. R., Conger, R., & Burgess, R. (1980).
A comparison of family interaction in single versus two-
parent abusive, neglectful, and control families. In T. M.
Field, S. Goldberg, D. Stem, & A. M. Sostek (Eds.), High
risk infants and children: Adult and peer interactions
(pp. 43-59). New York: Academic Press.
Kohn, M. (1977). Class and conforrnity: A study of values
(2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Larzelere, R. E., Schneider, W. N., & Rose, A. N. (1988, Au-
gust). The discipline record: Assessing parental discipline
of toddlers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Psychological Association, Atlanta.
Newson, J., & Newson, E. (1963). Patterns of infant care in
an urban community. Baltimore: Penguin Books.
Parke, R. D., & Collmer, C. (1975). Child abuse: An interdisci-
plinary analysis. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Review of
child development research (pp. 509-590). Chicago: Uni-
versitv of Chicago Press.
Ray-Keil, A. (1988). Banning corporal punishment: Solution to
what?Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 3, 224-226.
Rogers, W. (1993). Probability weighting. Stata Technical
Builletin Reprints (Vol. 2.) Santa Monica, CA: Computing
Resource Center.
Sears R. R., Maccoby, E. C., & Levin, H. (1957). Patterns of
child rearing. New York: Harper & Row.
Stark, R., & McEvoy, J., III. (1970). Middle class violence. Psy-
chology Today, 4, 52-65.
ERRATUM
FAMILY
Straus, M. A. (1983). Ordinary violence, child abuse, and wife
beating: What do they have in common? In D. Finkelhor,
R. Gelles, G. Hotaling, & M. Straus (Ed.), The dark side of
families: Currentfamily, violence research (pp. 213-234).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Straus, M. A. (1990). The national family violence surveys. In
M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in
American families: Risk factors and adaptations to vlio-
letnce in 8,145 families (pp. 133-148). New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction Publications.
Straus, M. A. (1991). Discipline and deviance: Physical punish-
ment of children and violence and other crime in adult-
hood. Social Problems, 38, 101-123.
Straus, M. A. (1994). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal
punishment by parents atnd its effects o?l children.
Boston: Lexington/Macmillian.
Straus, M. A. (in press). Corporal punishment of children and
depression and suicide in adulthood. In J. McCord (Ed.),
Coercion and punishment in long term perspective. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Straus, M. A., & Camacho, T. (1993, August). Corporalpun-
ishment in a national sample of Hispanic-American
faemilies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Sociological Association, Miami, FL. Durham,
NH: Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hamp-
shire.
Straus, M. A., & Donnelly, D. (1993). Corporal punishment of
teen age children in the United States. Youth and Society,
24, 419-442.
Straus, M. A., & Gelles. R. J. (1990). How violent are Ameri-
can families? Estimates from the National Family Violence
resurvey and other studies. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles
(Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk fac-
tors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp.
95-112). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publications.
Stratis, M. A., & Gimpel, H. S. (1992, August). Corporalpun-
ishment by, parents and economic achievement: A theo-
retical model and some preliminary empirical data.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American So-
ciological Association, Pittsburgh, PA.
Straus, M. A., & Kaufman-Kantor, G. (1987). Stress and child
abuse. In R. E. Helfer & R. S. Kempe (Eds.), The Battered
Child (4th ed.) (pp. 42-59). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Straus, M. A., & Kaufman Kantor, G. (in press). Physical pun-
ishment by parents: A risk factor in the epidemiology of
depression, suicide, alcohol abuse, child abuse, and wife
beating. Adolescence.
Straus, M. A., Gelles. R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind
closed doors: Violence in the American family. New
York: Doubleday/Anchor.
Turner, H. (in press). The stress process as a context for study
of corporal punishment. In M. Straus & M. Donnelly
(Eds.), Theories of corporal punishment. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Wauchope, B., & Straus, M. (1990). Physical punishment and
physical abuse of American children: Incidence rates by
age, gender, and occupational class. In M. Straus &
R. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families:
Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 fami-
lies (pp. 133-148). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publi-
cations.
West, N. (1994, April 17). Should a child be spanked? Parents
aren't sure, experts disagree. Parade, pp. 12-14.
White, K. (1993). Where pediatricians stand on spanking. Pe-
diatricManagetnent, 4(9), 11-15.
April 1995 [i1