Spoil the Rod and Save the Child: Socioeconomic Predictors of Harsh Discipline by Parents,Egyptian Case Study

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to investigate the use of harsh disciplinary methods by parents as corrective techniques for their children, and the resulting behavioral aspects in the affected children. Sociodemographic predictors are tested for estimating the impact of harsh disciplining by parents. A primary survey of a sample of 1,751 children 10 to 12 years of age across 12 provinces of Assiut Governorate in Egypt is considered. The analysis is carried out using exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Structural equation modeling is used for testing the significance of the seven predictors. The findings show that harsh disciplining is significantly affected by the age, education level, income level, and marital status of parents. Harsh disciplining is evident for different dimensions: “beating for discipline,” “beating while children grow up,” “beating with a stick can discipline children,” and “children should not be listened to.” Some parents believe that beating will help in correcting the behavior of their children and in instilling desirable attitudes in them. This approach has ill effects, but it can only be corrected by addressing the poor economic conditions and education of the parents.

Keywords

child abusers child abuse physical abuse disclosure of domestic violence domestic violence predicting domestic violence cultural contexts

Introduction

Studies dealing with parenting practices have identified its two core aspects: affection (the way children are nurtured or the amount of warmth they are given) and control (the extent to and manner in which their activities are controlled). These core aspects are employed differently in the three major child-rearing styles: authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative. The authoritarian parenting style restricts the autonomy of children and imposes the rules of appropriate behavior on them. In the permissive style (the liberal way of bringing up children), the parents do not set behavioral boundaries, and act as if they are not regulating authorities in the lives of their children. Authoritative parents set behavioral boundaries and limit inappropriate behavior by means of reasoning and verbal communication, and reinforce appropriate behavior with positive reinforcements. This results in fewer psychological and behavioral problems in children compared with the authoritarian and permissive styles (Steinberg, Vandell, & Bornstein, 2010).

Violent discipline may involve corporal punishment (such as spanking or hitting with a stick) or forcing the child physically to act in a certain way. Psychological aggression as a means of harsh disciplining may also involve the use of guilt, insult, shame, lack of love, and emotional blackmail to dominate, and to subdue a child’s misbehavior. Caregivers or parents using violent discipline believe in the authoritarian child-rearing style, and usually have little education.

Parents apply corporal punishment for dual reasons in different time frames: to control the child’s immediate behavioral problems and to ensure the child behaves properly long-term in the future. Because corporal punishment is often used by parents as a disciplinary tool in Arab nations, Arab children are used to undergoing corporal punishment, and many of them are very accepting of this.

When harsh disciplinary techniques are used, however, desirable behavior such as obedience cannot be internalized because children are obeying their parents out of fear of punishment. Furthermore, when children receive corporal punishment over a long time, they are less likely to express empathy for others. While there are reasons to suggest that corporal punishment can make a child behave aggressively, such punishments are often applied to control aggressive behavior such as the hitting of a younger sibling, or acts of stealth. If parents are surrounded by people in their social communities or friendship groups who, like themselves, have little education and are not independent, their children are at a greater risk of engaging in substance abuse in their adolescence. The negativity of expressions of anger, coldness, or strong dislike associated with the physical act of parental aggression likely further degrades the aggressive act. Corporal punishment has, in fact, been associated with psychological problems that develop later in adulthood, along with criminal behavior.

The emotional regulation is mostly formed within the family. After that, it is carried over to the peers (similar people). This may lead to social behaviors which are incompetent (inefficient). Corporal punishment and psychological aggression are connected with problems of externalizing in children; so as a result, they are one of the key socializing factors responsible for children’s conduct and their involvement in antisocial activities. On the contrary, proper coaching from parents helps children to inhibit negative effects, to practice self-soothing, or to focus attention.

Fortunately, physical violence in disciplining may be modulated or controlled by the adoption of a regulatory framework, and also by raising awareness about the efficacy of changing the caregivers’ approach to and beliefs about disciplining children. The regulation of harsh physical violence can be tackled by well-defined national policy. Caregivers and parents would be better served if they were more aware of the desirability of communication about and discussion of disciplinary problems, but in most cases where harsh discipline is the norm, they are reluctant to discuss any issue of misbehavior with the child, and instead, are inclined to punish immediately.

From the literature review (below), an inclination toward harsh disciplining has been observed among Arab countries and in Egypt, as has the fact that the children did not consider this morally wrong on their parents’ part. Studies in Western nations also reveal that such harsh disciplinary methods may lead to aggression. The literature review in effect covers the results of harsh discipline, but there is a gap in the research literature available: It does not explore the detailed factors that induce the use of harsh discipline measures in the first place.

The purpose of this article is to identify the dimensions of harsh disciplining of children and to use structural equation modeling (SEM) to identify the influence of socioeconomic parameters (the independent variables) on the harsh disciplining of children in Egypt. This study attempts to achieve this through factor analysis. The following research questions are addressed in the article:

Research Question 1: What behavioral or corrective aspects in children are mostly affected by harsh disciplining?

Research Question 2: Which socioeconomic factors (gender, age, residence, marital status of parents, parental education, income, and number of children) explain significantly the harsh means of disciplining children?

Literature Review

Different studies have indicated that, contrary to the dissatisfaction of children in the West with authoritarian parenting, Arab children and youngsters are often accepting of both abusive-aggressive behaviors from teachers and authoritarian styles from parents who involve harsh discipline. A study of Egyptian college students (Hassan & Al-Jubari, 2016) revealed that 64.4% women and 33.1% men preferred complete submission to their parents. In Saudi Arabia, a study (Dwairy, 2006, p. 53) revealed that in a sample of female college students, 67.5% reported being physically punished for various reasons from time to time, and around 65% of them justified the treatment. In fact, females identified themselves more with being regulated than males did. Male children experienced more physical punishment than female children, but they considered harsh discipline to be a normal duty for their parents and instructors. In rural areas, male respondents reported harsher discipline from their parents compared with females, while in urban areas, females reported more authoritarian parenting than males. It has often been observed that in Arab society, the firstborn children of households receive more gentle treatment and attention than the others. Parental education, the family’s economic level, and urbanization have significant influence on parenting styles and practices, so that when mothers are more educated, they are less likely to control their children’s behavior with harsh or physical means of discipline.

Styles of parenting and discipline vary across Arab societies. For instance, Lebanon and Jordan have a more modern approach to parenting, and in these countries, girls experience less authoritarian and more authoritative parenting than boys. A United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF; 2010) study has shown that urbanization affects the methods used to discipline children, so when families migrate from rural to urban areas in Arab countries, their harsh conventions soften. In addition, Arab families with higher socioeconomic status are less likely to use harsh disciplining techniques. In general, economic well-being is related to a permissive style of parenting, whereas poor economic status is more likely to be related to a harsh means of discipline. Contrary to this, Dwairy et al. (2006) found that in Arab societies, sibling order and country were more influential on disciplinary methods than social factors such as urbanization, parental education, and the family’s economic level. Arab parents imposed harsh disciplinary practices on their children irrespective of their wealth, education, or place of residence (rural or urban). Dwairy et al. did not, however, analyze the reasons behind this, or whether religion had a role in determining social behavior or parental disposition toward their children. Brink (2014) observed that punishment, which includes spanking and beating and bringing shame upon the child in front of others, is aimed at instilling reason in children. But as most households use harsh disciplining, Arab children are less likely to be emotionally stressed about it compared with children in nations where such violence at home is not well accepted or perhaps even illegal.

Although the necessity of child discipline cannot be denied, a persistent debate exists regarding violence in disciplinary practices. Researchers have shown time and again that both physical and psychological disciplinary harshness can hinder the normal processes of cognitive and social development in children. A UNICEF (2012) report, for example, showed that around three quarters of children found to be lying between 2 and 14 years of age were also victims of violent discipline, mostly of a psychological rather than physical nature. Almost half the sample tested had sustained physical forms of punishment, and the survey revealed that the severest forms of physical punishment comprised hitting the child on the head, spanking the child’s ears and face, or repeatedly hitting the child brutally. These extreme forms of punishment were prevalent among 17% of households on average, though caregivers and households usually applied a combination of violent and nonviolent disciplinary practices to control the behavior of their children and improve their self-control.

There is a wide discrepancy in the occurrence of harsh disciplining. Application of a totally nonviolent means of disciplining children is as low as 4% in Cameroon and Yemen, for example, but it is around 57% in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Cain & Albrecht, 2011). Interestingly, less than one quarter of the caregivers in Cain’s sample believed that physical punishment is essential for the upbringing of their children, and most of these came from the Syrian Arab Republic and Sierra Leone. However, if the mother believed in the effectiveness of physical violence, the household was most likely to harshly discipline its children, even if there was no reason for it. While in some countries the likelihood of boys being punished more than girls is not significant, in many nations, boys are much more likely to be disciplined harshly with physical violence compared with girls, with the age group experiencing the most violence being 5 to 9 years (Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, 2016). Unfortunately, there is often a chance that the children who experience harsh physical discipline will subsequently be physically violent toward peers, and that those undergoing psychological discipline will be both physically and emotionally aggressive (Damon et al., 2006).

Researchers have often associated aggressive behavior in children with harsh discipline (Jameson, 2008). Native American communities are often characterized by harsh discipline of children and the associated aggression of those children. Similar features have been observed among the working class of Britain, the United States, Australia, Finland, Poland, and Israel (World Health Organization [WHO], n.d.). Low-income mothers often apply harsh disciplinary practices. Economically backward families often suffer stress, and their caregivers or parents tend to engage in coercive interactions with children or among themselves.

A study conducted by Chang, Schwartz, Dodge, and McBride-Chang (2003) presents a framework of harsh parenting with both direct and indirect impacts on child aggression. This research was conducted with 325 Chinese children and their parents, to understand the disciplinary associations between parents’ and children’s gender. When a mother tended to discipline her child harshly, it affected the child emotionally, and that impact was stronger for mothers rather than fathers; however, for mothers disciplining normally, no difference was found as per the child’s gender. Harsh parenting by fathers affected sons more powerfully than daughters. Chang’s results showed that negative emotionality was a common cause of family disturbances which culminated in parenting and child adjustment issues. Chang also found that because aggression was more common among men than women, fathers were most likely to use harsh measures of disciplining than mothers, but mothers were more likely to use harsh treatment due to momentary noncompliance by children.

Another study, by Nix et al. (1999), investigated the association between hostile approaches by mothers toward children’s behavioral issues and the relationship between the mothers’ harsh disciplinary practices and issues of externalized behavior by children. For this, a longitudinal study over a 4-year span was carried out with a sample of 277 families from three different regions of the United States. The sample, representing 19% of racial minorities, was assessed during the summer season before entry into kindergarten. A set of structural equation models showed that the hostile attributes of the mothers had a significant impact on their children’s future externalizing behavioral problems in schools.

Al-Mahroos (2007) used an elaborate study of medical literature including three studies from Kuwait. The study found that 22 of 27 children were victims of corporal punishment; 11 case study reports from Saudi Arabia tracked 40 such children, of whom 24 suffered corporal punishment; and around 150 such cases from Bahrain, of whom five children had fatal outcomes. Many of the perpetrators were never punished or treated for their cruelty. In Yemen, which is characterized by high poverty rates, children underwent corporal widespread punishment, both at school and home. Runyan et al. (2010) showed that around 55% of families in general used physical punishment, and that because corporal punishment was found to be ineffective as a means for disciplining, many countries were taking steps to ban such punishments.

Some studies have investigated whether corporal punishment actually does cause children to be compliant. Gershoff et al. (2007), for instance, applied a meta-analysis of five studies to investigate compliance by children, given the way corporal punishment was applied by parents, and the result showed a positive association on average, despite the fact that the results were inconsistent. One study with a big effect size found a positive relationship, but another one showed no association, and yet another other found a negative relationship. In a meta-analysis by Grusec and Goodnow (1994), 85% of studies reported that harsh discipline or corporal punishment was not significantly associated with moral internalization or long-term compliance. In a meta-analysis of 27 studies by Gershoff (2002), 12 studies found an association between corporal punishment and antisocial behavior. In fact, parents may often have used harsh disciplinary measures out of frustration about their children’s problem behavior.

Research Methodology

Research Approach

The research follows a positivist philosophy where the inferences are based upon evidence from our empirical study across 27 governorates of Egypt and 1,751 individuals in the age group 10 to 12 years. Children certainly require guidance of some form or other during their younger years and up to 12 years of age—and even beyond. Up to 8 years, the development of their motor skills takes place and parents feel this is the right time to mold their children’s behavior and nature (Colyar, 2011; Mayes & Lewis, 2012). A 23-item questionnaire was distributed to children of both genders by randomly selecting the sample; it was answered during face-to-face interactions. The quantitative method includes exploratory and confirmatory analysis. Dimension 8, “disciplining harshly,” is considered to be a construct of the observed variables: Children become spoiled if they are not hit with a stick (“stick”), beat children strongly for discipline (“discipline_beat”), beat and reprimand children in adolescence (“grow_up_beat”), children should be beaten not indulged (“not_indulge”), and children should not hit each other (“not_hit_each_other”).

Instrument: Reliability, Validity, and Factor Extraction

The reliability of the questionnaire has been measured by testing via the KMO (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin) and Bartlett’s Test. The closer the value of the KMO test is to 1, the better. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy illustrates that the items, along with the sample size, provide a 67.8% measure of adequacy for factor analysis, which is moderately satisfactory. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity yields a statistically significant (p < .001) χ² value. As a result, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) can successfully extract latent factors. The total variance in all the items explained by the extracted factors (in this case seven social and demographic factors of age, gender, residence, parental marital status, parental educational level, family monthly income, number of children younger than 18 years) shows that there are two factors that can be extracted which are associated with the variables included in the dimension.

The criterion for extraction of a factor is an Eigenvalue higher than 1. The first factor (that it is necessary to beat children strongly for discipline) explains 36% of the variance and the third (that it is necessary to beat and reprimand children during adolescence), 20%. It is evident that the variable, “stick” (children become spoiled if they are not hit with a stick), has a low shared variance, so it cannot be extracted. The remaining variables have moderate levels of shared variance, except for “not_hit_each_other” (children should not hit each other), which has very high shared variance. The component matrix shows the loadings of the variables by each of the two extracted factors. All of the variables except for “not_hit_each_other” load well in the first extracted factor. The second extracted factor has only “not_hit_each_other”; therefore, this variable will be discarded from further factor analysis (Appendices B to G).

In conclusion, analysis of “harshly disciplining” will be further explored with regard to four of the proposed five variables: “Children become spoiled if they are not hit with a stick,” “It is necessary to beat children strongly for discipline,” “It is necessary to beat and reprimand children during adolescence,” and “Children should be beaten not indulged.”

Predictive Factors

It is important to test whether there is any predictor, that is, independent variable that can statistically significantly influence the dependent variable of harshly disciplining children. This process has two steps. First, for example, the dependent variable “discipline_beat” is extracted and evaluated according to its five dimensions using EFA. In this case, EFA has been conducted to extract discipline_beat from its dimensions (children become spoiled if not hit with a stick, beat strongly for discipline, beat and reprimand while growing up, children should not be listened to, and children should not hit each other). Second, SEM analysis has been conducted for the dependent extracted variable (discipline_beat) to illustrate the relationship between it and the seven independent variables (the social and demographic factors of age, gender, residence, parental marital status, parental educational level, monthly family income, and number of children younger than 18 years).

Results

The variable “discipline_beat” has been tested as a construct of the observed variables (beat strongly for discipline, beat and reprimand when growing up, children should not be listened to, children should not hit each other, and children become spoiled if not hit with a stick). The estimation of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is shown below in the path diagram (Figure 1). The estimation shows that harsh discipline is a positive and significant construct of four variables: beat strongly for discipline, beat and reprimand during adolescence, children should not be indulged, and children become spoiled if not hit with a stick. In other words, all these variables are influenced by harsh disciplining of children. These results are based on the perceptions of the children interviewed in our survey.

Figure 1.

Model fit for confirmatory factor analysis in AMOS.

The regression estimates in Table 1 show that factors such as age, parental marital status, parental education level, and family income significantly affect the harshness of disciplining of children, and that, as they age, children experience even harsher discipline by their parents. Perhaps this occurs because of the parents’ perception that their children increasingly require harsher discipline as they get older—and research supports this finding. In our face-to-face interviews with children in the 6- to 9-year-old age group, children are most likely to externalize behaviors based on harsh discipline, but such externalization is not observed at 3 years. As children grow older, we may consider harsh discipline as nonnormative behavior; however, the way the children received and responded to it depended on their perception of their parents’ reasons for it. If they perceive that harsh discipline is used by their parents out of concern for their behavior, it is more likely that the children will no longer display their previous problem behavior. Older children are, in fact, better at such judgments of their parents’ intentions than younger ones.

Table 1.

Regression Weights.

Variables	Estimate	SE	C.R.	p
Harsh discipline ← Gender	0.042	0.052	0.805	.421
Harsh discipline ← Age	0.041	0.017	2.435	.015
Harsh discipline ← Residence	−0.063	0.041	−1.544	.123
Harsh discipline ← Marital status	0.040	0.020	1.963	.050
Harsh discipline ← Education	0.022	0.010	2.079	.038
Harsh discipline ← Income	−0.035	0.016	−2.220	.026
Harsh discipline ← Children	−0.012	0.012	−1.051	.293
Discipline_beat ← Harsh discipline	1.000
Grow_up_beat ← Harsh discipline	0.965	0.088	10.910	***
Stick ← Harsh discipline	0.617	0.079	7.772	***
Not_listen ← Harsh discipline	0.721	0.112	6.410	***

Note. The table explains the standardized regression weights. Each one represents the amount of change in the dependent variables that is attributable to a single standard deviation unit’s worth of change in a predictor variable. CR= Critical Ratio.

Discussion

Contrary to the literature, our survey did not show a significant relationship between harsh disciplining and the gender of the child, place of residence, or the number of children under 18 years of age in the family. Studies reflect that boys are more prone to be punished harshly than girls, and also that fathers are mostly found to deal harshly with boys compared with mothers (McKee et al., 2007); however, the survey this present article is based on shows no significant relationship between harsh disciplining and the gender of the child. The study by McKee et al. took into consideration positive parenting, while associating children’s behavior with disciplining practices, but our study did not have the scope to categorize the parenting as either positive or negative, based on the methods of discipline used. This could be the cause of our insignificant result with respect to gender. Dwairy et al. (2006) reported harsher disciplining of boys in rural regions, but our study does not reveal any significant difference with respect to place of residence. Dwairy also showed that older children may get more disciplinary attention than younger ones, and Montgomery (2008) found that older children may be punished more severely but beaten less often. Based on these findings, their assumption was that significant differences would be observed with respect to the number of children in the family, but our survey revealed insignificant results with respect to this variable.

Our study does confirm the literature’s findings that parental education levels play a significant role in determining the harshness of disciplining children. The more educated the parents are, the less likely they are to use harsh disciplinary means. They are also more likely to understand the utility of coaching effectively and internalizing discipline rather than externalizing it. Studies have shown that parents with a high school education resort more to means such as spanking for disciplining their children than parents with neither high school nor tertiary education. Parents without education can have such low expectations about disciplining or their children’s behavior that they are less likely to bother about disciplining their children. For parents with tertiary education, expectations of children can be high, but they are more likely to use authoritative or permissive styles of parenting, and to understand the effectiveness of counseling or teaching via interaction (Mitchell, 2008). A study in an Egyptian context (Smith, Gollop, Taylor, & Marshall, 2005) showed that most mothers are inconsistent in their approach toward disciplining children, and the children are not sure whether they will be punished or have their demands met. In fact, the mother may often need help from the father or older sons to control the children.

Educated mothers are not as indulgent as uneducated mothers with their children, so they are less likely to sleep with their children or carry them themselves, often using swings, cribs, and strollers instead. As a result, their children make more use of their limbs and score higher on the Bayley Mental and Motor Scale compared with those children who are carried or sleep with their mothers (Fernea, 1995). Educated mothers are also more likely to provide toys for their children, as toy manipulation is related to increased psychomotor development, and providing toys is not inconsistent with disciplining children. Verbal styles of child rearing seem to be associated with better cognitive development of children, and educated mothers are more likely to use verbal means rather than physical violence. Brink (2014) also found that educated mothers punish any forms of aggression shown by their children.

Single parents are less likely to use harsh means of disciplining than married parents, and they are more likely to offer protection to their children from harsh discipline compared with married mothers. However, children with surrogate father figures are at risk of more maltreatment than the children of widowed or divorced single parents or single mothers living on their own. Single mothers, though, are more likely to be less involved in their children’s lives, which could be detrimental otherwise to their children’s development, but still, there is less chance of physical violence or harsh discipline (Mitchell, 2008). Our study shows that married couples are more likely to enforce harsh discipline on their children, a result supported by the UNICEF (2010) survey results, which also showed that mothers who experienced domestic violence themselves were slightly more likely to treat children with more violence than mothers who did not. Marital frustrations might affect the way parents treat children, and in fact, one study even showed that polygamy in households induced more ill treatment of children for the sake of discipline (UNICEF, 2010). Single parents, however, are less likely to face regular marital conflicts, and hence have fewer reasons to take their frustrations out on their children.

Our study confirmed the literature’s finding that the family income significantly affects harsh disciplining. With a higher income, parents are less likely to use harsh means of disciplining their children. According to Jansen et al. (2012), children belonging to low-income families are prone to behavioral problems and are also victims of harsh discipline by their parents. That study was carried out on 3,756 children and parents. Family dysfunction, parental age, financial difficulties, and educational level were associated with the risk of parents using harsh discipline, but socioeconomic factors such as financial difficulties and education qualifications were also related to the mothers’ tendency toward harsh disciplining. That study recommended that preventive steps be adopted for children even before they are born.

The UNICEF report in 2010 shows that in some Arab countries, submission to harsh disciplining by children is evident, and that it is commonly believed that harsh discipline actually helps in disciplining children. Beating a child with a stick is legally acceptable on the home front of 11 nations. In Egypt, around 37% children have claimed to have been thus beaten (Wilmshurst, 2012). Because encouraging desirable behavior requires punishing undesirable behavior, corporal punishment is seen as the means to correct relationships between people and improve desirable socialization. According to WHO, corporal punishment of children in the form of beating with a stick is socially accepted among other forms of discipline in more than 60 nations for juvenile criminals, and more than 65 nations, schools, and institutions also use such a form of punishment. It flows from these beliefs that harsh disciplining may be put into practice by beating children (Montgomery, 2008). The results in Table 1 are in line with this sort of literature and its related theories. Our results show that the coefficient for the variable “discipline_beat” (“It is necessary to beat strongly for discipline”) is significant, and hence, harsh disciplining of children is a construct of this factor.

Some parents believe that older children should be beaten more severely but less frequently. In addition, the SEM results in Table 1 also show that the factor, “grow_up_beat” (“It is necessary to beat and reprimand children during adolescence”) significantly influences the harsh disciplining of children and is thus the second factor in the construct of harsh discipline.

The Demographic and Health Survey of Egypt 2014 (Egypt Demographic and Health Survey 2014, 2015, p. 210) reported on violent disciplinary approaches, based on completion of a questionnaire by, and interview of, the head of the household/parent. It found that 11 different approaches were used to discipline children of 1 to 14 years during the month before their interview, and grouped the techniques into nonviolent and violent approaches. The most commonly used nonviolent approach to disciplining involved explaining to the child that the behavior was wrong; 85% of children were reported to have been disciplined using this approach. With respect to the violent approaches, it reported that the most common one was to shout, yell, or scream at a child, and that around 90% of children were disciplined in this manner in the month beforehand. It also reported that physical punishment was also widely used in disciplining children, the most commonly reported form involving hitting the child on the hand, arm, or leg (55%); followed by shaking the child (46%); and hitting the child on the face, head, or ears (41%). Around 25% of children were hit on the bottom or another part of the body with a hard object (such as a belt). Around 11% of children were reported to have been beaten, that is, hit over and over again as hard as possible.

The widespread existence of children with negative feelings that we found is displayed in Appendix Figure A1. Clearly, the largest number of these occur in the cities of Assiut itself, Manfalout, Al Quseyah, and Dayrout, as well as to the east of Assiut on the Nile and southeast of it in Abu Tij, whereas the smallest number occur in areas around Dayrout, and in Abnub. These results, of course, are confirmed by the results of the Egypt Demographic and Health Survey 2014 (2015, p. 212), which found that 93% of children aged 1 to 14 years were disciplined using some violent method in the month before the survey, and that around 11% of children were beaten, that is, hit over and over again as hard as possible during that same period.

Dillen (2011) also supports our finding that parents believe that “children become spoiled if they are not hit with a stick” (“stick”). So, for example, people believe that when children are not disciplined using harsh means, they will grow up to be lazy and discontented, or that corporal punishment is necessary to teach their children about pain so they can learn to control their reactions. Any tendency toward jealousy, or unwillingness to share food, and so on, should be punished, mostly by beating. It is to be noted here that corporal punishment could be necessary in exceptional cases, but in general, spanking is inappropriate.

Many parents believe that it is expedient to enforce desirable behavior on children, that “children should be beaten not indulged,” that is, that harsh discipline is necessary. As a result, “not_indulge” can be considered as the fourth factor on which harsh disciplining is constructed.

It can be seen, therefore, as illustrated in the SEM table (Table 1), that harshly disciplining children is a significant construct of all four factors—it is necessary to beat strongly for discipline, it is necessary to beat and reprimand children during adolescence; children become spoiled if they are not hit with a stick, and children should not be indulged.

The model chi-square in Table 2 (446.338; df = 38) has a 5% significance, as its corresponding p value is much less than .05. The goodness-of-fit index (GFI) is .955 (closer to 1). The comparative fit index (CFI) illustrates the ratio of the difference between χ²−df of the null and the proposed model to χ²−df of the null model. To be acceptable, the model should have a CFI measure of .9, but at .734, its CFI is <.9, so this model does not satisfactorily meet the requirement. The normed fit index (NFI) is calculated as the ratio of the “difference of χ² between the null and the proposed model” to the null model. Given that its NFI is only .719 instead of .9, this model does not meet this requirement. The relative fit index (RFI) compares the chi-square for the hypothesized model with the baseline model. Given that its RFI is .594 instead of .9, this model does not meet this requirement. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) analyzes the issues between a hypothesized and null model without considering sample size. For a good fit, the model RMSEA has to be equal or below .08, and this model meets that requirement. The root mean residual (RMR) value is less than .1, and, as this indicator is for poorness of fit measurement, the lower its value, the better the fit (Kline, 2005). Given that the RMSEA and RMR for this model are .078 (which is <.08) and .068 (which is much less than .1), respectively, fit of the model overall may be considered good. The p close value (denoting the probability for RMSEA) shows the model has a significance of 5%, because the value is much less than .05, so again the model is a good fit. The incremental fit index (IFI) does not indicate a good fit given it is around .7, instead of equal to or more than .9.

Table 2.

Model Fit Summary.

Model	CMIN	df	CMIN/df	IFI	GFI	TLI	CFI	RMSEA	PCLOSE
Default model	446.388	38	11.747	.737	.955	.615	.734	.078	.000
Saturated model	.000	0		1.000	1.000		1.000
Independence model	1,591.005	55	28.927	.000	.848	.000	.000	.126	.000

Note. The table explains the discrepancy between the observed and expected values for the model in question. IFI = incremental fit index; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; TLI= Tucker-Lewis index; PCLOSE = p of Close Fit.CMIN stands for minimum discrepancy.

Conclusion

This study shows that parents who harshly discipline their children often do so for four reasons: They beat to discipline their children, they beat with a stick and reprimand their children during adolescence to help the children regularize their behavior and make it desirable, they beat so their children do not grow up spoiled, and finally, they beat so as not to indulge their children, particularly if their demands appear unjustified. The basic motivation of parents is to instill desirable behavior, which demands that any form of undesirable attitude or behavior be punished by beating or some sort of physical violence.

However, it has been shown (Gershoff, 2016) that toxic stress from negative childhood experiences of corporal punishment may affect the brain development of children and that such punishment is a key source of toxic stress for children. When parents are aggressive toward them, children cannot consider those parents as sources of comfort during the stressful times that result from the harsh discipline itself, and thus, their physical and emotional pain can have an exaggerated effect on the child’s psychological development.

So it appears that parental attempts to do the best for their children by instilling desirable behavior in them by using harsh disciplinary practices are problematic. The old adage “Spare the rod and spoil the child” is actually a fallacy. The toxic stress thus engendered is dangerous, as it can lead to psychological, social, and developmental problems later on (including criminal behavior).

Most studies focus on the negative impact of harsh discipline on children’s psychology, but ours is different. Given that harsh discipline as per our study seems to be a construct of the four factors—beat strongly for discipline, beat and reprimand during adolescence, beat so as not to spoil a child, and beat so as not to indulge a child—our study focuses on the constructs which induce such harsh disciplinary measures instead, that is, the reasons for the discipline, not the effects of the discipline.

The demographic variables revealed by our study are invaluable as they provide policy makers with the means, via possible focus groups, for dealing with the psychological, social, or developmental problems that children experience from the violence or corporal punishment inflicted on them. For instance, parents could be educated by nonprofit organizations or government-sponsored programs right after marriage so that they develop a healthy mind-set toward child rearing. Such training and counseling could perhaps be mandatory, but it should be provided free of cost. It could even be carried out in partnership with hospitals. Practical workshops on dealing with children’s tantrums and demands could be a help. Involving children in activities other than school studies would keep them engaged and help calm their minds, and, to some extent, help bridge the gap between educated and uneducated mothers. Workshops could use innovative means of training toddlers which could then be implemented by the parents at home. Low levels of family income cannot be taken care of in one step; however, insurance policies at nominal cost for newborns against their future education might be introduced, or perhaps some mandatory deductions might be made from the wages of working parents for securing their children’s futures, but even so, certain basic necessities such as primary education and vaccination, for instance, need to be arranged free of cost. Because marital disputes can be responsible for married parents being harsher toward their children compared with single parents, and as it is particularly true that mothers might take out their marital frustrations on their children at times, both parents need counseling about dealing with marital disputes for the sake of rearing healthy children.

A limitation of our study is that the sample selection was done randomly, not selectively, and hence, there is a chance that rural populations are underrepresented in the study, which might have led to insignificant results in relation to the residence variable. The gender variable did not show any significant result either, perhaps because male children were overrepresented in the sample, thus hiding differences in treatment of males and females.

Further research in this field could focus on the impact of harsh disciplining of children from the same age group used in this study, but categorized for gender and residence. That could inspire further recommendations for policy makers.

Methodological factors that are well affect the continuity rates of child abuse:

Conduct research and follow up long-term with analysis of social and demographic factors linked to the history of child abuse.

Examine intermediate factors that affect child abuse including the following:

The impact of child abuse on mental health problems in the future.

Mental health problems for parents that drive their children to harm.

Social isolation for mothers with low social support.

Study components used in disciplining children.

Promote good behavior for children.

Intensify media campaigns aimed at deploying the personal safety of children’s culture.

Strengthen prevention programs for those who have already been subjected to abuse to meet their needs, and apply laws designed to track down perpetrators.

Glossary

Children become spoiled if they are not hit with a stick Parents try to stop their children from developing corrupt morals by beating them with a stick. The thinking is: “Those who love their children will care enough to discipline them by hitting them with a stick.”

Beat children strongly for discipline Parents beat their children to get in first, that is, take action before something bad/wrong happens. The thinking is: “He who withholds his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him diligently.”

Beat and reprimand children in adolescence When a child grows up to be an adolescent, it is necessary to beat him and reprimand him with words. Words become more significant in adolescence than they were in childhood.

Children should be beaten not indulged Parents should not listen to a child if he wants to disclose a problem he is facing or abuse that has occurred or to raise an objection to a command. To do so is to bring disrespect on their upbringing.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

Table B1.

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin and Bartlett’s Test.

Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity	Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy	0.678
	Approx. chi-square	636.301
	df	10
	Significance	0.000

Appendix C

Table C1.

Communalities.

Variable	Abbreviation	Initial	Extraction
It is necessary to beat strongly for discipline.	discipline_beat	1	0.577
It is necessary to beat and reprimand children during adolescence.	grow_up_beat	1	0.473
Children should be beaten not indulged.	not_listen	1	0.435
Children should not hit each other.	not_hit_each_other	1	0.983
Children become spoiled if they are not hit with a stick.	stick	1	0.338

Appendix D

Table D1.

Total Variance Explained.

Component	Initial Eigenvalues
Component	Total	% of Variance	Cumulative %
1	1.800	35.995
2	1.005	20.103
3	0.841	16.830	72.927
4	0.720	14.393	87.320
5	0.634	12.680	100.000

Note. Table D1 extraction method: principal components analysis.

Appendix E

Table E1.

Total Variance Explained.

Component	Initial Eigenvalues Cumulative %	Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Component	Initial Eigenvalues Cumulative %	Total	% of Variance	Cumulative %
1	35.995	1.800	35.995	35.995
2	56.098	1.005	20.103	56.098

Note. Appendix E extraction method: principal components analysis.

Appendix F

Table F1.

Component Matrix.^a

Variables	Component
Variables	1	2
discipline_beat	0.740	−0.171
grow_up_beat	0.686	0.048
not_listen	0.659	−0.020
not_hit_each_other	0.099	0.986
stick	0.581	0.015

Note. Appendix F Extraction Method: principal components analysis.

Two components extracted.

Appendix G

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR), King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah (Grant No: 246/79/D1436). The authors, therefore, acknowledge with thanks DSR technical and financial support.

Author Biographies

Nisreen Yacoub Mohammed (Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), 2002 – 2006, in Developmental and Child Psychology from University of Durham) is currently teaching psychotherapy at King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Yasser Abdelazim Abdelmawgoud Samak (Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), 2001-2005, in Population from Assiut University) is currently teaching Population at Assiut University, Egypt.

References

Al-Mahroos

F. T.

(2007). Child abuse and neglect in the Arab Peninsula. Saudi Medical Journal, 28, 241-248.

Brink

(2014). Changing child rearing patterns in an Egyptian village. In E. Fernea

(Ed.), Children in the Muslim Middle East (pp. 84-92). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Cain

P. M.

Albrecht

(2011). Coalition on physical punishment of children and youth. In Joint statement on physical punishment of children and youth. Retrieved from http://www.cheo.on.ca/uploads/advocacy/JS_Updates_En.pdf

Chang

Schwartz

Dodge

K. A.

McBride-Chang

(2003). Harsh parenting in relation to child emotion regulation and aggression. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 598-606.

Colyar

(2011). Assessment of the school-age child and adolescent. Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis.

Damon

Lerner

R. L.

Eisenberg

Pearson

Overton

W. F.

Cairns

R. B.

. (2006). Handbook of child psychology, social, emotional, and personality development. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Dillen

(2011). Good news for children? Towards a biblical hermeneutic of texts of terror. Irish Theological Quarterly, 76, 164-182. doi:10.1177/0021140010396414

Dwairy

(2006). Counselling and psychotherapy with Arabs and Muslims: A culturally sensitive approach. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.sa/books?id=p4x14kcRb5sC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=Saudi+Arabia+female+college+being+physically+punished&source=bl&ots=vcvt5V-NrB&sig=h7qCOUHLu-_-aIaLYLQDeFvSMI4&hl=ar&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjN5qejtbXPAhXDuhoKHQgzCSMQ6AEILDAC#v=onepage&q=Saudi%20Arabia%20female%20college%20being%20physically%20punished&f=false

Dwairy

Achoui

Abouserie

Farah

Sakhleh

A. A.

Fayad

Khan

H. K.

(2006). Parenting styles in Arab societies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 230-245.

10.

Egypt Demographic and Health Survey 2014 . (2015). Cairo, Egypt; Rockville, MD: Ministry of Health and Population and ICF International. Retrieved from http://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR302/FR302.pdf

11.

Fernea

E. W.

(Ed.). (1995). Children in Muslim Middle East. Austin: University of Texas Press.

12.

Gershoff

E. T.

(2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 539-579.

13.

Gershoff

E. T.

(2016). Should parents’ physical punishment of children be considered a source of toxic stress that affects brain development? Family Relations, 65, 151-162.

14.

Gershoff

E. T.

Grogan-Kaylor

Lansford

J. E.

Chang

Zelli

Deater-Deckard

Dodge

K. A.

(2010). Parent discipline practices in an International Sample: Associations with child behaviors and moderation by perceived normativeness. Child Development, 81(2), 487-502.

15.

Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children. (2016). Corporal punishment of children: Summaries of prevalence and attitudinal research in the last 10 years. Retrieved from http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/assets/pdfs/research-summaries/Global%20research%20summaries.pdf

16.

Grusec

J. E.

Goodnow

(1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the child’s internalization of values: A reconceptualization of current points of view. Developmental Psychology, 30, 4-19.

17.

Hassan

Al-Jubari

(2016). Motivation and study engagement: A study of Muslim undergraduates in Malaysia. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 24, 937-951. Retrieved from http://pertanika2.upm.edu.my/Pertanika%20PAPERS/JSSH%20Vol.%2024%20(3)%20Sep.%202016/03%20JSSH-1291-2015.pdf

18.

Jameson

J. S.

(2008). Attainment of parenting goals in an early head start program (Dissertation). Colorado State University, Fort Collins.

19.

Jansen

P. W.

Raat

Mackenbach

J. P.

Hofman

Jaddoe

V. W. V.

. . . Tiemeier

(2012). Early determinants of maternal and paternal harsh discipline: The generation R Study. Family Relations, 61, 253-270.

20.

Kline

(2005). Psychological testing. London, England: Sage.

21.

Mayes

Lewis

(2012). The Cambridge handbook of environment in human development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

22.

McKee

Roland

Coffelt

Olson

A. L.

Forehand

Massari

. . . Zens

M. S.

(2007). Harsh discipline and child problem behaviors: The roles of positive parenting and gender. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 187-196.

23.

Mitchell

(2008). Corporal punishment and low income mothers. New York, NY: Cambria Press.

24.

Montgomery

(2008). An introduction to childhood: Anthropological perspectives on children’s lives. New York, NY: John Wiley.

25.

Nix

R. L.

Pinderhughes

E. E.

Dodge

K. A.

Bates

J. E.

Pettit

G. S.

McFadyen-Ketchum

S. A.

(1999). The relation between mothers’ hostile attribution tendencies and children’s externalizing behavior problems: The mediating role of mothers’ harsh discipline practices. Child Development, 70, 896-901.

26.

Runyan

D. K.

Shankar

Hassan

Hunter

W. M.

Jain

Paula

C. S.

. . . Bordin

I. A.

(2010). International variations in harsh child discipline. Pediatrics, 126(3), e701-e711.

27.

Smith

A. B.

Gollop

M. M.

Taylor

N. J.

Marshall

K. A.

(Eds.). (2005). The discipline and guidance of children: Messages from research. Wellington, New Zealand: Office of the Children’s Commission. Retrieved from http://www.occ.org.nz/assets/Uploads/Reports/Parenting/Discipline-and-guidance-messages-from-research.pdf

28.

Steinberg

Vandell

D. L.

Bornstein

M. H.

(2010). Development: Infancy through adolescence. London, England: Cengage Learning.

29.

The United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund. (2010). Child disciplinary practices at home. Retrieved from http://www.childinfo.org/files/report_Disipl_FIN.pdf

30.

UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2013). UNICEF annual report 2012. Retrieved March 11, 2017 from http://www.refworld.org/docid/51ee31214.html

31.

Wilmshurst

(2012). Clinical and educational child psychology. New York, NY: John Wiley.

32.

World Health Organization. (n.d.). Youth violence. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/global_campaign/en/chap2.pdf