Effect of Parental Corporal Punishment on Endorsement of Its Use: Moderated Mediation by Parent Gender and Attitudes Toward Corporal Punishment

Abstract

Previous research has examined the factors that place an individual at a risk of using harsh discipline on children. Chief among these predictors is an individual’s own experience of corporal punishment, as well as favorable attitudes toward corporal punishment as a parenting strategy. However, few studies have examined the relationships among these variables in emerging adults. Thus, the current study advanced this area of research by examining how attitudes toward corporal punishment mediated the association between the experience of corporal punishment within the past year and the endorsement of corporal punishment as a future parenting strategy of choice among emerging adults when presented with a vignette. In addition, the current study examined gender differences among study variables, including participants’ parental disciplinary practices and whether participants were more accepting of using corporal punishment against a boy or girl in a hypothetical vignette. Participants (N = 393; M_age = 19.21) completed an online survey that included a hypothetical vignette depicting child misbehavior. Results from the current study suggested the experience of corporal punishment from mothers appeared to have more of an influence on the decision to endorse corporal punishment in the vignette for both emerging adult males and females. The findings from the current study highlight the importance of reducing the use of corporal punishment as a discipline strategy, as the experience of corporal punishment appears to shape attitudes which may favor future use of the practice.

Keywords

emerging adults corporal punishment discipline attitudes parenting

Corporal punishment is defined as the use of force to produce physical pain, but not injury, for the purpose of correcting or controlling a child’s behaviors (Straus & Kantor, 1994). Attitudes accepting corporal punishment as a method of disciplining children have lessened over the years, but still remain salient in many societies (Simons & Wurtele, 2010; Straus & Stewart, 1999). For example, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children states that children have the right to be protected from all forms of violence, including violent discipline practices (UNICEF, n.d.). However, only 53 out of 195 countries worldwide have banned corporal punishment (Grogan-Kaylor, 2018). Although many countries support the use of corporal punishment, the United States is often considered the most punitive democracy in the Western Hemisphere (Durrant, 1999; Hyman, 1995). A recent study found that seven out of 10 parents in the United States have used some form of corporal punishment (Simons & Wurtele, 2010), with rates as high as 86% in the Southern United States and as low as 66% in the Northeast (Boser, 2001; Flynn, 1994).

Previous research has shown that favorable attitudes concerning corporal punishment have been linked to experiences of corporal punishment in childhood (Graziano & Namaste, 1990) and later use of corporal punishment as a parenting strategy (Vittrup, Holden, & Buck, 2006). Several studies have also shown that attitudes mediate the association between history of corporal punishment and its use across parent and nonparent populations (Bower-Russa, Knutson, & Winebarger, 2001; Graziano & Namaste, 1990; Woodward & Fergusson, 2002). Indeed, attitudes toward discipline strategies may stem from a belief system cultivated throughout childhood and adolescence rather than the experience of parenthood itself as evidenced by work that illustrates views of parenting develop before individuals become parents (Bower-Russa, 2005). The current study expanded upon past research by examining the relationships between favorable attitudes toward corporal punishment, experience of corporal punishment over the past year, and endorsement of corporal punishment as a parenting strategy of choice in a vignette among emerging adults from a Southern region of the United States. Given that research has shown discipline tends to differ based on parent–child gender dyads (e.g., mother–daughter vs. father–daughter; Muller, Hunter, & Stollak, 1995), the current study added to the literature by examining gender differences.

Effects of Corporal Punishment

An abundance of studies have determined children who experience corporal punishment tend to be at greater risk of negative outcomes, including elevated levels of aggression and antisocial behavior, as well as poorer mental health and parent–child relationship quality (Gershoff, 2002; Grogan-Kaylor, 2005; Meeks Gardner, Powell, & Grantham-McGregor, 2007; Mulvaney & Mebert, 2007; Tomoda et al., 2009). Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor (2016) recently conducted a meta-analysis and found similar results. In addition, parents who utilize corporal punishment may be at a greater risk of perpetrating more severe physical abuse against their children (Zolotor, Theodore, Chang, Berkoff, & Runyan, 2008).

Few researchers have argued that corporal punishment may result in positive outcomes, and when they do, alternative methods that are equally or more effective are available that do not present the risks associated with corporal punishment. Specifically, studies have found that corporal punishment can lead to increased child compliance and decreased misbehavior in the short term (Baumrind, Larzelere, & Cowan, 2002; Larzelere, 2000; Saadeh, Rizzo, & Roberts, 2002). Moreover, some studies have suggested the context in which corporal punishment is administered plays a large role in determining outcomes. For example, corporal punishment administered within authoritative parenting (i.e., strong parent–child communication, warmth, firmness, but not control) was more likely to result in fewer negative effects than corporal punishment administered in a controlling environment that lacked parental warmth (Baumrind et al., 2002; Larzelere, 2000; McKee et al., 2007).

Influences on the Use of Corporal Punishment

Experience of corporal punishment during childhood, positive attitudes toward corporal punishment, cultural norms, and cognitive processes all affect attitudes toward corporal punishment (Ateah & Parkin, 2002;Bower & Knutson, 1996; Graziano & Namaste, 1990; Hilarski, 2004). However, research has demonstrated parental attitudes about corporal punishment are among the most powerful predictors of using corporal punishment (Ateah & Durrant, 2005; Durrant, Rose-Krasnor, & Broberg, 2003; Holden, Coleman, & Schmidt, 1995; Pinderhughes, Dodge, Bates, Pettit, & Zelli, 2000).

Attitudes

In the current study, attitudes are defined as the tendency to view a situation, object, or person either favorably or unfavorably (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1972). Attitudes toward corporal punishment are considered one of the most important determinants of spanking behavior (Holden et al., 1995). As such, research has now turned to developing interventions that primarily focus on changing attitudes toward corporal punishment to decrease its use. Overall, these interventions have shown to be effective in decreasing favorable attitudes toward using corporal punishment across both parent and nonparent populations (Holden, Brown, Baldwin, & Caderao, 2014; Robinson, Funk, Beth, & Bush, 2005; Scholer, Hamilton, Johnson, & Scott, 2010).

Positive attitudes tend to reflect beliefs about the instrumental role of corporal punishment, such as the belief that spanking is effective in reducing unwanted behaviors (Pinderhughes et al., 2000). It follows that the approval of corporal punishment and the belief that corporal punishment is effective in modifying child behaviors often have been associated with a higher use of corporal punishment and, to some extent, physical abuse (Ateah & Durrant, 2005; Clément & Chamberland, 2009; Holden, Miller, & Harris, 1999; Jackson et al., 1999). Specifically, Crouch and Behl (2001) identified belief as a mediating variable between parenting stress and child maltreatment, such that the belief that corporal punishment is an effective tool for controlling child behavior completely explained the relationship between parental stress and child abuse.

Attitudes toward corporal punishment are influenced by several factors, including cultural norms, parent and child demographics, advice from others, and personal experience. For example, in a study conducted by Jackson and colleagues (1999), parents who reported conservative religious ideology and attitudes that devalued children in general (e.g., “Children should be seen, not heard”) were more likely to hold positive attitudes toward corporal punishment. In addition, authoritarian parents were more likely to endorse corporal punishment because it was consistent with their belief that children should respect their parents and obey authority (Luster, Rhoades, & Haas, 1989). An abundance of studies have shown that both parents and nonparents who experienced corporal punishment when they were children were more likely to hold positive attitudes toward corporal punishment as a discipline strategy (Ateah & Parkin, 2002; Gagné, Tourigny, Joly, & Pouliot-Lapointe, 2007; Muller et al., 1995; Rodriguez & Sutherland, 1999).

Experience of Corporal Punishment

Research has suggested the acceptability of corporal punishment was best predicted by childhood experience of corporal punishment (Bower-Russa et al., 2001; Deater-Deckard, Lansford, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 2003; Graziano, Lindquist, Kunce, & Munjal, 1992; Graziano & Namaste, 1990). For example, 82.7% of university students claimed they would use corporal punishment on their children if they too had been spanked compared with 7% endorsement if they indicated they had never been spanked (Graziano & Namaste, 1990). This relationship especially occurred if the individuals viewed their childhood punishments as fair or in conjunction with parental warmth and not parental impulsiveness (Bell & Romano, 2012; Rodriguez & Price, 2004). However, individuals who reported being spanked as children were more likely to support corporal punishment than those who received harsher forms of corporal punishment, such as being slapped, shaken, whipped, or hit with an object (Ateah & Parkin, 2002).

Gender

Gender influences attitudes related to experience of corporal punishment. Some research has indicated that males support corporal punishment more than females (Gracia & Herrero, 2008), whereas others have found no gender differences (Ateah & Parkin, 2002; Gagné et al., 2007). Specifically, Gracia and Herrero (2008) examined a sample from the European Union and found that men supported corporal punishment more than women. In addition, research has shown that children are more likely to receive physical maltreatment from their same-gender parent (Muller et al., 1995).Thus, a female who received corporal punishment as a child may be more accepting of the practice when mothers utilize corporal punishment, and males also may view corporal punishment more favorably if their fathers had used it.

Emerging Adults and Acceptability of Corporal Punishment

Many values and beliefs are passed down from generation to generation, and in general, the family shapes children’s view of the world (Pinquart & Silbereisen, 2004; Schönpflug, 2001). Indeed, social learning theory suggests that children are frequently and repeatedly exposed to parenting behaviors and parental responses to the challenges of child misbehavior. When children observe their parents using physical punishment, it may instill in children that aggression is an acceptable means to reduce unwanted behaviors and increase their likelihood to imitate this behavior (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016; Maccoby & Martin, 1983). In addition, parental aggression toward children correlates with aggression in children’s later parenting practices, suggesting an intergenerational transmission (Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz, & Walder, 1984; Rodriguez & Sutherland, 1999). Specifically, Caspi and Elder (1988) determined that when parents used aggressive and hostile parenting, their female children used similar practices 30-years later. Similarly, studies have indicated that fathers who grew up in homes where harsh discipline was used were more likely to use those same negative parenting techniques (Capaldi, Pears, Patterson, & Owen, 2003).

Not only do emerging adults retain the knowledge they observed from their childhood, many are still receiving discipline from their parents which serves to further influence how emerging adults are likely to parent and discipline their children (McKinney, Walker, & Kwan, 2020; Nelson, Padilla-Walker, Christensen, Evans, & Carroll, 2011). Emerging adulthood is a unique developmental time period in which individuals are transitioning from a dependent to a more independent lifestyle (Arnett, 2000). Emerging adults are close to their own child-rearing years (i.e., 18-25 years of age); indeed, investigating emerging adult attitudes toward corporal punishment may help determine how they are likely to discipline their own children (Graziano & Namaste, 1990). Research has indicated that planning to use corporal punishment once an individual becomes a parent was a strong predictor of supporting spanking and physical punishment (Bell & Romano, 2012). Moreover, research has shown that the transmission of aggressive behavior occurs with the favorability of corporal punishment (Ateah & Parkin, 2002). Few studies, if any, have examined these attitudes among emerging adults in the Southern United States, a region known to have a culture of support for corporal punishment (Boser, 2001; Gershoff & Font, 2016).

Current Study

The current study examined the relationships between attitudes toward corporal punishment, experiences of corporal punishment within the past year, and support for using corporal punishment on children in a hypothetical vignette. In addition, the current study aimed to extend the literature by assessing gender differences among these variables. Specifically, the current study examined gender differences between the experience of maternal and paternal corporal punishment, attitudes toward corporal punishment, and emerging adults’ endorsements to use corporal punishment against a boy and a girl in a vignette in a sample of emerging adult males and females.

Based on previous research, the following relationships were hypothesized. Hypothesis 1a stated that the experience of corporal punishment within the past year would be associated with more favorable attitudes toward corporal punishment as measured by the Attitudes Toward Spanking (ATS) scale (Deater-Deckard et al., 2003), and Hypothesis 1b stated that more favorable attitudes toward corporal punishment would be positively associated with endorsement of corporal punishment as a parenting strategy of choice when presented as a vignette. Hypothesis 2 stated that attitudes toward corporal punishment would mediate the association between the experiences of corporal punishment within the past year and the endorsement of corporal punishment in a vignette. Hypothesis 3 stated that gender would moderate the relationships among variables, such that males would be more likely to endorse corporal punishment (Gracia & Herrero, 2008). In addition, gender dyad effects may occur such that females may be more likely to endorse corporal punishment in a vignette on daughters, whereas males may be more likely to endorse corporal punishment for sons; this hypothesis is based on research which has shown that children have a higher chance of receiving physical punishment from the same gendered parent and thus may be more accepting of same-gender parent–child corporal punishment (Muller et al., 1995).

Method

Participants

The sample consisted participants (N = 393) from a large, public Southern university who ranged in age from 18 to 25 years (M = 19.21, SD = 1.45) and volunteered in exchange for course credit. The majority of the sample originated from a Southern state (89.4%) and consisted of Caucasian (73.8%) and African American (20.8%) participants. Almost all of the participants (98%) reported 2 to 10h of weekly contact (e.g., via phone, visitation) with their parent, and approximately half of participants (51.6%) reported receiving some form of physical punishment in the last year. Please see Table 1 for additional demographic statistics. Overall, the sample demographics were representative of the university undergraduate student population with respect to race/ethnicity but not gender. Specifically, women comprised 62.8% of the sample compared with 49.5% of the student population, whereas men accounted for 37.2% of the sample compared with 50.5% of the student population.

Table 1.

Demographics.

	N	%
Gender
Male	146	37.2
Female	247	62.8
Race/Ethnicity
White/Caucasian	287	73.8
Black/African American	81	20.8
Hispanic	9	2.3
Asian	6	1.5
Other race	6	1.5
Household structure
Two-parent	302	77.4
Single-parent	88	22.6
Parental education
Less than high school	14 (7)	3.7 (1.8)
High school diploma	124 (95)	32.7 (24.5)
Associate degree	44 (68)	11.6 (17.6)
Bachelor’s degree	111 (132)	29.3 (34.1)
Graduate degree	86 (85)	22.7 (22.0)

Note. Total N = 393. Values for mothers are presented within parentheses.

Measures

Conflict Tactics Scale: Parent–Child Version (CTSPC)

The CTSPC (Straus, Hamby, Finkelhor, Moore, & Runyan, 1998) is a 22-item scale that was used to assess the type of discipline participants received within the past 12-months. The CTSPC comprises five subscales: Nonviolent Discipline, Psychological Aggression, Corporal Punishment, Severe Physical Assault, and Very Severe Physical Assault. Previous studies have established adequate reliability coefficients for college students (α = .66-.82; Renk, McKinney, Klein, & Oliveros, 2006). Examples of items from the Corporal Punishment subscale include “Slapped you on the hand, arm, or leg” and “Hit you on some other part of the body besides the bottom with something like a belt, hairbrush, stick, or some other hard object.” Participants were asked to report the discipline practices of both their mothers and fathers to indicate maternal and paternal corporal punishment.

Vignette

Participants also were asked to report how they would discipline a child. Specifically, participants read a vignette depicting child misbehavior (i.e., child pushed sibling and took away toy; see the appendix) once while thinking about a girl child and again while thinking about a boy child (or vice versa; that is, child gender was randomized) and then completed the CTSPC following each vignette.

The vignette was created by the authors for the purpose of the current study. Reliability values for the CTSPC responses following the vignette ranged from acceptable to excellent for the boy version (Corporal Punishment α = .69; Severe Physical Assault α = .87; Very Severe Physical Assault α = .92; Psychological Aggression α = .76; and Nonviolent Discipline α= .62). Cronbach’s alpha ranged from acceptable to excellent for the girl version as well (Corporal Punishment α = .73; Severe Physical Assault α = .87; Very Severe Physical Assault α = .93; Psychological Aggression α = .73; and Nonviolent Discipline α = .63). Concurrent validity for the vignette was established as evidenced by a significant relationship between the Corporal Punishment subscale of the CTSPC and the ATS ([Boys] r = .40, n = 391, p< .001; [Girls] r = .33, n = 379, p< .001), such that participants’ responses on the vignette were positively related to their attitudes regarding the practice.

Attitudes Toward Corporal Punishment

Participants’ attitudes toward corporal punishment were assessed using the ATS scale (Deater-Deckard et al., 2003). Items included the following: “Parents should spank their children when the children need it”; “Children learn best when parents spank them”; “Spanking does not harm children”; “Spanking is a sign that parents love their children”; and “Sometimes spanking is the only way to get a child’s attention.” Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale: 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = unsure or depends, 4 = disagree, and 5 = strongly disagree. The items were reverse scored such that higher scores indicated positive attitudes toward the use of corporal punishment. Deater-Deckard and colleagues’ (2003) previous study established good reliability for the scale (α = .85). Similarly, reliability of the ATS in the current sample was good (α = .88).

Procedure

Following institutional review board (IRB) approval, the survey was posted to an online participant research pool system. Potential participants read a description of the study and clicked a link to participate. Participants were presented with an informed consent form before the survey began, and a printable debriefing sheet was provided once the survey ended. After providing consent, participants completed the questionnaires, read the misbehavior vignette once while thinking about a male child and again while thinking about a female child (or vice versa; that is, child gender was randomized), and then completed the CTPSC following each vignette. Participants completed questionnaires in random order and completed mother and father measures separately, all regarding current perceptions (i.e., past 12-months).The completion or voluntary withdrawal from the study resulted in the award of one credit for participation.

Statistical Analyses

A one-way, repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted using SPSS24.0 to compare the effect of participant gender on endorsement of corporal punishment for boys and girls. Child gender in the vignette was utilized as a within-subjects factor (1=boy; 2=girl), whereas participant gender served as a between-subjects factor (0=male; 1=female).

Path analysis was conducted using AMOS24.0. Observed variables included use of corporal punishment from both mother and father within the past 12-months, emerging adult attitudes toward corporal punishment (i.e., participants’ responses on the ATS), and endorsement of corporal punishment toward both boys and girls in a vignette. Maternal and paternal variables, as well as corporal punishment endorsements toward boys and girls in a vignette, were examined together within the same model to fully examine gender effects (i.e., mother–son, mother–daughter, father–son, father–daughter dyad effects). For the purposes of path analysis, a sample size of 393 is considered good (Kline, 2011). The maximum likelihood method of covariance structure analysis was used. Given that both the initial freely correlated model and path analysis model were saturated, no meaningful fit indices were produced.

Correlations among observed variables were used to test Hypotheses 1a and 1b. To test Hypothesis 2, indirect effects (i.e., the statistical effect of the predictor variable on the predicted variable through the mediator variable) were used, which have been recently suggested by statisticians (e.g., MacKinnon, 2008; Rucker, Preacher, Tormala, & Petty, 2011) to more adequately test for mediation. Indirect effects were estimated with bootstrapping using 2,000 iterations, which is considered to be more robust than typical tests of indirect effects (Hayes, 2009). Hypothesis 3 was tested using multiple group analysis using pairwise parameter comparisons, a statistical test comparing the difference between path coefficients (Byrne, 2016). This comparison produces a Z score indicating the statistical difference between groups on a particular path coefficient. Specifically, male and female path coefficients, as well as maternal and paternal paths, were compared to determine relationships moderated by gender. Based on recommendations from Hayes (2013) and Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007), moderated mediation occurs when a moderator variable interacts with a mediator variable such that the value of the indirect effect changes depending on the value of the moderator variable. This is known as a conditional indirect effect (i.e., the value of the indirect effect is conditional on the value of the moderator variable).

Results

Overall, emerging adult participants tended to endorse the use of nonviolent discipline (see Tables 2 and 3) rather than physical tactics in a vignette. Emerging adults endorsed corporal punishment more, on average, than other maladaptive disciplinary strategies when presented with a vignette. For example, participants endorsed using corporal punishment as a disciplinary strategy 1.5 times more than psychological aggression for boys and 1.6 times more for girls in a vignette. In addition, participants endorsed harsher strategies for boys than girls, on average.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics for Vignette CTSPC Responses, Male Participants.

Subscale	N	Maximum	M	M (Std.)	SD
Nonviolent Boy	139	16	9.28	2.32	3.47
Nonviolent Girl	136	16	9.72	2.43	3.17
Psych. Aggress Boy	140	15	3.09	0.62	3.14
Psych Aggress Girl	141	15	2.64	0.53	2.94
Physical Assault Boy	139	27	6.54	0.50	6.43
Physical Assault Girl	140	33	5.82	0.45	7.00
Endorsement of CP Boy	139	13	4.72	0.94	3.33
Endorsement of CP Girl	140	14	4.11	0.82	3.36
Severe Boy	141	9	1.21	0.30	2.41
Severe Girl	142	11	1.01	0.25	2.44
Very Severe Boy	142	10	0.73	0.18	2.05
Very Severe Girl	142	12	0.70	0.14	2.25

Note. CTSPC = Conflict Tactics Scale: Parent–Child Version; Nonviolent = Nonviolent/Inductive Strategies; Psych. Aggress = Psychological Aggression; Endorsement of CP = Endorsement of Corporal Punishment; Severe = Severe Physical Assault; Very Severe = Very Severe Physical Assault.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics for Vignette CTSPC Responses, Female Participants.

Subscale	N	Maximum	M	M (Std.)	SD
Nonviolent Boy	238	16	10.39	2.60	2.90
Nonviolent Girl	239	16	9.96	2.49	3.32
Psych. Aggress Boy	243	20	2.73	0.55	3.20
Psych. Aggress Girl	241	20	2.23	0.45	2.71
Physical Assault Boy	242	52	5.67	0.44	7.23
Physical Assault Girl	239	52	4.79	0.37	6.58
Endorsement of CP Boy	242	20	4.07	0.81	3.52
Endorsement of CP Girl	241	20	3.74	0.75	3.44
Severe Boy	242	16	0.93	0.23	2.49
Severe Girl	241	16	0.68	0.17	2.13
Very Severe Boy	242	16	0.67	0.17	2.38
Very Severe Girl	243	16	0.60	0.12	2.33

Results of a repeated-measures ANOVA revealed no significant effect of participant gender on endorsement of corporal punishment when presented with a vignette, Wilks’s lambda = 44.85, F(1, 391) = 2.30, p = .13. There was a significant effect of child gender on endorsement of corporal punishment in a vignette, Wilks’s lambda = 39.51, F(1, 391) = 11.94, p = .001, such that participants endorsed corporal punishment more for boys than girls. However, the interaction of child and participant gender was not significant, Wilks’s lambda = 3.16, F(1, 391) = .95, p = .33.

Hypothesis 1a stated that the experience of corporal punishment within the past year would be associated with more favorable attitudes toward corporal punishment and was not supported (see Table 4). Results indicated that neither participants’ mothers’ nor fathers’ use of corporal punishment for males or females was associated significantly with emerging adults’ responses on the ATS. Hypothesis 1b stated that more favorable attitudes toward corporal punishment would be positively associated with endorsement of corporal punishment in a vignette. Results showed that both male and female emerging adults’ attitudes were related significantly to endorsements of corporal punishment for both boys and girls in a vignette, confirming Hypothesis 1b.

Table 4.

Means, Standard Deviations, Alpha Values, and Correlations Among Observed Variables.

Scale	1.	2.	3.	M	SD	α
1. Paternal CP (CTSPC)	1	.45*	.03	5.63	14.70	.84
2. Maternal CP (CTSPC)	.52*	1	.11	7.95	16.74	.76
3. Attitudes Toward CP	.05	.11	1	11.34	4.72	.88
4. Endorsement of CP (Boy)	.26*	.33*	.34*	4.31	3.40	.68
5. Endorsement of CP (Girl)	.21*	.23*	.24*	3.88	3.36	.73

Note. N=393. Correlations appear below the diagonal for males and above the diagonal for females. CP = corporal punishment; CTSPC = Conflict Tactics Scale: Parent–Child Version.

p < .05.

Hypothesis 2, which stated that emerging adults’ attitudes toward corporal punishment would mediate the relationship between experiences of corporal punishment by their mothers and fathers and endorsement of future use of corporal punishment in a vignette, was supported when examining participants’ mothers’ use of corporal punishment only. As shown in Figure 1, results indicated significant indirect effects for participants’ mothers’ use of corporal punishment on the endorsement of corporal punishment against boys as well as girls in a vignette when examining both males and females, although it should be noted one of the indirect effects was significant when using a one-tailed p as indicated in Figure 2. However, no significant indirect effects were found when examining participants’ fathers’ use of corporal punishment, largely due to the near-zero relationship that participants’ use of corporal punishment shared with attitudes toward corporal punishment when examining males and females.

Figure 1.

Estimated marginal means of endorsement of CP.

Figure 2.

Path analysis.

Hypothesis 3 stated that gender would moderate the relationships among variables (i.e., the mediational effect would be conditional on gender). Pairwise parameter comparisons did not support Hypothesis 3 as they did not indicate significant differences among male and female as well as participants’ paternal paths (i.e., individual female and male as well as individual participants’ maternal and paternal paths were not statistically different). However, given that the indirect effects were significant only when examining participants’ mothers’ use of corporal punishment results suggests that the mediational effect is conditional on parent gender (i.e., moderated mediation due to parent gender given that mediation occurs when examining participants’ mothers’ use of corporal punishment but not effects of the use of participants’ fathers’).

Discussion

Experience of corporal punishment in childhood has been linked to beliefs about corporal punishment later in development (Graziano & Namaste, 1990) and has been shown to mediate the relationship between acceptability of corporal punishment and its use (Bower-Russa, 2005). However, few studies have examined attitudes toward corporal punishment during emerging adulthood, a novel period of development proximal to child-bearing years. In addition, few studies have examined the influence of gender in the relationship between the acceptability of corporal punishment and endorsement of its use in the future. Thus, the current study examined gender differences between recent experiences of corporal punishment, attitudes toward corporal punishment, and endorsement of corporal punishment in a vignette in a sample of emerging adults.

Broadly, results indicated that participants’ mothers’ and fathers’ use of corporal punishment within the past year was not significantly related to attitudes toward corporal punishment. This finding is surprising given the literature supporting the relationship between experience of corporal punishment and approval of the practice (Bower-Russa et al., 2001). This may be due, in part, to cultural beliefs that corporal punishment is acceptable no matter the circumstance. Given that participants largely originated from a Southern state, they may have been more strongly influenced by cultural or religious beliefs about the practice (Hilarski, 2004), regardless of their own experience. In addition, emerging adults may be freer from their parents’ disciplinary practices given their age and development (Finley, Mira, & Schwartz, 2008). That is, emerging adult children, relative to younger children, may form their own views on corporal punishment that are independent of their experience of corporal punishment.

On the contrary, results indicated both male and female attitudes toward corporal punishment were significantly related to endorsements of its use on both boys and girls in the vignette. This finding is expected given the literature connecting positive attitudes toward corporal punishment and use of corporal punishment as a parenting strategy (Vittrup et al., 2006). In addition, results indicated participants were more likely to select corporal punishment as a disciplinary choice for boys than girls in the vignette. This finding is consistent with literature that indicates boys are more likely to experience corporal punishment than girls (Gershoff & Font, 2016). However, participant gender did not appear to have an effect on the endorsement of its use. That is, both emerging adult males and females appeared to endorse corporal punishment equally. This finding is inconsistent with previous literature suggesting males are more accepting of the practice than females (Gracia & Herrero, 2008). However, inspection of Figure 1 revealed women appeared to be less accepting of the practice compared with men. Although the finding is not statistically significant, it would appear that the direction of the results is generally consistent with the existing literature (Gracia & Herrero, 2008).

Most notably, results from the current study indicated that attitudes toward corporal punishment mediated the relationship between participants’ recent experience of corporal punishment and endorsement of corporal punishment against boys and girls in a vignette when examining maternal effects. However, this pattern of relationships was not significant when examining paternal effects, which suggests moderated mediation (i.e., the mediating effect is conditional on parent gender). Nevertheless, given that the mediating effect was not found in the PATH analysis, this finding should be interpreted with caution.

Relatedly, it would appear that participants’ mothers’ use of corporal punishment within the past year, relative to fathers’, has a stronger influence on the endorsement of corporal punishment in a vignette for both emerging adult males and females. The discussion of this finding is limited given the lack of research of the use of corporal punishment in emerging adulthood. However, this finding may be related to the trend found in other developmental periods, such that mothers tend to engage in more disciplinary acts than fathers (Hallers-Haalboom et al., 2016; Straus & Stewart, 1999). In addition, mothers spend more time with their children in both household (e.g., child care, family services) and achievement (e.g., studying, homework) activities, whereas fathers spend more than with their children in play (Yeung, Duncan, & Hill, 2000). Thus, mothers’ engagement in certain activities in emerging adulthood (e.g., college grade monitoring) may provide more opportunities for them to witness and attempt to correct misbehavior with corporal punishment. Consistent with social learning theory and the intergenerational transmission of aggression, this frequent and repeated exposure to mothers engaging in corporal punishment may lead emerging adults to adopt it themselves.

Interestingly, more males and females in the study overwhelmingly endorsed the use of nonviolent disciplinary strategies in the vignette for both boys and girls. These results differ from studies where emerging adult males and females have reported receiving more nonviolent discipline than other discipline strategies (i.e., psychological aggression, corporal punishment, and severe assault) from their mothers, but only females reported receiving more nonviolent discipline than other methods from their mothers and reported that their fathers used nonviolent discipline and psychological aggression equally (McKinney, Milone, & Renk, 2011). Thus, the emerging adults in the current study reported future intentions of using positive disciplinary strategies at a higher percentage than other emerging adults have reported receiving from their own parents.

Finally, it is important to note over half of participants reported receiving corporal punishment from their parents within the past 12-months. Although this finding is somewhat surprising, it is consistent with rates found in recent studies that examined continued parental discipline practices during emerging adulthood. For example, in a study conducted by McKinney, Walker, and Kwan (2020), 59% of emerging adults surveyed endorsed receiving physical punishment from their father within the past year. In another study, 20% of emerging adult males and 17% of females reported experiencing corporal punishment (Pollard & McKinney, 2019). More recently, a study found that 30.9% of male and 20.9% of female emerging adults reported being spanked by their fathers and 33.9% of males and 28% of females reported being spanked by their fathers in the past year (McKinney, Stearns, & Rogers, 2020). Future studies should continue to examine the ways in which parents discipline their emerging adult children, as well as the outcomes associated with harsh discipline practices during this time period.

Strengths and Limitations

The findings of the current study must be interpreted with care as it is not without limitations. This study consisted of cross-sectional data, which restricts the ability to specify directionality and causality. For example, the results cannot conclude that receiving corporal punishment enhances or decreases the acceptability of the practice, nor can the results conclude that an emerging adult’s reported intention to use corporal punishment on a hypothetical child will transfer to a real-life situation. Relatedly, the study did not assess whether or not participants had children. Future studies will benefit from examining the relationships among emerging adults’ experience of corporal punishment, acceptability of its use, and actual use of corporal punishment of future children with longitudinal designs.

In addition, the generalizability of the current study’s findings is limited given that the sample consisted of college undergraduates from a Southern university, who were predominately Caucasian or African American. The current study aimed to examine emerging adults; thus, the sample may indeed be reflective of common college-age students. Although, the results may not be as generalizable to emerging adults who do not attend college or who may be from a different ethnic background or region of the county. Given that research has shown the Southern United States has an elevated level of corporal punishment, in part due to a culture of support for corporal punishment in Southern states (Boser, 2001), it is likely that these results may not be generalizable to individuals from other regions of the country where the practice is not as accepted. Future studies should aim to utilize samples from other regions of the country as well as samples that include diverse ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds to enhance generalizability.

The current study was also limited in that it relied on emerging adult self-report of their parents’ discipline practices. It may be that emerging adults’ self-report of their parents’ discipline methods may be an inaccurate depiction of the actual discipline they received. However, studies have suggested that the mere perception of ineffective parenting can negatively affect children’s outcomes (Bosco, Renk, Dinger, Epstein, & Phares, 2003; Young, Lennie, & Minnis, 2011). Moreover, participants were instructed to report their parents’ discipline practices within the previous 12-months. Although approximately half of participants still reported receiving some form of physical punishment in this time frame, it is not representative of the amount or type of discipline received throughout childhood. Thus, discussion of the influence of corporal punishment on attitudes and endorsement of its use is limited to this time frame.

It is also important to note that the current study utilized the CTSPC (Straus et al., 1998), a measure commonly used to assess discipline strategies in childhood and adolescence, to measure parental conflict strategies utilized in emerging adulthood. It is possible that some items on the scale are not relevant to parent-emerging adult child interactions. Nevertheless, previous studies have established adequate reliability of the CTSPC in college student samples (McKinney et al., 2011; Renk et al., 2006). Moreover, although the CTSPC assesses a range of corporal punishment strategies (e.g., from spanking to using objects), the ATS only assesses attitudes toward a specific form of corporal punishment: spanking. Thus, the findings from the current study are limited in making additional claims about the influence of attitudes toward more severe forms of corporal punishment on endorsement of the practice in the future.

Finally, the hypothetical vignette was created for use in the current study and did not employ strategies (e.g., manipulation checks) to ensure validity. In addition, the age of the child included in the vignette may have influenced the results. For example, research has shown disciplinary strategies differ by age of the child (Straus & Stewart, 1999). Future studies could employ experimental vignettes that manipulate the age and/or gender of the child to determine whether the age of the child significantly influences the endorsement of corporal punishment.

Summary

In conclusion, the purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between an emerging adults’ experience of corporal punishment within the past year, attitudes toward the practice, and endorsement of corporal punishment in a vignette. Results from the current study suggest the experience of corporal punishment from mothers appears to have more of an influence on the decision to endorse corporal punishment in a vignette for both emerging adult males and females. The findings from the current study highlight the importance of reducing the use of corporal punishment as a discipline strategy, as the experience of corporal punishment appears to shape attitudes which may favor future use of the practice. Findings from the current study can be used to inform parenting programs and/or college programs for first-time parents to help prevent the use of corporal punishment. For example, programs can provide psychoeducation regarding the risks of using corporal punishment and help participants identify the connections between how they were parented, their own parenting beliefs, and alternative discipline strategies.

Footnotes

Appendix

Authors’ Note

Courtney S. Walker is now affiliated with University of Mississippi Medical Center, USA.

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Melanie Stearns

Author Biographies

Courtney S. Walker is a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Mississippi Medical Center. Her research program focuses on understanding the relationships between maladaptive parenting practices, child maltreatment, and psychological outcomes in children.

Melanie Stearns, MS, is a doctoral candidate at Mississippi State University. Her research program focuses on the extent to which parenting and the parent-child environment influence child outcomes, particularly externalizing problems.

Cliff McKinney is an associate professor of psychology at Mississippi State University. He investigates the processes by which parenting is associated with psychological problems in the context of gender, parental psychopathology, psychological and physical maltreatment, and emerging adulthood. He also investigates oppositional defiant problems and associated outcomes in young adults.

References

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469.

Ateah

C. A.

Durrant

J. E.

(2005). Maternal use of physical punishment in response to child misbehavior: Implications for child abuse prevention. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 169-185.

Ateah

C. A.

Parkin

C. M.

(2002). Childhood experiences with, and current attitudes toward, corporal punishment. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 21(1), 35-46.

Baumrind

Larzelere

R. E.

Cowan

P. A.

(2002). Ordinary physical punishment: Is it harmful? Comment on Gershoff (2002). Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2002-01514-002

Bell

Romano

(2012). Opinions about child corporal punishment and influencing factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 2208-2229.

Bosco

G. L.

Renk

Dinger

T. M.

Epstein

M. K.

Phares

(2003). The connections between adolescents’ perceptions of parents, parental psychological symptoms, and adolescent functioning. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 179-200.

Boser

(2001, June). The unsparing rod: Schools are still fighting the right to paddle. US News and World Report, 24, 43.

Bower

M. E.

Knutson

J. F.

(1996). Attitudes toward physical discipline as a function of disciplinary history and self-labeling as physically abused. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20, 689-699.

Bower-Russa

(2005). Attitudes mediate the association between childhood disciplinary history and disciplinary responses. Child Maltreatment, 10, 272-282.

10.

Bower-Russa

M. E.

Knutson

J. F.

Winebarger

(2001). Disciplinary history, adult disciplinary attitudes, and risk for abusive parenting. Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 219-240.

11.

Byrne

B. M.

(2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York, NY: Routledge.

12.

Capaldi

D. M.

Pears

K. C.

Patterson

G. R.

Owen

L. D.

(2003). Continuity of parenting practices across generations in an at-risk sample: A prospective comparison of direct and mediated associations. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 127-142.

13.

Caspi

Elder

G. H.

Jr. (1988). Childhood precursors of the life course: Early personality and life disorganization. In Hetherington

E. M.

Lerner

R. M.

Perlmutter

(Eds.), Child development in life-span perspective (pp.115-142). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

14.

Clément

M. È.

Chamberland

(2009). The role of parental stress, mother’s childhood abuse and perceived consequences of violence in predicting attitudes and attribution in favor of corporal punishment. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18(2), 163-171.

15.

Crouch

J. L.

Behl

L. E.

(2001). Relationships among parental beliefs in corporal punishment, reported stress, and physical child abuse potential. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25, 413-419.

16.

Deater-Deckard

Lansford

J. E.

Dodge

K. A.

Pettit

G. S.

Bates

J. E.

(2003). The development of attitudes about physical punishment: An 8-year longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 351-360.

17.

Durrant

J. E.

(1999). Evaluating the success of Sweden’s corporal punishment ban. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 435-448.

18.

Durrant

J. E.

Rose-Krasnor

Broberg

A. G.

(2003). Physical punishment and maternal beliefs in Sweden and Canada. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 34, 585-604.

19.

Finley

G. E.

Mira

S. D.

Schwartz

S. J.

(2008). Perceived paternal and maternal involvement: Factor structures, mean differences, and parental roles. Fathering, 6(1), 62-82.

20.

Fishbein

Ajzen

(1972). Attitudes and opinions. Annual Review of Psychology, 23, 487-544. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.23.020172.002415

21.

Flynn

C. P.

(1994). Regional differences in attitudes toward corporal punishment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 314-324. doi:10.2307/353102

22.

Gagné

M.-H.

Tourigny

Joly

Pouliot-Lapointe

(2007). Predictors of adult attitudes toward corporal punishment of children. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 1285-1304.

23.

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.

24.

Gershoff

E. T.

Font

S. A.

(2016). Corporal punishment in US public schools: Prevalence, disparities in use, and status in state and federal policy. Social Policy Report, 30(1), 1-26.

25.

Gershoff

E. T.

Grogan-Kaylor

(2016). Spanking and child outcomes: Old controversies and new meta-analyses. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2016-17153-001/

26.

Gracia

Herrero

(2008). Is it considered violence? The acceptability of physical punishment of children in Europe. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 210-217.

27.

Graziano

A. M.

Lindquist

C. M.

Kunce

L. J.

Munjal

(1992). Physical punishment in childhood and current attitudes: An exploratory comparison of college students in the United States and India. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 147-155.

28.

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. doi:10.1177/088626090005004002

29.

Grogan-Kaylor

(2005). Corporal punishment and the growth trajectory of children’s antisocial behavior. Child Maltreatment, 10, 283-292.

30.

Grogan-Kaylor

(2018). Country level bans on corporal punishment. Retrieved from: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~agrogan/cpbans/

31.

Hallers-Haalboom

E. T.

Groeneveld

M. G.

van Berkel

S. R.

Endendijk

J. J.

van der Pol

L. D.

Bakermans-Kranenburg

M. J.

Mesman

(2016). Wait until your mother gets home! Mothers’ and fathers’ discipline strategies. Social Development, 25, 82-98.

32.

Hayes

A. F.

(2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408-420.

33.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

34.

Hilarski

(2004). Corporal punishment: Another form of school violence. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 1(2-3), 59-75.

35.

Holden

G. W.

Brown

A. S.

Baldwin

A. S.

Caderao

K. C.

(2014). Research findings can change attitudes about corporal punishment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38, 902-908.

36.

Holden

G. W.

Coleman

S. M.

Schmidt

K. L.

(1995). Why 3-year-old children get spanked: Parent and child determinants as reported by college-educated mothers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 41, 431-452.

37.

Holden

G. W.

Miller

P. C.

Harris

S. D.

(1999). The instrumental side of corporal punishment: Parents’ reported practices and outcome expectancies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 908-919.

38.

Huesmann

L. R.

Eron

L. D.

Lefkowitz

M. M.

Walder

L. O.

(1984). Stability of aggression over time and generations. Developmental Psychology, 20, 1120-1134.

39.

Hyman

I. A.

(1995). Corporal punishment, psychological maltreatment, violence, and punitiveness in America: Research, advocacy, and public policy. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 4, 113-130.

40.

Jackson

Thompson

R. A.

Christiansen

E. H.

Colman

R. A.

Wyatt

Buckendahl

C. W.

. . .Peterson

. (1999). Predicting abuse-prone parental attitudes and discipline practices in a nationally representative sample. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 15-29.

41.

Kline

R. B.

(2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling(3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

42.

Larzelere

R. E.

(2000). Child outcomes of nonabusive and customary physical punishment by parents: An updated literature review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 3, 199-221.

43.

Luster

Rhoades

Haas

(1989). The relation between parental values and parenting behavior: A test of the Kohn hypothesis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 139-147.

44.

Maccoby

E. E.

Martin

J. A.

(1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In Mussen

P. H.

(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Formerly Carmichael’s manual of child psychology. Retrieved from http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=US201301452933

45.

MacKinnon

D. P.

(2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

46.

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.

47.

McKinney

Milone

M. C.

Renk

(2011). Parenting and late adolescent emotional adjustment: Mediating effects of discipline and gender. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 42, 463-481.

48.

McKinney

Stearns

Rogers

M. M

. (2020). Concordance between parents in offspring maltreatment as perceived by emerging adult college students. Child abuse & neglect , 99, 104258.

49.

McKinney

Walker

C. S.

Kwan

J. W.

(2020). Mother–father dyad conflict strategy clusters: Implications for emerging adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(1-2), 319-340.

50.

Meeks Gardner

J. M.

Powell

C. A.

Grantham-McGregor

S. M

. (2007). Determinants of aggressive and prosocial behaviour among Jamaican schoolboys. West Indian Medical Journal, 56, 34-41.

51.

Muller

R. T.

Hunter

J. E.

Stollak

(1995). The intergenerational transmission of corporal punishment: A comparison of social learning and temperament models. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19, 1323-1335.

52.

Mulvaney

M. K.

Mebert

C. J.

(2007). Parental corporal punishment predicts behavior problems in early childhood. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 389-397.

53.

Nelson

L. J.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Christensen

K. J.

Evans

C. A.

Carroll

J. S.

(2011). Parenting in emerging adulthood: An examination of parenting clusters and correlates. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 730-743.

54.

Pinderhughes

E. E.

Dodge

K. A.

Bates

J. E.

Pettit

G. S.

Zelli

(2000). Discipline responses: Influences of parents’ socioeconomic status, ethnicity, beliefs about parenting, stress, and cognitive-emotional processes. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 380-400.

55.

Pinquart

Silbereisen

R. K.

(2004). Transmission of values from adolescents to their parents: The role of value content and authoritative parenting. Adolescence, 39(153), 83-100.

56.

Pollard

M. W.

McKinney

(2019). Parental physical force and alcohol use in emerging adults: Mediation by psychological problems. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(10), 2087-2109.

57.

Preacher

K. J.

Rucker

D. D.

Hayes

A. F.

(2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185-227.

58.

Renk

McKinney

Klein

Oliveros

(2006). Childhood discipline, perceptions of parents, and current functioning in female college students. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 73-88.

59.

Robinson

D. H.

Funk

D. C.

Beth

Bush

A. M.

(2005). Changing beliefs about corporal punishment: Increasing knowledge about ineffectiveness to build more consistent moral and informational beliefs. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14, 117-139.

60.

Rodriguez

C. M.

Price

B. L.

(2004). Attributions and discipline history as predictors of child abuse potential and future discipline practices. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 845-861.

61.

Rodriguez

C. M.

Sutherland

(1999). Predictors of parents’ physical disciplinary practices. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 651-657.

62.

Rucker

D. D.

Preacher

K. J.

Tormala

Z. L.

Petty

R. E.

(2011). Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 359-371.

63.

Saadeh

Rizzo

C. P.

Roberts

D. G.

(2002). Spanking. Clinical Pediatrics, 41, 87-91.

64.

Scholer

S. J.

Hamilton

E. C.

Johnson

M. C.

Scott

T. A.

(2010). A brief intervention may affect parents’ attitudes toward using less physical punishment. Family & Community Health, 33, 106-116.

65.

Schönpflug

(2001). Intergenerational transmission of values: The role of transmission belts. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 174-185.

66.

Simons

D. A.

Wurtele

S. K.

(2010). Relationships between parents’ use of corporal punishment and their children’s endorsement of spanking and hitting other children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, 639-646. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.01.012

67.

Straus

M. A.

Kantor

G. K.

(1994). Corporal punishment of adolescents by parents: A risk factor in the epidemiology of depression, suicide, alcohol abuse, child abuse, and wife beating. Adolescence, 29, 543-562.

68.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Finkelhor

Moore

D. W.

Runyan

(1998). Identification of child maltreatment with the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scales: Development and psychometric data for a national sample of American parents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22, 249-270.

69.

Straus

M. A.

Stewart

J. H.

(1999). Corporal punishment by American parents: National data on prevalence, chronicity, severity, and duration, in relation to child and family characteristics. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2, 55-70.

70.

Tomoda

Suzuki

Rabi

Sheu

Y.-S.

Polcari

Teicher

M. H.

(2009). Reduced prefrontal cortical gray matter volume in young adults exposed to harsh corporal punishment. Neuroimage, 47, 66-71.

71.

UNICEF. (n.d.). Fact sheet: A summary of the rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Rights_overview.pdf

72.

Vittrup

Holden

G. W.

Buck

(2006). Attitudes predict the use of physical punishment: A prospective study of the emergence of disciplinary practices. Pediatrics, 117, 2055-2064. doi:10.1542/peds.2005-2204

73.

Woodward

L. J.

Fergusson

D. M.

(2002). Parent, child, and contextual predictors of childhood physical punishment. Infant and Child Development, 11, 213-235.

74.

Yeung

W. J.

Duncan

G. J.

Hill

M. S.

(2000). Putting fathers back in the picture: Parental activities and children’s adult outcomes. Marriage & Family Review, 29, 97-113.

75.

Young

Lennie

Minnis

(2011). Children’s perceptions of parental emotional neglect and control and psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52, 889-897.

76.

Zolotor

A. J.

Theodore

A. D.

Chang

J. J.

Berkoff

M. C.

Runyan

D. K.

(2008). Speak softly—and forget the stick: Corporal punishment and child physical abuse. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, 364-369.