Actor–Partner Analyses of the Associations Between Harsh Discipline and Parent

Abstract

Based on the actor–partner interdependence model (APIM), this study examined the actor and partner effects of parental harsh discipline on the parent–child relationship in a sample of Chinese children. A total of 1,149 Chinese middle-school-aged children who were recruited to participate in this survey completed measures of their fathers’ and mothers’ psychological aggression (PA) and corporal punishment (CP) toward them and their affinitive and conflicting relationship with the father and mother. Results from the APIM analysis showed that both fathers’ and mothers’ harsh discipline were negatively associated with parent–child affinity and positively associated with parent–child conflict (βs < .33, ps < .001). Furthermore, results also showed that mothers’ CP was negatively related to father–child affinity (βs = −.10, ps < .01) and mothers’ CP and PA were positively related to father–child conflict (βs < .13, ps < .01), whereas fathers’ harsh discipline was not related to mother–child relationship (βs > .04, ps > .05). Findings indicated that a parent’s harsh discipline affected not only their own relationship with children but also their spouse’s relationship with children. Findings in the present study highlighted the importance of decreasing both fathers’ and mothers’ use of harsh discipline when conducting appropriate prevention intervention to improve the parent–child relationship, especially the father–child relationship.

Keywords

harsh discipline parent-child relationships actor-partner interdependence model China

Introduction

The parent–child relationship, as one of the most basic and important relationships in the family, reflects the interrelationship between parents and children, which has a dramatic impact on children development. Parent–child affinity and parent–child conflict are the most important aspects when characterizing the parent–child relational qualities. Much previous research has documented that the quality of the parent–child relationship plays an important role in the mental health, psychosocial adjustment, school performance, and behavior outcomes of children (Barber & Delfabbro, 2000; Laursen & Collins, 2009). For example, parent–child affinity as a positive feature of the parent–child relationship was found to be positively associated with children’s academic motivation and negatively associated with children’s depressive symptoms (Bhattacharjee, 2013); however, parent–child conflict as a negative feature of the parent–child relationship was found to be positively related with the development of behavior problems and anxiety (Burt, Mcgue, Iacono, & Krueger, 2006; Lamis & Jahn, 2013). Given the importance of the parent–child relationship for children’s positive adaptation and development, it is particularly pressing to investigate the correlates of parent–child relational qualities.

Parental harsh discipline (e.g., psychological aggression and physical aggression) may be one of the many factors that erode the quality of the parent–child relationship (Gershoff, 2010; Renk, McKinney, Klein, & Oliveros, 2006; Wang & Kenny, 2014). Studies have indicated that corporal punishment (CP), defined as “the use of physical force by the parent intended to cause pain, but not injury, for the purpose of correction or control of the child’s behavior” (Straus, 2001, p. 4), has adverse effects on the qualities of the parent–child relationship (Leary, Kelley, Morrow, & Mikulka, 2008; Mulvaney & Mebert, 2010). For example, by analyzing data from 274 college students, Leary and his colleagues (2008) found that compared with individuals in the low physical punishment group, students who experienced the highest level of parental physical punishment reported higher family conflict and a more negative parental relationship, as well as higher negative family affects. A recent quantitative study of 230 college students also found that “the main effect of CP was uniquely associated with decreased attachment” (Mulvaney & Mebert, 2010, p. 408). In addition to these studies, a meta-analysis by Gershoff (2010) showed that parental CP was associated with lower levels of the quality of the parent–child relationship.

Similarly, another component of parental harsh discipline, psychological aggression (PA), may also erode the quality of children’s relationship with their parents. PA refers to “the use of psychological force with the intention of causing a child to experience psychological pain or fear for the purposes of correction or control of misbehavior” (Straus, Hamby, Finkelhor, Moore, & Runyan, 1998, p. 6; Wang & Kenny, 2014, p. 1). The psychological pain or fear caused by PA may lead children to develop a hostile and biased view of the parent–child relationship, as children are likely to interpret PA as an indication of parental hostility or rejection, which, in turn, creates a barrier between a parent and his or her child (Evans, Simons, & Simons, 2012). Unfortunately, the limited research investigating the associations between parental harsh discipline and the parent–child relationship has predominantly focused on only CP, while the effects of PA on the parent–child relationship have received scant attention. Studies have shown that although parental CP is viewed as more aggressive and intrusive than PA, PA is more commonly used by parents (Straus & Field, 2003; Wang, Wang, & Liu, 2016). For example, Straus and Field (2003) found that nearly 90% of parents surveyed reported they directed one or more forms of PA at their children in the past 12 months. Given the high prevalence of parental PA and its potential destructiveness, it is also critical to take PA into consideration when examining the effects of parental harsh discipline on parent–child relational qualities. Therefore, the current study examined not only the effects of parental CP but also the effects of parental PA on parent–child relational qualities.

It should be noted that most prior studies concerning parental harsh discipline and the parent–child relationship have commonly only used mother–child dyadic or father–child dyadic as the unit of analysis. This type of approach only examined the effects of harsh discipline on a parent’s own relationship with children (i.e., actor effects) and overlooked the effects of the parent’s harsh discipline on his or her spouse’s relationship with children (i.e., partner effects). Family system theory emphasized that all members of a family system are in constant interaction with each other (Cox & Paley, 2003). This interaction means that family members’ behaviors and emotions are not independent, but interdependent and interacting with each other. Furthermore, the spillover hypothesis also suggested that emotions or behaviors generated in a system (father–child subsystem) may be expressed in another system (mother–child subsystem). Thus, the influence of one parent’s behaviors on the quality of the relationship with children may spill over into the subsystem of the other parent and the children. Based on the above discussion, it is reasonable to infer that parental harsh discipline practices may not only influence their own relationship with their children but also their spouse’s relationship with their children. Recently, researchers have suggested that it is appropriate to use the Actor–Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) in the study of a dyadic relationship, which integrates a conceptual view of interdependence (Cook & Kenny, 2005). The superiority of the APIM is that it enables the simultaneous measurement of the influence of individuals’ independent variable on their own dependent variable (an actor effect) and their partner’s dependent variable (a partner effect; Kashy & Kenny, 2000; Kenny & Cook, 1999). In the current study, the APIM can be used to examine the path from one parent’s harsh discipline to their own relationship with the children (actor effects), and the path from one parent’s harsh discipline to their spouse’s relationship with the children (partner effects). Thus, this study will use the APIM to simultaneously examine the actor and partner effects of parental harsh discipline on parent–child relational qualities.

In addition, it was noteworthy that most previous research investigating the relationship between parental harsh discipline and the parent–child relationship was conducted in a Western setting; few studies have focused on this issue in China, particularly in mainland China, where harsh discipline has been one of the most common techniques parents use to discipline their children. In contrast to Western culture, which regards parental harsh discipline as an illegitimate or unfair parenting approach, traditional Chinese culture regards PA and CP as an indication of parental involvement and love, as the Chinese proverb indicates “Beating and scolding is the emblem of love” (Simons, Wu, Lin, Gordon, & Conger, 2000; Wang & Liu, 2014). In this cultural context, parental harsh discipline is highly accepted, and children may be more likely to regard parental harsh discipline as the expression of concern and love, rather than parental hostility or rejection. Given the uniqueness of parenting approaches in Chinese society and culture, it is possible that the effects of Chinese parental PA and CP on parent–child relational qualities may be different from those in the West.

In summary, we collected data from a large sample of Chinese adolescents and used the APIM to simultaneously examine the actor and partner effects of parental PA and CP on the parent–child affinity and the parent–child conflict.

Consistent with past research that indicated an association between parental harsh discipline and the parent–child relationship, we expected that the PA and CP of fathers and mothers would be positively related to their own conflict with their children and negatively related to their own affinity with their children (actor effects). Moreover, we also expected that after controlling for the actor effects, the PA and CP of fathers or mothers would also be positively related to their spouse’s conflict with their children and negatively related to their spouse’s affinity with their children (partner effects).

Method

Participants

A total of 1,164 middle school students who live in an intact family with fathers and mothers participated in the present research as part of a large study examining associations between parental harsh discipline and the parent–child relationship. Following the criterion employed by Muris et al. (2006), a threshold of less than 90% response rate was used to remove unsatisfactory cases. About 115 students were excluded in subsequent statistical analyses as a result of this criterion, which resulted in a final sample of 1,049 children between the ages of 11 and 18 years (M = 13.86 years, SD = 0.97 years, 47.76% male). In total, 76% of the children were reported to have no siblings due to China’s one-child policy. Overall, 4.19% of the children came from the countryside, and the other 95.81% came from cities or towns. Furthermore, according to the children’s reports, 25.45% of the fathers and 15.73% of the mothers had completed some college education or more, 42.71% of the fathers and 39.85% of the mothers were high school graduates, and 31.84% of the fathers and 45.52% of mothers had a middle school education or less. In terms of employment, approximately 5.44% of the fathers and 35.40% of the mothers were farmers or did not work, 61.20% of the fathers and 49.57% of the mothers were employed at working class jobs (e.g., factory workers), and 33.36% of the fathers and 15.03% of the mothers held a professional, managerial, or technical position (e.g., teachers, doctors, engineers, or civil servants). The current sample was predominately working- and middle-class urban area sample.

Measures

Parental harsh discipline

The 22-item Chinese version of the Parent–Child Conflict Tactics Scales (CTSPC; Leung, Wong, Chen, & Tang, 2008; Straus et al., 1998) was used to assess parental disciplinary practices. The CTSPC included the five subscales: Nonviolent Discipline (four items, for example, stopping what I was doing wrong and asking me do something else), PA (five items, for example, shouting, yelling at me or threatening to send me away), CP (six items, for example, beating my leg or arm with hand), Severe Physical Abuse (three items, for example, beating with a belt, a stick or something hard), and Very Severe Physical Abuse (four items, for example, burning or scalding me intentionally). Of these subscales, the PA and CP subscales were the primary focus of this study. The children responded to the CTSPC items to rate the frequency of the fathers’ and mothers’ PA and CP in the previous year on a 7-point scale. A score of 0 indicated there was never an occurrence, and a score of 7 indicated an occurrence of more than 20 times. The total scores for the fathers’ and mothers’ PA and CP were computed separately by summing the frequency scores of the PA and CP subscale items, and a higher score indicated a higher frequency of parental harsh discipline. In addition, according to the CTSPC scale, the prevalence rate of PA and CP was also calculated. The prevalence rate of PA and CP is the percentage of children who experienced one or more instances of parental PA and CP in the previous year. The Chinese version of this scale has good validity and internal reliability (Wang & Liu, 2018; Wang et al., 2016; Xing, Wang, Zhang, He, & Zhang, 2011). In the present study, the Cronbach’s alphas for the fathers’ PA and CP subscales reported by the children were .73 and .79, respectively, and the mothers’ PA and CP subscales reported by the children were .72 and .74, respectively.

Parent–child affinity

Parent–child affinity was assessed with the Chinese version of the Family Adaption and Cohesion Evaluation Scales II (FACES II; Olson, Sprenkle, & Russell, 1979; Wang & Zhang, 2007). The instrument is a 10-item child report questionnaire with two subscales, including father–child affinity and mother–child affinity, and the contents of the two subscales were in accordance, for example, my father/mother and I were very close to each other. The mean of the items ranges between 1 and 5 (1 = scarcely ever, 2 = occasionally, 3 = sometimes, 4 = frequently, and 5 = almost always), with higher scores indicating a high level of parent–child affinity. The Cronbach’s alphas for this sample were .80 for the father–child affinity scale and .77 for the mother–child affinity scale reported by the children. These alpha coefficients are similar to those found in other studies using the Chinese version of the FACES II, in which the alphas were .81 for fathers and .75 for mothers (Fuligni & Zhang, 2004).

Parent–child conflict

To measure parent–child conflict, the Chinese version of the parent–child conflict questionnaire developed by Prinz, Foster, Kent, and O’Leary (1979) was used (Zhang, Wang, & Fuligni, 2006). This scale contains 11 items that measure the intensity and frequency of children’s conflict with their parents and covers commonly occurring issues (e.g., spending money, dressing, and cleaning the bedroom). The participants were instructed to indicate the extent to which they were angry with their parents when they talk about the thing that presented on the questionnaire over the past year. The response format ranges from 1 (very calmed) to 5 (very angry). Consistent with existing research, the intensity variable was assessed by taking the mean of the items that the participants answered above “2.” For the frequency of conflict, items were re-encoded (items answered more than “2” were re-encoded as “1,” while other items were re-encoded as “0”) and summed to calculate the overall frequency score of conflict. Higher scores reflected a high level of frequency and intension of parent–child conflict. The Chinese version of parent–child conflict was used successfully with Chinese teenagers and has good reliability and validity (e.g., Fuligni & Zhang, 2004; Wang & Zhang, 2007; Zhang et al., 2006). The Cronbach’s alphas for the scales in the present sample were .75 and .80 for the father–child conflict scale and the mother–child conflict scale, respectively, as reported by the children.

Demographic variables

The private information of the participants was also reported, such as information related to the children’s gender, age, grade, family locus, paternal/maternal age, education, and occupation.

Procedure

Participants were recruited through cluster sampling techniques from two public middle schools in an eastern city of China, Jinan, located in Shandong Province. Before the data collection, we sought help from the school institutions for access to the children. Through the schools, we distributed informed consent forms to all Grade 7 through Grade 9 children in 26 classes and asked parents to consent for their children to participate in the research. Moreover, students were also assured that their participation in the present study would be voluntary and confidential. After signed parental consent forms were obtained, the formal survey was administered to the children in groups by one or two trained assistants during class time or immediately after regular classes. The one or two trained research assistants in each class provided written and verbal instructions to the children in the course of the survey. The children were encouraged to complete all items in the questionnaires as realistically as possible. On average, it took approximately 30 min to complete the questionnaire. The implementation of the study was reviewed and supported by the Institutional Review Board of Shandong Normal University.

Data Analysis

All data were examined for completeness prior to conducting analyses. In all cases, the item mean was substituted for the missing data given that the percent of the items that had no responses in the present study was only 1.28% (Sawilowsky, 2007). Data analyses proceeded in two stages. First, in the descriptive analysis, the paired-sample t test was primitively used to examine gender differences between fathers and mothers in PA and CP; independent t tests were used to estimate significant differences between fathers’ and mothers’ PA and CP in the gender of the children. Furthermore, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to examine correlations among parental PA and CP and parent–child affinity and conflict. These data analyses were conducted in SPSS20.0.

Second, to test the actor and partner effects of harsh discipline on parent–child relational qualities, the APIM was employed to examine the impact of fathers’ and mothers’ PA and CP relative to their own affinity and the frequency and intensity of conflict with their children, as well as their partner’s affinity and the intensity and frequency of conflict with the children. The APIM analyses were conducted in the structural equation modeling (SEM) framework within the Mplus7.0 software package because SEM provides the most expedient and direct way to perform the analysis in distinguishable dyads. In the models, the predictor (fathers’ and mothers’ PA and CP) and residual error (e1 and e2) terms of parent–child relational qualities were allowed to be correlated with each other (Kashy & Kenny, 2000; Kenny & Cook, 1999).

Results

The rates of the fathers’ PA and CP reported by the children for the previous year were 76.64% and 33.56%, respectively. Moreover, the rates of the mothers’ PA and CP reported by the children for the previous year were 77.98% and 39.56%, respectively.

The paired-samples t test results indicated that the frequency of the mothers’ PA and CP were both significantly higher than the fathers’ PA and CP (ts < –2.11, ps < .05). As Table 1 indicates, boys experienced more fathers’ and mother’s PA and CP than girls during the previous year (ts > 2.14, ps < .05).

Table 1.

Means and Standard Deviations of Fathers’ and Mothers’ PA and CP and Gender Comparison.

	Boys		Girls		t
	M	SD	M	SD	t
FPA	12.10	18.64	8.04	14.31	3.93**
MPA	12.00	19.19	9.70	15.21	2.14*
FPC	4.64	12.02	2.20	7.29	3.92**
MPC	4.71	10.92	3.22	8.73	2.43*

p < .05. **p < .01.

Furthermore, the Pearson product-moment correlation analyses indicated that all variables within parental PA and CP and parent–child affinity and conflict were significantly correlated (see Table 2). Of particular interest, parental PA and CP were negatively correlated with their own and their spouse’s affinity with the children and positively correlated with their own and their spouse’s intensity and frequency of conflict with the children. These results indicated that higher frequencies of parental PA and CP were linked to lower parent–child affinity and more frequent and stronger parent–child conflict.

Table 2.

Relations Between Parental PA and CP and Parent–Child Affinity and Conflict.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. FPA	—
2. MPA	.66**	—
3. FCP	.55**	.39**	—
4. MCP	.43**	.57**	.62**	—
5. FCA	−.31**	−.23**	−.20**	−.18**	—
6. MCA	−.28**	−.30**	−.19**	−.25**	.64**	—
7. FCCF	.32**	.26**	.22**	.21**	−.15**	−.15**	—
8. MCCF	.21**	.33**	.13**	.25**	−.10**	−.23**	.62**	—
9. FCCI	.32**	.25**	.23**	.22**	−.14**	−.15**	.88**	.55**	—
10. MCCI	.22**	.31**	.13**	.24**	−.10**	−.20**	.56**	.88**	.57**	—

Note. PA = Psychological Aggression; CP = Corporal Punishment; FPA = Fathers’ Psychological Aggression; MPA = Mothers’ Psychological Aggression; FCP = Fathers’ Corporal Punishment; MCP = Mothers’ Corporal Punishment; FCA = Father–Child Affinity; MCA = Mother–Child Affinity; FCCF = Father–Child Conflict Frequency; MCCF = Mother–Child Conflict Frequency; FCCI = Father–Child Conflict Intension; MCCI = Mother–Child Conflict Intension.

p < .05. **p < .01.

The initial series of correlation analysis results showed that parental PA and CP were associated with their spouse’s relationship with the children, which indicates the data were interdependent; thus, the APIM was more suitable than traditional analyses (Cook & Kenny, 2005; Kashy & Kenny, 2000; Kenny & Cook, 1999). Altogether, six sets of APIM analysis were performed (between fathers’ and mothers’ PA/CP and the intensity of parent–child affinity, the intensity of parent–child conflict, and the frequency of parent–child conflict). All APIM structural equation models constructed in the current study were saturated models, with degrees of freedom and a chi-square equal to 0, and the model fit was perfect.

As shown in Figure 1, the actor effects were significant for both fathers and mothers between PA and CP and parent–child affinity. Fathers’ and mothers’ PA and CP were negatively associated with their own affinity with their children (βs < –.14, ps < .001). Moreover, the partner effect of the mothers’ CP on parent–child affinity was significant (β = −.10, p < .01). Mothers’ CP was negatively associated with father–child affinity. Fathers’ PA and CP and mothers’ PA were not significantly related to the parent–child affinity (β < –.05, p > .05).

Figure 1.

Actor–partner interdependence model of parental harsh discipline and parent–child affinity.

As shown in Figure 2, the actor effects were also significant for both fathers and mothers between PA and CP and parent–child conflict intensity and parent–child conflict frequency. Fathers’ and mothers’ PA and CP were positively associated with their own intensity and frequency of conflict with the children (βs > .14, ps < .001). Furthermore, while the path from mothers’ PA to father–child conflict intensity was not significant, the partner effects of mothers’ PA and CP on the intensity and frequency of father–child conflict were all significant; furthermore, the partner effects of fathers’ PA and CP on mother–child conflict intensity and mother–child conflict frequency were all nonsignificant. In particular, mothers’ PA was positively associated with father–child frequency (β = .11, p < .01), and mothers’ CP was positively associated with father–child intensity and father–child conflict frequency (βs = .12 and .13, p < .01).

Figure 2.

Actor–partner interdependence model of parental harsh discipline and parent–child conflict.

Discussion

Based on the APIM, this study used the sample of 1,049 Chinese families with children in junior middle school to examine the associations between parental harsh discipline and the parent–child relationship (Kashy & Kenny, 2000). We focused on the dyadic interdependencies regarding parental PA and CP and parent–child affinity and conflict between fathers and mothers. It was found that actor effects of parental harsh discipline on the parent–child relationship existed. Specifically, one parent’s PA and CP predicted the decrease of his or her own affinity with the child and the increase of the frequency and intensity of his or her own conflict with the child. Moreover, partner effects of mothers’ harsh discipline were also present, with mothers’ PA predicting an increase in the frequency of father–child conflict and mothers’ CP predicting a decrease in father–child affinity and increases in the both frequency and intensity of father–child conflict. However, in contrast to our expectation, fathers’ harsh discipline had no significant effects on the mother–child relationship.

Before discussing the main findings of the current study, the results of the preliminary analysis will be addressed here. First, the findings showed that the rates of PA and CP reported by the children in the previous year were 76.64% and 33.56% for fathers, respectively, and 77.98% and 39.56% for mothers, respectively. These results suggested that Chinese parents continue to commonly use PA and CP as a means of disciplining their junior middle school children, and PA is particularly prevalent. Second, consistent with previous studies of parental harsh discipline (Wang et al., 2016; Wang & Kenny, 2014), the present study found that mothers conducted more PA and CP than fathers. The differences in harsh discipline between fathers and mothers may be explained by the fact that mothers typically spend more time with their children than fathers and thus would more often be in the role of disciplinarian (Xing, Zhang, Shao, & Wang, 2017). Furthermore, it was found that boys received more parental PA and CP than girls. One potential explanation is that boys are more likely than girls to tend to exhibit externalizing problem behaviors, such as aggression, and may thus elicit more parental harsh discipline than girls (Gershoff, 2002).

Consistent with previous research linking parents’ use of CP with a more negative relationship with their children (Leary et al., 2008; Mulvaney & Mebert, 2010), the present study also found associations between parental CP and a lower level of parent–child affinity and higher frequency and intensity of parent–child conflict. At the same time, the results showed that parents’ use of PA also disrupted the quality of the children’s relationship with them, which extended the literature regarding the negative effects of parental CP on the parent–child relationship.

These results may be explained by the following reasons. First, several researchers have suggested that the painful nature of CP can evoke feelings of fear, anxiety, and helpless in children, which might incite them to fear and avoid their parents (Gershoff, 2002). This avoidance may reduce communication and interaction between parents and children and further erode the parent–child affinity. Furthermore, children’s feelings of resentment and humiliation after being spanked (Ramsburg, 1997) might trigger their disapproval of parental discipline and evoke their psychological revenge that increased the parent–child conflict. These explanations may also apply to PA because the negative information transmitted by parental PA can make a child experience emotional pain and discomfort, as well as negative feelings, such as anger and frustration, similar to those evoked by CP (Evans et al., 2012). Second, parents’ use of PA and CP may be interpreted by children as a reflection of parental hostility or rejection (Evans et al., 2012; Lansford et al., 2010; Wang & Kenny, 2014). Dodge and Pettit (2003) found that parental hostility and rejection may lead young individuals to develop a hostile and biased view of the parent–child relationship, which may decrease parent–child affinity and increase the frequency and intensity of parent–child conflict. Third, it is important to note that the children who participated in the present study were at a special stage of life development, that is, puberty. In puberty, children are in the process of “separation and individuation,” and they are more eager to pursue independence and autonomy (Smetana & Daddis, 2002; Van Petegem, Beyers, Vansteenkiste, & Soenens, 2012). As a result, adolescents may be more likely to interpret PA and CP as an indication of parental constraint or control, which may facilitate them to consider that their parents do not understand or care for them (Smetana & Daddis, 2002; Shek, 2005). Such thoughts of children may erode the bond of trust and closeness between parents and children and increase the frequency and intensity of parent–child conflict.

The present study also found that mothers’ harsh discipline was significantly associated with the father–child relationship, which indicates the existence of partner effects of mothers’ harsh discipline on the father–child relationship, while partner effects of fathers’ harsh discipline on the mother–child relationship did not exist. One potential explanation for the differential partner effects of fathers’ and mothers’ use of harsh discipline on the parent–child relationship is that fathers’ role differs from that of mothers’ role in many regards in China (Shek, 2005; Wang et al., 2016; Xing et al., 2017). Specifically, Chinese traditional culture emphasizes “breadwinning men, homemaking women,” which indicates that fathers should take care of things outside the family, while mothers should take care of things inside the family (Shek, 2005; Zhao, Liu, & Wang, 2015). Moreover, another Chinese proverb “strict father, kind mother” reflects the greater control exerted by fathers and greater emotional support or warmth manifested by mothers (Shek, 2005; Xing et al., 2017). Within this cultural context, mothers are generally the main caregivers who spend more time with children and give support and warmth when children are in need. It is thus understandable that after children experienced fathers’ harsh discipline, mothers would likely show more love for the children as compensation. Thus, the mother–child relationship may not be worsened because of fathers’ harsh discipline. However, fathers who are less involved in parenting and spend less time with their children are less likely to care more for children when children experienced mothers’ harsh discipline. Furthermore, the role of Chinese fathers in the family was traditionally defined as “yi jia zhi zhu,” which means that fathers have greater authority over mothers, and mothers are subordinate to fathers (Hester, He, & Tian, 2009). Children may be influenced by the conception and belief that mothers’ harsh discipline represents not only their own will but also their fathers’ will. Accordingly, in the present study, we found that mothers’ harsh discipline was associated not only with the low qualities of their own relationship with the children but also with the low qualities of their spouse’s relationship with the children.

Although this study extended past research on the associations between parental harsh discipline and the parent–child relationship, it also suffered certain limitations. First, the cross-sectional design of the present study makes it impossible to test causal inferences about the direction of the relations between parental harsh discipline and the parent–child relationship. Further longitudinal designs will be required to examine the potential causalities and determine whether parental harsh discipline predicts the qualities of their own and their spouse’s relationship with children over time. Second, this study only investigated the actor and partner effects of parental harsh discipline and the parent–child relationship in a sample of junior middle school children in normal families with two parents. However, the actor and partner effects of parental harsh discipline and the parent–child relationship may be different over the course of children’s development, as parental discipline strategies may be used differently for children in different developmental stages (Sheehan & Watson, 2008). Similarly, the results of relevant studies using different samples, such as children in distress, may also differ from the results of this study. Thus, it may be unfeasible to generalize the research findings to other life cycle stages and other samples. Replication of these findings with samples of children at different ages or in different living environments will strengthen our understanding of the role of parental harsh discipline in determining the parent–child relationship. Moreover, in the current study, the data used were only gathered by questioning the target child in the family, which may have biased the results. It is possible that the results may be different if we utilized information from multiple informants, such as primary caregivers or teachers. Thus, future research could incorporate different reporters of parenting and the parent–child relationship.

Despite the previously described limitations, the present study provided valuable information regarding the actor and partner effects of parental harsh discipline and parent–child relational qualities. First, while most studies examining the associations between parental harsh discipline and the parent–child relationship have been conducted in Western countries, there is limited knowledge regarding these associations in Chinese society. Our study addressed the gap and extended the literature through examining the actor and partner effects of parental harsh discipline and the parent–child relationship with a large Chinese sample. Second, the majority of the research conducted on harsh discipline and the parent–child relationship has focused on CP. However, the results of this study demonstrated that both parental PA and CP were negatively associated with parent–child affinity and positively associated with parent–child conflict, which indicated that parental PA and CP deserve equal attention in both research and practice. Finally, given the interdependence between mothers and fathers, this study used the APIM to examine the associations of parental harsh discipline and the parent–child relationship and found that parents’ harsh discipline influenced not only their own relationship with their children but also their spouse’s relationship with their children. In summary, the current study used the APIM method, supplemented and extended previous literature in important ways, and presented new evidence that there is a link between parental harsh discipline and the parent–child relationship in Chinese society. The findings highlight the importance of targeting the parental dyad for intervention programs that aim to improve the quality of children’s relationships with their parents; in particular, a future appropriate prevention intervention should decrease both fathers’ and mothers’ use of harsh discipline to improve the father–child relationship.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to all the children, parents, and teachers who participated or contributed to this project.

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 research was supported by Capacity Building for Sci-Tech Innovation—Fundamental Scientific Research Funds (19530050157).

Author Biographies

Zhaona Cai is a master degree candidate in the Department of Psychology at Capital Normal University. Her research interests include the relations between parental harsh discipline and children’s personality and social development, and the relations between family and the development of the children and adolescents.

Meifang Wang is a professor in the College of Elementary Education at Capital Normal University. She received her PhD in education from Beijing Normal University. Her research interests include the personality and social development of children and adolescence, children’s social and cognitive development, children and adolescence’s school adjustment, the development and training of children and adolescence’s social capability, family, and the development of children and adolescence.

Fang Wang is a master degree candidate in the Department of Psychology at Capital Normal University. Her research interests include intergenerational transmission of harsh discipline and children’s adjustment, and personality and social development of children and adolescence.

References

Barber

J. G.

Delfabbro

(2000). Predictors of adolescent adjustment: Parent-peer relationships and parent-child conflict. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 17, 275-288.

Bhattacharjee

(2013). Autonomy in Asian-American adolescents: Its Development, relation to parent-child closeness, and associations with adjustment (Doctoral dissertation). Winston-Salem, NC: Wake Forest University.

Burt

S. A.

Mcgue

Iacono

W. G.

Krueger

R. F.

(2006). Differential parent-child relationships and adolescent externalizing symptoms: Cross-lagged analyses within a monozygotic twin differences design. Developmental Psychology, 42, 1289-1298.

Cook

W. L.

Kenny

D. A.

(2005). The actor–partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 101-109.

Cox

M. J.

Paley

(2003). Understanding families as systems. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 193-196.

Dodge

K. A.

Pettit

G. S.

(2003). A biopsychosocial model of the development of chronic conduct problems in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 39, 349-371.

Evans

S. Z.

Simons

L. G.

Simons

R. L.

(2012). The effect of corporal punishment and verbal abuse on delinquency: Mediating mechanisms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 1095-1110.

Fuligni

A. J.

Zhang

(2004). Attitudes toward family obligation among adolescents in contemporary urban and rural china. Child Development, 75, 180-192.

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.

10.

Gershoff

E. T.

(2010). More harm than good: A summary of scientific research on the intended and unintended effects of corporal punishment on children. Law and Contemporary Problems, 73(2), 31-56.

11.

Hester

Tian

(2009). Girls’ and boys’ experiences and perceptions of parental discipline and punishment while growing up in China and England. Child Abuse Review: Journal of the British Association for the Study and Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, 18, 401-413.

12.

Kashy

D. A.

Kenny

D. A.

(2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In Reis

H. T.

Judd

C. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 451-477). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

13.

Kenny

D. A.

Cook

(1999). Partner effects in relationship research: Conceptual issues, analytic difficulties, and illustrations. Personal Relationships, 6, 433-448.

14.

Lamis

D. A.

Jahn

D. R.

(2013). Parent–child conflict and suicide rumination in college students: The mediating roles of depressive symptoms and anxiety sensitivity. Journal of American College Health, 61, 106-113.

15.

Lansford

J. E.

Malone

P. S.

Dodge

K. A.

Chang

Chaudhary

Tapanya

. . . Deater-Deckard

(2010). Children’s perceptions of maternal hostility as a mediator of the link between discipline and children’s adjustment in four countries. International Journal of Behavior Development, 34, 452-461.

16.

Laursen

Collins

W. A.

(2009). Family relationships and parenting influences. In Lerner

Steinberg

(Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 331-362). New York, NY: John Wiley.

17.

Leary

C. E.

Kelley

M. L.

Morrow

Mikulka

P. J.

(2008). Parental use of physical punishment as related to family environment, psychological well-being, and personality in undergraduates. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 1-7.

18.

Leung

P. W. S.

Wong

W. C. W.

Chen

W. Q.

Tang

(2008). Prevalence and determinants of child maltreatment among high school students in Southern China: A large scale school based survey. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 2, 1-8.

19.

Mulvaney

M. K.

Mebert

C. J.

(2010). Stress appraisal and attitudes towards corporal punishment as intervening processes between corporal punishment and subsequent mental health. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 401-412.

20.

Muris

Loxton

Neumann

Plessis

King

Ollendick

(2006). DSM-defined anxiety disorders symptoms in South African youths: Their assessment and relationship with perceived parental rearing behaviors. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 883-896.

21.

Olson

D. H.

Sprenkle

D. H.

Russell

C. S.

(1979). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: I. Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types, and clinical applications. Family Process, 18, 3-28.

22.

Prinz

R. J.

Foster

Kent

R. N.

O’Leary

K. D.

(1979). Multivariate assessment of conflict in distressed and nondistressed mother-adolescent dyads. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 691-700.

23.

Ramsburg

(1997). The debate over spanking. Champaign: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, University of Illinois.

24.

Renk

McKinney

Klein

Oliveros

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

25.

Sawilowsky

S. S.

(2007). Real data analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

26.

Sheehan

M. J.

Watson

M. W.

(2008). Reciprocal influences between maternal discipline techniques and aggression in children and adolescents. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 245-255.

27.

Shek

D. T. L.

(2005). Perceived parental control and parent–child relational qualities in Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong. Sex Roles, 53, 635-646.

28.

Simons

R. L.

C. I.

Lin

K. H.

Gordon

Conger

R. D.

(2000). A cross-cultural examination of the link between corporal punishment and adolescent anti-social behavior. Criminology, 38, 4-80.

29.

Smetana

J. G.

Daddis

(2002). Domain-specific antecedents of parental psychological control and monitoring: The role of parenting beliefs and practices. Child Development, 73, 563-580.

30.

Straus

M. A.

(2001). Beating the devil out of them: Physical punishment in American families and its effects on children (2nd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

31.

Straus

M. A.

Field

C. J.

(2003). Psychological aggression by American parents: National data on prevalence, chronicity, and severity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 795-808.

32.

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.

33.

Van Petegem

Beyers

Vansteenkiste

Soenens

. (2012). On the association between adolescent autonomy and psychosocial functioning: Examining decisional independence from a self-determination theory perspective. Developmental Psychology, 48, 76-88.

34.

Wang

Liu

(2014). Parental harsh discipline in mainland China: Prevalence, frequency, and coexistence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38, 1128-1137.

35.

Wang

Liu

(2018). Reciprocal relations between harsh discipline and children’s externalizing behavior in China: A 5-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 89, 174-187.

36.

Wang

Liu

(2016). Paternal and maternal psychological and physical aggression and children’s anxiety in China. Child Abuse & Neglect, 51, 12-20.

37.

Wang

Zhang

(2007). A research on parent-adolescent conflict and cohesion. Psychological Science, 30, 1196-1198.

38.

Wang

M. T.

Kenny

(2014). Longitudinal links between fathers’ and mothers’ harsh verbal discipline and adolescents’ conduct problems and depressive symptoms. Child Development, 85, 908-923.

39.

Xing

Wang

Zhang

(2011). Gender differences in the reciprocal relationships between parental physical aggression and children’s externalizing problem behavior in China. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 699-708.

40.

Xing

Zhang

Shao

Wang

(2017). Child negative emotionality and parental harsh discipline in Chinese preschoolers: The different mediating roles of maternal and paternal anxiety. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 339.

41.

Zhang

Wang

Fuligni

(2006). Expectations for autonomy, beliefs about parental authority, and parent-adolescent conflict and cohesion. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 38, 868-876.

42.

Zhao

Liu

Wang

(2015). Parent-child cohesion, friend companionship and left-behind children’s emotional adaptation in rural China. Child Abuse & Neglect, 48, 190-199.

Actor–Partner Analyses of the Associations Between Harsh Discipline and Parent–Child Relationships in China

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Method

Participants

Measures

Parental harsh discipline

Parent–child affinity

Parent–child conflict

Demographic variables

Procedure

Data Analysis

Results

Discussion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Author Biographies

References