exercise #1 article 1

8/8/2019 Exercise #1 Article 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/exercise-1-article-1 1/9

Spankers and Nonspankers: Where They Get Information on Spanking

Author(s): Wendy WalshSource: Family Relations, Vol. 51, No. 1 (Jan., 2002), pp. 81-88Published by: National Council on Family RelationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3700302 .

Accessed: 16/01/2011 01:15

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfr. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Family Relations.

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfr

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3700302?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3700302?origin=JSTOR-pdf




Spankersand Nonspankers:WhereThey Get

Informationon Spanking*Wendy Walsh**

Becausepankings common,utschildren t riskor harmfulideeffects, nd s ineffectives apositive ehaviormanagementool,it is importanto identifyhekindof adviceamilies eceive bout heappropriatenessf spanking. sing hehealthbeliefmodel,

examinedpankersndnonspankersn thespankingmessagesheyreceivedromeightsources f disciplinenformationndhowimportantheyperceivedhesemessageso be. Data romtelephonenterviewsith998 mothers ithchildrenged2 to 14 yearsshowed hat33%ofmothersated dviceromworkshops,ediatricians,ewspapersndmagazines,ndbooks s "verymportant."Less than15%ratedparents nd relatives nd riendsas such.Spankerserceivedources s recommendingpanking, hereas

nonspankerserceivedources s opposingpanking.Mothers eremoreikelyospankwhen hey erceivedmorentensemessagestospank,essintensemessages pposingpanking,adyoungerhildren,ndwereof lower ocioeconomictatus.

Whatwe read and learn from our environment influenc-

es behavior.The messages we perceive help us to de-terminewhat is normativeor expected behavior.For

example, public smoking was once culturally accepted and not

questioned.Once the link between smokingand negativehealtheffects was emphasized,smoking was redefinedas harmfulbe-havior,and legal controls were supported Ferraro,1990). Sim-

ilarly, corporal punishmentwas once more culturally acceptedthan today. Because parentingattitudes and beliefs are formedin part by interactionwith those in our social context and whatwe read,this studyexaminesthe sorts of advice families receiveaboutthe appropriateness f spankingandthe importanceof in-formation sources.

Spanking Prevalence

Corporalpunishment s defined as "theuse of physicalforcewith the intentionof causing a child to experience pain, but not

injury, for purposes of correctionor control of the child's be-havior" (Straus, 1994, p. 4). Six types of corporal punishmentinclude slaps on the hand or leg, spanking on the buttocks,pinching, shaking,hittingon the buttocks with a belt or paddle,and slappingin the face (Straus& Stewart,1999). Spanking scommon; approximately67% of all parents report using some

type of corporalpunishment Straus).This figureis misleading,however,because the use of corporalpunishment s stronglyde-pendenton the age of the child. For example, spankingon bot-tom with a handis a commontype of corporalpunishmentwith72% of parentsof 2- to 4-year-olds,71% of parentsof 5- to 8-

year-olds, 43% of parents of 9- to 12-year-olds,and 14% of

parentsof 13- to 17-year-oldsusing this type of corporalpun-ishment(Straus& Stewart).

Characteristics Associated With Spanking

Some adultsspankmore than others. The characteristics ssociated with spankingare the age of the child, age and gendeof the parent,socioeconomic status,circumstances,and culturanorms.Youngerparentsare more likely to use corporalpunishment than olderparents(Giles-Sims,Straus,& Sugarman,1995

Straus& Stewart, 1999; Wolfner & Gelles, 1993). Mothers usecorporalpunishmentmore frequentlythanfathers,althoughthrelative difference is small when time spent with the child isconsidered (Dietz, 2000; Wolfner & Gelles). Research on th

relationshipbetween socioeconomic status and the use of cor

poral punishment is inconclusive (Dietz; Giles-Simes et al.Straus, 1994; Wolfner & Gelles). Parents who were hit as children are more likely to hit their children(Bryan& Freed, 1982Graziano & Namaste, 1990; Rodriquez & Sutherland,1999Straus).

Not only does a parent'spast history with corporalpunishment influence his or her own use of it, but also cultural andsubculturalnorms may influence the use of spanking.For ex

ample,Greven(1991) proposedthatwe have perceptualblinder

to corporalpunishmentbecausenearlyeveryonehas experienceit. Perceptualblindersmay be moreprevalent n some geographic locations. For example, researchon regional differences onattitudes and use of corporalpunishmenthas consistentlyfounmore supportand use of it in the South than in other region(Giles-Simset al., 1995; Straus& Mathur,1996; Straus& Stewart, 1999).

Consequences of Spanking

A growing body of literatureon spankinghas focused onthe potentialharmfuleffects of corporalpunishmentand its ineffectiveness as a child behaviormanagement ool. Some of th

potentialharmfuleffects of

frequentand severe

spankingsin

clude subsequent antisocial behavior of children (Grusec &Goodnow, 1994; McCord, 1991; Straus, Sugarman,& Giles

Sims, 1997). Some researchindicatesthat the effects are smaand vary by age of child and ethnicity(Deater-Deckard,DodgeBates, & Pettit, 1996; Larzelere, 1996). The excessive use o

corporalpunishmenthas been associatedwith a numberof adusocial and psychological problems, including physical aggression, delinquency,and depression(Foglia, 1997; Straus, 1994Swinford,Demaris,Cernkovick,& Giordano,2000). In addition

physical punishmentsgive childrenpain and may teach them iis all right to inflict pain on others(McCord, 1996).

*An earlier version of this article was presentedat the EasternSociological SocietyConference n Philadelphia,PA, March 1998. This researchwas from a thesis submitted othe GraduateSchool at the Universityof New Hampshireas partof the requirementsor a

Masterof Science in Family Studies.Acknowledgementsgo to the membersof the FamilyViolence Seminar or helpful comments on an earlierdraft.

**Departmentof Sociology, University of New Hampshire,Horton Social ScienceCenter,Durham,NH 03824.

Key Words: corporal punishment, discipline, parenting, physical punishment, spank-

ing.

(Family Relations, 2002, 51, 81-88)

2002, Vol. 51, No. 1 81



Research also indicates that spankings may work againstwhat parentsare trying to achieve. Results show thatusing cor-poral punishment eads to greater ncidences of child aggressionandmaladaptivebehaviors(Grusec& Goodnow, 1994;Patterson& Narrett, 1990; Strassberg,Dogde, Pettit,& Bates, 1994). Re-search also indicates that abusive parents spank their childrenmore often thannonabusiveparentsandthat excessive spankingmay be a risk factor for child abuse (Barber,1992; Holden &Ritchie, 1991; Kadushin& Martin, 1981;Oldershaw,Walters,&

Hall, 1989;Whipple& Richey, 1997;Whipple& Webster-Strat-ton, 1991). Therefore,relyingon spankingmay increase the po-tential for use of frequentand severe physicalpunishment.

Parallelingthe increase in knowledge about consequencesof spanking, approval of corporal punishment has decreasedfrom94%in 1968 to 68% in 1994 (Straus& Mathur,1996), andreporteduse of corporalpunishmenthas decreased from64% in1988 to 53%in 1992 (Daro& Gelles, 1992). Nevertheless,94%of parentsof 3- to 4-year-oldsstill reportusing corporalpunish-ment (Straus& Stewart,1999). Thus,it is importanto ask aboutthe kind of advice families receive regarding he appropriatenessof spanking.

Spanking Messages and Advice

Informationabout the appropriateness f spanking may beinformal, such as comments from friends and relatives, or for-mal, such as informationprovided by professionals.Althoughparentsseem to want informationaboutchild discipline,it is notclear where and what kind of informationparentstypically re-ceive (Riley, Meinhardt,Nelson, Salisbury, & Winnett, 1991;Thompson,1994). For example, a nationalstudyfound4 out of10 parents wanted discipline informationfrom health profes-sionals, yet only 23% of parentsreporteddiscussing disciplinewith their child's pediatrician Young,Davis, & Schoen, 1996).

In additionto the spankingadvice parentsreceive, we knowlittle about how consistent or strongsuch messages are.Perhapsthe discipline message from friendsand relatives creates confu-

sion or conflict if the advice is contradictoryo one's own beliefsor if information ourcesdo not send similarmessages(Edwards,1995; Powell, 1979; Small & Eastman, 1991). The effects ofdiscipline messages also may dependon how valued the sourceis and what kind of messages are provided.For example, Smalland Eastmanshowed that, dependingon the message, an infor-mation source could serve as a supportor stressor.They foundthat when the source is valued and gives needed advice, thatsource is perceived as supportive.If the source has differentviews on child rearing romthose of the parent, hen thatsourcecould be a stressor.Dependingon any sanctionsimposed, suchas parentscriticizinghow their child parentsor a social workerremoving a child from the home, the advice may have differ-ential effects. Therefore,the currentstudy examined spanking

messages relative to the importanceof the informationsource.

Theoretical Framework

Building on the principlethat our attitudesand behaviorsare formed,in part,by the environment, he health belief model(Ferraro, 1990) incorporateshow communitynorms and opin-ions about the negative consequences of a behavior affect anindividual'swillingness to change a behavior. This frameworkhas been used to examine the influence of communitynormsonsmoking cessation, seatbelt safety, alcohol use, and dietary fatintake. The health belief model looks beyond the individual to

consider how macrolevel norms and environmental upportsen

courage individualsto change behaviors(Portnoy,Anderson,&Erikson, 1989). Environmentalsupports nclude social supporavailabilityand accessibilityof services, and the mass media.

The health belief model examines how the perceptionowhat is standardor acceptablebehavior and public opinion influences an individual'sbehavior,positingthatpositive behavio

change is enhanced when support networks and communitstructure einforce such change.For example,the degreeof sup

port for smokingin a communitywas an important actor whencomparingsmokingattitudes n two states(Ferraro,1990). Likewise, one of the important nfluences on parentingpracticesis

accessing sources of supportand information(Belsky, 1984)Because parentingattitudesand beliefs are formed in partby thinfluence of those in one's context andby what one reads(Richardson,Abramowitz,Asp, & Peterson, 1986), it is useful to examine the spankingadvice parentsreceive and how importanthey perceive this advice to be.

Research Questions

Parentsneed access to a wide rangeof nonabusive,positiveand effective disciplinarybehaviors (Baumrind,1996). Parto

the process of increasing access to informationabout positivparentingpractices is understanding he messages from disci

pline information ources and theirimportance o parents.Usingthe frameworkof the health belief model, my objectiveswere to

compare spankersandnonspankerson the importanceof sourceof discipline information,the nature of spanking advice fromthese sources,andthe intensityof messagestowardrecommend

ing and opposing spanking.The fourthobjective was to assesthe degree to which the message intensityof recommendingo

opposing of spankingwas associatedwith the use of spanking

Method

Participants

The data were from a study conducted in two counties inMinnesotaby the Universityof New Hampshire Straus& Mouradian, 1998) in 1993 to evaluate the effectiveness of a programto changeattitudesand behavior aboutcorporalpunishment.Thcounties are thrivingagricultural egions containingsmall man

ufacturing-and service-centeredcities.During a 20-minute telephone interview, 998 mothersan

swered approximately130 questionsabout child behaviorproblems, discipline strategies, discipline informationsources, parenting practices, personality,and family issues. Random digidialing was used to select a sampleof mothersof childrenaged2 to 14. If a motherhad more than one child in this age rangethe child with the most recent birthdaywas the focus of th

interview. Mothers were chosen as the respondents becausmothers have more of the day-to-daychild-careresponsibilitie(Milkie,Bianchi,Mattingly,& Robinson'sstudyas cited in PopulationReferenceBureau,2001).

The mothers were primarily from two-parent familie

(93.7%) and from firstmarriages 85.0%).The mean age of thmotherswas 37 (SD = 5.6). They had an averageof two childre

living at home. The mean age of the focal child was 8.6 (SD =3.7), and they were about equally divided between boys (54%and girls (46%). Consistent with census data on the socioeconomic composition of these two communities,the sample waalmost entirelyWhite, and 48.8% had at least some college.

82 FamilyRelation



Measures

Importance of discipline information sources. Questionswere asked about how importanteight sources of informationwere in the mother'sthinkingabout discipline: parentsand rel-atives; friends; magazine and newspaperarticles;child-rearingbooks; pediatricians;ministers,priests,or rabbis;psychologists,social workers,or counselors;and parentingworkshops.Partic-ipants respondedto each question on a 4-point scale (1 = not

at all important, 4 = very important).Perception of spanking message. For each of the eight

sources of disciplineinformation,participantswere asked if thatsource recommendedspankingas a way to discipline. Responseswere 1 (recommended,) 2 (neutral,), and 3 (opposed spanking).

Message intensity.Two spanking ntensity ndexes were cre-ated to capture he intensityof the message aboutspanking.Oneindex was defined as the total number of sources that recom-mended spankingweighted by the relative importanceof eachsource. If the source recommendedspanking, the source wascoded 1 and was multipliedby the relative importanceof thatsource (ranging from 1 = not important to 4 = very important),and then these valueswere summed.Theother ndex was definedas the total numberof sources that opposed spanking weighted

by the relative importanceof each source. If the sourceopposedspanking,the source was coded as 1 and was multiplied by therelative importanceof that source (rangingfrom 1 = not im-portant to 4 = very important), and then these values were

summed.The potentialrangeof responsesfor these two indiceswas 0 to 32.

Spanking. Participantswere asked "How often did youspank, slap, or hit him/her in the past 6 months?"The possibleresponses ranged from 0 (never) to 6 (more than 20 times). Con-sistent with other research(Dietz, 2000; Straus, 1994), the re-

sponses were recoded to reflect two categories:spankers thosewho spankedonce or more) andnonspankers those who did notspank)in the last 6 months. Spanking chronicitywas examinedto determinewhethertherewas a differenceamongmotherswho

did not spank, spankedless than five times, and spankedmorethan five times. Results did not reveal significantdifferencesbe-tween the two classificationtechniques.

Demographic data. Because mothers who do and do not

spankwerecompared,demographicdata arepresented eparatelyfor spankersand nonspankers.Demographicdata included ageof mother,age of child, numberof children n household,maritalstatus, education level, and household income. The indicatorsused to create the socioeconomic status score includedthe moth-

er's last year of school completed,husband's ast yearof schoolcompleted,and household income. Indicatorswere convertedtoa z score with equal weighting.

To control for differences of spankingdue to a child's age,two subsets of the sample based on the targetchild's age were

used. Spanking prevalence trends show that the likelihood ofbeing hit slowly declines as a child ages, with a drop n spankingat age 9 (Day,Peterson,& McCracken,1998;Dietz, 2000; Straus& Stewart, 1999). Thus, motherswhose child was 2 to 8 yearsold were definedas the youngerchild group(n = 478) and thosewith a child 9 to 14 years were defined as the older child group(n = 520).

Analysis

To compare spankersandnonspankerson the importanceofinformation sources and perceptionof spankingmessages, chi-

squareanalyses were performedbecause the independentvariables, importance of information source, and perception o

spankingmessages were categorical.To compare spankersan

nonspankersand the mean scores on message intensityrecom

mendingandopposingspanking,a t test was conducted.Becausthe dependentvariablewas dichotomized, ogistic regressionwaused to assess the degreeto which message intensityeitherrec

ommending or opposing spanking was associated with use o

spanking.

Results

Spanking Prevalence

About one third of the mothers (35.6%) reported theyspankedone or more times in the past 6 months. Possible ex

planations for the low percentage of mothers who reportespankingcould be the time referenced; he location of the studywhich is generallya low-spankingregion (Straus& Mouradia1998); and the fact that parentsof older childrenmade up halof the sample. Just over half (54.6%) of mothers with youngechildren and 18.1% of mothers with older children reportespanking.Consistentwith disciplineresearch(Day et al., 1998

Dietz, 2000; Straus & Stewart, 1999), mothers with youngechildren were significantlymore likely to spankthanthose witholderchildren,X2(1,N = 998) = 144.98,p < .001. In this studythe majorityof mothersof 2- to 5-year-olds spanked(58.5%to70.8%), and abouthalf of mothersof 6- to 7-year-oldsspanke(47.4%to 54.2%).A minorityof mothersof childrenaged 8 anolder spanked(11.1% to 35.9%) in the past 6 months.

Demographic Characteristics of Spankers and

Nonspankers

In the youngerand olderchild groups,nonspankingmotherwere significantlymorelikely to be older themselves andto havolder children than were spankers(see Table 1). In the oldechild group, nonspankershad significantly fewer children a

home than spankers.In the younger child group, nonspankehad more educationthan spankers,althoughthere were no significantdifferencesbetweenspankersandnonspankers egardinmaritalstatusandincome. In the older child group, nonspankehad higherincomes thanspankers; here were no significantdifferences in maritalstatusand mother'seducation.

Importance of Information Source

No differencesbetween spankersandnonspankersof younger childrenwere found in the importanceof information ource

(see Table2). In this group,more than one thirdof bothspankerand nonspankersratedpediatriciansand workshopsas very im

portant ourcesof disciplineinformation.More than20%of both

spankers and nonspankers rated newspapers or magazinebooks, religious leaders, psychologists, and workshopsas veryimportant. n contrast, ess than 15%of spankersandnonspankers ratedparentsand relativesor friends as very important.

In the older child group, more than 25% of spankersan

nonspankersratedpediatriciansas very important or disciplininformation.Both spankers(20.7%) and nonspankers(16.8%also ratednewspapersor magazinesas very important.Less tha11%of spankersand nonspankers atedparentsand relatives ofriends as very important.Two differencesbetweenspankersan

nonspankerswere how psychologistsandworkshopswererated

Spankers rated psychologists as somewhat (42.3%) or very

2002, Vol. 51, No. 1 83



Table 1

BackgroundCharacteristicsor Spankersand Nonspankersby Age of Child

Child (2-8 years) Child (9-14 years)

TotalSample Spanker Nonspanker Spanker Nonspanker(N = 998) (n = 261) (n = 217) (n = 94) (n = 426)

Characteristics M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) t M (SD) M (SD) t

Age (mother) 37.1 5.6 33.3 4.9 35.8 5.1 5.47*** 37.5 4.6 40.0 4.8 4.66***

Age (child) 8.6 3.7 4.9 1.9 5.6 1.9 4.40*** 11.0 1.7 11.9 1.6 4.63**Number of children 2.0 1.0 2.1 .9 2.1 1.2 -.33 2.2 .9 1.9 1.0 -2.26*

TotalSample Child 2-8 years) Child 9-14 years)

Spanker Nonspanker Spanker Nonspanker

%c %_ _ % X2 _ _ _ o X2

Marital status

Married 96.7 95.8 94.5 .45 90.4 92.7 .57

Single 6.3 4.2 5.5 9.6 7.3

Mother's eduction

High school or less 51.2 57.2 43.1 6.20* 62.5 49.3 3.67College+ 48.8 42.8 56.9 37.5 50.7

Income

$10-30,000 21.6 23.9 22.8 4.84 19.1 20.1 8.27*$30-40,000 24.1 27.1 21.8 34.8 21.1$40-50,000 22.8 23.5 20.8 16.9 24.6$50,000 + 31.5 25.5 34.7 29.2 34.2

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

(18.3%) important,whereas 23.2% and 27.1% of nonspankersratedpsychologistsas such. Similarly,spankerswere morelikelyto rateworkshopsas somewhat(46.8%)or very (23.4%)impor-tant comparedwith nonspankers 32.5% and 32.7% respective-ly).

Perception of Spanking Messages

In the youngerchild group, spankersand nonspankersper-ceived receiving significantlydifferentdisciplinemessagesfromall sources, except psychologists (see Table 3). For example,55.7% of

spankersand 31.5% of

nonspankersrespondedthat

their parents or relatives recommended spanking. Likewise,43.0% of spankersand only 16.2% of nonspankersrespondedthat their friendsrecommendedspanking.

A closer look at the messages perceivedby mothersof chil-dren aged 2 to 8 years revealed some interestingdistinctionsbetween spankersand nonspankers.Messages frompediatricianswere perceived differently for spankersand nonspankers.Forexample, 28.6% of spankerscomparedwith 45.6%of nonspank-ers perceivedpediatriciansopposing spanking.

In the older child group, spankers and nonspankers per-ceived significantlydifferentdisciplinemessages fromall sourc-es, except newspapers or magazines. About half of spankers(54.7%) and 39.5% of nonspankersperceived their parentsor

relatives as recommendingspanking. Slightly more than onethird (36.0%) of spankersand 23.2% of nonspankersviewedtheir friendsas recommendingspanking.Similar to the youngerchild group,21.7%of spankersand 41.2% of nonspankers atedpediatriciansas opposing spanking.

In both the younger and older child groups, 30 to 59% ofall the sources were perceivedas havingneutralmessagesaboutspanking. Specifically, pediatricians,religious leaders,and psy-chologists were most frequentlyperceived by mothersas neitherrecommendingor opposing spanking.It is impossible to deter-mine the meaningof neutral,however.Thisresponsemightmeanspankingwas not addressed,or it might mean that information

was equally balanced and parentswere encouragedto use theiown judgment.

Message Intensity

In the younger child group, nonspankershad significantlhigher scores (M = 8.88, SD = 7.45) on the SpankingOpposition Intensity Index, which summed the sources opposinspankingrelative to their importance,comparedwith spanker(M = 5.51, SD = 6.04), t(476) = 5.46, p < .001. Similarly

spankershad significantlyhigherscores (M = 4.13, SD = 4.59on the Spanking Recommendation Intensity Index, whichsummed the sources recommending spankingrelative to theiimportance, omparedwithnonspankers M = 1.68, SD = 2.74)

t(476)= -6.92, p < .001.Likewise, in the older child group,nonspankershad signif

icantly higher scores (M = 7.72, SD = 7.19) on the SpankinOppositionIntensityIndex comparedwith spankers(M = 4.55SD = 5.12), t(518) = 4.04, p < .001. Similarly, spankersha

significantlyhigherscores (M = 4.10, SD = 5.12) on the Spanking Recommendation ntensityIndex comparedwith nonspankers (M = 2.24, SD = 3.41), t(518) = -4.30, p < .001.

Predicted Probability of Spanking

Anotherobjectiveof this researchwas to examine thedegre

to which message intensitywas associated with use of spankinThe results of the logistic regression indicatedthat child's agesocioeconomic status,andboth indices of spankingmessage in

tensity were all significant predictorsof spanking(see Table4)The odds ratio for child's age (.74) suggests thateach addition

year of the child's age decreases the likelihood of spankingby16%. Similarly,the odds ratio of .78 for socioeconomic statu

(SES) suggests that each increase in SES decreases the likelihood of spankingby 12%. In addition,for each increase in message intensity opposing spanking,thereis a decreased ikelihooof spankingby 5% (odds ratio = .95). Finally,the odds ratio o1.12 suggests that for each increase in message intensity rec

84 Family Relation



Table2

Percentage of MothersRatingImportanceof InformationSource


InformationSource: TotalSample Spanker Nonspanker Spanker NonspankerImportance (N = 998) (n = 261) (n = 217) X2 (n = 94) (n = 426) X2

Parents,relatives

Not important 33.8 29.4 34.9 2.00 31.9 36.4 5.65

Slightly important 30.0 30.6 29.8 38.3 28.0Somewhatimportant 24.6 25.5 23.7 24.5 24.6

Veryimportant

11.5 14.5 11.6 5.3 11.0

Friends

Not important 32.5 32.2 30.7 2.69 29.0 34.4 5.57


Very important 8.7 7.0 10.7 10.8 8.3

Newspaper/magazine

Not important 13.3 12.5 9.8 .93 14.1 15.4 1.22


Very important 19.8 22.6 22.0 20.7 16.8

Books

Not important 16.1 16.7 10.4 4.51 13.5 19.2 3.39


Very important21.4 21.1 26.2 24.7 18.5

Pediatricians

Not important 22.6 19.1 23.1 2.70 13.5 26.7 7.24


Very important 31.6 37.4 33.8 33.7 26.4

Minister,priest,rabbi

Not important 36.2 32.0 40.6 3.77 26.8 38.5 5.92


Very important 22.7 23.7 23.0 24.4 21.6

Psychologist

Not important 33.1 34.6 31.2 3.72 25.4 34.8 11.37**


Very important26.7 29.7 26.1 18.3 27.1

Workshop

Not important 19.7 14.7 18.2 2.78 24.7 22.5 8.44*


Very important 33.5 33.9 38.6 23.4 32.7

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

ommending spanking there is a 12% increased likelihood ofspanking.

Discussion

Because parentingattitudes and beliefs are formed in part

by the influence of those around us and also by what we read(Richardsonet al., 1986) and because few studieshave investi-

gated which parentingresources are perceived most helpful byparents (Thompson, 1994), I examined the advice mothers re-ceive about the appropriateness f spankingand the perceivedimportanceof these informationsources.Using the health beliefmodel (Ferraro,1990), spankersandnonspankerswerecomparedon the importanceof and spankingmessage receivedfromeightsources of discipline information.I also compared spankersandnonspankerson the spankingmessage intensityand assessed thedegree to which spankingmessage intensitywas associated withreporteduse of spanking.

Importance and Spanking Message of InformationSource

Spankersandnonspankerswith bothyoungerand older children ratedthe importanceof disciplineinformationsources sim

ilarly. Discipline advice from workshops, pediatricians,news

papersand magazines,and books was ratedby more mothersaat least somewhatimportant. n contrast, nformalsources,sucas parentsand relatives or friends,were ratedby more motheras not important or slightly important. This is consistent with

other research(Clarke-Stewart,1978; Riley et al., 1991; Stolz

1967) that found professional people, parenting books, annewsletterswere influentialsources on parenting n general.

Perhapsparents,relatives,and friendswereperceivedas les

importantsources because mothers want to feel independenabouthow they disciplinetheirchildren,dislike these models in

general, or disagree with the advice. Mothersmay value disci

2002, Vol. 51, No. 1 8



Table3

Mothers'Perceptionsof SpankingMessage by InformationSource in Percent


InformationSource: TotalSample Spanker Nonspanker Spanker NonspankerMessage (N = 998) (nI = 261) (n = 217)

?(n = 94) (n = 426) X2

Parents.relatives

Recommend 43.3 55.7 31.5 29.57*** 54.7 39.5 8.04*Neutral 38.5 33.3 46.0 33.7 38.7

Oppose 18.2 11.0 22.5 11.6 21.8

FriendsRecommend 28.1 43.0 16.2 51.47*** 36.0 23.2 15.52***Neutral 43.6 42.6 45.6 50.0 41.9

Oppose 28.2 14.5 38.2 14.0 34.8

Newspaper/magazineRecommend 13.3 18.8 8.4 12.29** 14.5 12.2 3.79Neutral 32.5 32.9 30.3 41.0 31.6

Oppose 54.3 48.3 61.6 44.6 56.2

Books

Recommend 17.5 24.5 11.4 13.85*** 31.3 13.4 25.00***Neutral 30.6 31.9 30.3 38.8 28.1

Oppose 51.9 43.5 58.4 30.0 58.5

Pediatricians

Recommend 4.4 6.5 0 18.72*** 13.0 3.3 16.37***Neutral 58.7 64.9 54.5 65.2 55.5

Oppose 36.9 28.6 45.6 21.7 41.2

Minister,priest,rabbi

Recommend 11.1 15.1 4.7 15.98*** 21.4 9.5 16.00***Neutral 56.9 62.2 56.1 62.9 52.9

Oppose 32.0 22.7 39.2 15.7 37.9

PsychologistRecommend 5.1 8.7 4.1 3.76 5.3 3.7 6.48*Neutral 49.6 54.8 49.6 61.4 44.3

Oppose 45.3 36.5 46.3 33.3 52.0

WorkshopRecommend 6.0 9.8 5.3 12.92** 8.3 3.6 14.28***Neutral 41.2 47.1 31.8 60.0 38.5

Oppose 52.8 43.1 62.9 31.7 57.9

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table4

SpankingMessage Intensityand SpankingBehavior(N = 998)

Predictorsof Spanking B SE Odds Ratio

Child'sage -.31 .09 .74***Socioeconomic status -.24 .09 .78**Oppositionintensity -.05

.01*Recommendation ntensity .12 .02 1

**p< .01. ***p< .001.

pline advice from sources that they perceive as more objectiveand expert than advice from family and friends. For example,Riley et al. (1991) found mothers rateda parentingnewsletter

as "very useful" more often than any other source, includingrelatives and friends. It also is possible that mothers ncorporateadvice from their own parentswithoutexplicitly recognizingit.If this holds true,thenthe mothers n this sample may draw fromtheir own experienceof being parented Edwards,1995).

Spankers and nonspankers perceived different messagesabout the appropriatenessof spanking. Spankers perceivedsources as recommendingspanking, whereas nonspankersper-ceived these sourcesas opposed to spanking.These resultsmaybe interpretedseveral ways. For example, because a family'senvironment is a source of child-rearing deas (Powell, 1979),perhaps he social networksof motherswho do anddo not spank

providedifferentmessages aboutspanking.Anotherexplanatiocould be that mothersperceive discipline messages as reaffirm

ing theirown parentingpractices,such thatthey tendto hearanremember nformation hat matches what they alreadydo or believe. This idea would lend supportto the "specificityhypothesis," which contendsthat when faced with a particular roblemindividualswill seek others with similarexperiencesas sourceof support (Suitor,Pillemer, & Keeton, 1995). Extending thiresearch o the presentfindings,it would seem likely thatparenassociate with people who may hold the same beliefs, such abeliefs aboutdiscipline techniques.

In contrastto the specificity hypothesis, the health beliemodel

(Mikanowicz,Fitzgerald,Leslie, & Altman, 1999)

suggests that cues in one's environment affect behavior.Perceivecommunity and cultural norms often influence an individualbehavior.For example, educationalmessages and mothers'perception of the community'ssocial norms about the health benefits of breast-feedingwere important onsiderations n mothersinfant feeding decisions (Guttman& Zimmerman,2000). Likewise, perceived messages about spanking may affect mothers

disciplinedecisions. Without ongitudinaldata,however,it is nopossible to determineexplicitlywhethersuchmessagesinfluencdiscipline actionsor visa versa.

Althoughthere were differencesin spankers'andnonspank

86 FamilyRelation



ers' perceptionsof spankingmessages, there also were similar-ities. At least 30% of both groups perceived messages fromnewspapersandmagazines,books,psychologists,andworkshopsas opposing spanking.Given that so many mothersperceive afairly large percentageof sources as opposing spanking, it iscurious that these mothers still spank. It may be that Belsky's(1984) processparentingmodel, indicatingthat there are a num-ber of influences on how information s incorporated, s appli-cable here.Accordingto Belsky, for example,the personalchar-

acteristics of the parentare one of the most influential factorsfor competentparenting.Therefore,perhaps t is thecombinationof perceiving messages opposed to spankingand parents' per-sonal characteristics,such as readiness to incorporate nforma-tion into their behavior,that is critical to consider when exam-

ining the association of messages and behavior.

Message Intensity

In addition to having differentperceptionsaboutthe appro-priatenessof spanking, spankersand nonspankersalso had dif-ferentspankingmessage intensities.Spankers coredhigherthannonspankerson the index that summed the sourcesrecommend-

ing spankingrelativeto the importanceof the sources.Similarly,nonspankers coredhigheron the index thatsummedthe sources

opposing spanking relative to the importanceof the sources.These resultsreinforcethe associationbetween informationand

child-rearing deas (Tracy,1990; McKenry, Kotch, & Browne,1991).

Spankershad similar scores on both the recommendationand oppositionindexes, whereasnonspankershad moremessag-es that opposed spanking. In addition,increases in the recom-mendation index were associated with increases in the odds of

spanking,whereas increases in the oppositionindex were asso-ciated with decreases in the odds of spanking.It may be thatmothers need to perceive many more messages that opposespanking o experiencea substantial eduction n spanking.Thus,these findings are consistentwith the healthbelief model, sug-gesting thatperceptionsof what is appropriate ehavior are as-sociatedwith behavior.

Limitations

A numberof limitationsof this research are noted. First,because these are cross-sectionaldata, it is impossible to estab-lish any causal direction.It cannot be said that spankingmes-sages result in the use of spankingbecause it also may be thatuse of spankingresults in greaterattention to certainspankingmessages. Another limitationis that the data are from mothersonly. Future research should gather information from all care-takers to better understand he family context of informationsharing and discipline action. Additionally, because the timeframe for recall was the past 6 months, mothers might have

forgottenhow often

they spanked.Another issue is the way in which motherswere classifiedas spankersor nonspankers,resulting in the potentialfor mis-classification.Forexample,althoughnonspankers esponded hatthey did not spank the target child during the past 6 months,these mothers may have spanked at some point or may havespankedanotherchild, so the estimate of the numberof motherswho actually spank may be conservative. In addition,becauseof social desirabilityto underreport,hese are lower bound es-timates. Finally, because the sample was primarilyWhite andfrom two Midwesterncities, the findingsare not generalizable.Spankingattitudesandbehaviorvaryby geographic ocationand

ethnicity(Dietz, 2000; Giles-Sims et al., 1995; Straus& Mathu1996).

Implications for Parent Education Programs

The findings shed some light on mothers' perceptionsosourcesandimportanceof disciplineadvice andsuggestconcret

ways to provide information to mothers. Mothers valued disci

pline advice from parentingcoursesor workshops,pediatriciannewspaperand magazinearticles,andparentingbooks. As suchparenting nformationcan be fairly easily disseminated o a wideaudience, and the majorityof those reading it would see it avaluable.This implies that those responsiblefor parentingwork

shops andthose who write for the popularpress have the potential to educateparentsabout alternatives o spanking.

These findings reaffirm the benefits of publishing articleabout positive parentingpractices and suggest that initiatinga

community public awareness campaign about alternatives to

spankingwould be valuable.In addition, t may be beneficial to

targetefforts to provideresearch-baseddisciplineinformation o

parentsof young children and those parentswith limited education.

These results also highlight another mportantarea. It maybe beneficialto

givesuch

disciplineinformationnot

onlyto par

ents, but also to other professionalsin the community.For ex

ample, parenteducatorscould send pediatricians, eligiousleaders, and psychologists research-based nformationfor dissemination.Because 50%to 59%of mothersperceivedthese professionals as neitherrecommendingnor opposing spanking,thes

professionals might benefitby having such information.Pediatricians, n particular, ould play an importantrole in

disseminationefforts. For example, 63% of mothersperceivepediatriciansas somewhator very important nformationsources; yet only 37% of mothersperceivedthatpediatricians pposedspanking. These results suggest that pediatricians'role in dis

tributing nformationabout discipline should be enhanced.Fo

example, in additionto giving parentsprintedmaterial,pediatr

cians could discuss child disciplineandlink

parentso

parentinresources in their community.Pediatriciansmay be an under

developed and valuableresource for educatingparentsaboutalternativesto spankingthatis easily accessible to parents.

Conclusion

This research contributes o the knowledge illustratinghow

child-rearing deas from many sources are associated with behavior.This studyalso addsto ourunderstanding f how mother

perceive discipline messages. By increasingour understandinof whatinformation ources areimportant,we can developwayto make positive discipline approachesmore accessible to parents.

ReferencesBarber, . G. (1992). Evaluating arent ducation roups:Effectson senseo

competence and social isolation. Research on Social WorkPractice, 2, 28-38.

Baumrind,D. (1996). The disciplinecontroversyrevisited.FamilyRelations,45405-414.

Belsky, J. (1984). The determinantsof parenting:A process model. ChildDe

velopment,5, 83-96.Bryan,J.W.,&Freed,E W.(1982).Corporalunishment:ormative ataan

sociological ndpsychologicalorrelatesn acommunityollegepopulatioJournal of Youthand Adolescence, 11, 77-87.

Clarke-Stewart,. A. (1978).Popular rimersorparents. merican sycholgist, 33, 359-369.

2002, Vol. 51, No. 1 87



Daro, D., & Gelles, R. J. (1992). Public attitudesand behaviorswith respect tochild abuse prevention.Journalof InterpersonalViolence, 7, 517-531.

Day, R. D., Peterson,G. W., & McCracken,C. (1998). Predicting spankingofyoungerand older childrenby mothers and fathers. Journal of Marriageandthe Family, 60, 79-94.

Deater-Deckard,K., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit,J. E. (1996). Physicaldiscipline among AfricanAmerican and EuropeanAmericanmothers:Linksto children'sexternalizingbehaviors.DevelopmentalPsychology, 32, 1065-1072.

Dietz. T.L. (2000). Discipliningchildren:Characteristics ssociated with the useof corporalpunishment.Child Abuse and Neglect, 24, 1529-1542.

Edwards,J. (1995). "Parentingskills": Views of communityhealth and socialservice providersaboutthe needs of their "clients". Journalof Social Policy,24, 237-259.

Ferraro,K. E (1990). Health beliefs and proscriptionson public smoking. So-ciological Ilnquilry,0, 244-263.

Foglia, W. D. (1997). Perceptualdeterrenceand the mediatingeffect of inter-nalized normsamong inner-city eenagers.Journalof Researchin CrimeandDelinquency,34, 414-442.

Giles-Sims. J.. Straus,M. A.. & Sugarman,D. B. (1995). Child, maternal,and

family characteristicsassociated with spanking.Family Relations, 44, 170-176.

Graziano,A. M., & Namaste, K. A., (1990). Parentaluse of physical force in

child discipline. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,5, 449-463.Greven, P (1991). Spare the child: The religious roots of punishmentand the

psychological impactofphysical punishment.New York:Knopf.Grusec, J. E.. &

Goodnow. J. J. (1994). Impactof parentaldiscipline methodson the child's internalization f values: A reconceptualizationf currentpointsof view. DevelopmentalPsychology,30, 4-19.

Guttman.N.. & Zimmerman,D. R. (2000). Low-income mothers' views on

breastfeeding.Social Science and Medicine, 50, 1457-1473.Holden, G. W.. & Ritchie, K. L. (1991). Linkingextreme maritaldiscord,child

rearing,and child behaviorproblems:Evidence from batteredwomen. ChildDevelopment, 62, 311-327.

Kadushin,A., & Martin,J. A. (1981). Child abuse: An interactionalevent. NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.

Larzelere, R. (1996). Implicationsof the strongest studies for discriminatingeffective vs. counterproductiveorporalpunishment.Pediatrics,98, 824-828.

McCord,J. (1991). Questioningthe value of punishment.Social Problems, 38,167-179.

McCord, J. (1996). Unintendedconsequences of punishment.Pediatrics, 98,832-834.

McKenry,P C., Kotch, J. B., & Browne, D. H. (1991). Correlatesof dysfunc-tional parentingattitudesamong low-income adolescent mothers.Journal of

AdolescentResearch, 6, 212-234.Mikanowicz, C. K., Fitzgerald,D. C., Leslie, M., & Altman, N. H. (1999).Medium-sizedbusinessemployees speakout aboutsmoking.Journalof Com-munityHealth, 24, 439-450.

Oldershaw,L., Waiters,G. C., & Hall, D. K. (1989). A behavioralapproach othe classification of different types of physically abusive mothers. MerrillPalmer Quarterly,35, 255-279.

Patterson,G. R., & Narrett,C. M. (1990). The developmentof a reliable andvalid treatmentprogram or aggressive young children.InternationalJournalof Mental Health, 19, 19-26.

PopulationReferenceBureau.(2001). Americanamilies resilientafter 50 yearsof change. Washington,DC: Author.

Portnoy,B., Anderson,D. M., & Erikson,M. P.(1989). Applicationof diffusion

theory to health promotion research. Family and Community Health, 12, 63-71.

Powell, D. R. (1979). Family-environment relations and early childrearing: The

role of social networks and neighborhoods. Journal of Research and Devel-

opment in Education, 13, 1-11.

Richardson, R. A., Abramowitz, R. H., Asp, C. E., & Peterson, A. C. (1986).

Parent-child relationships in early adolescence: Effects of family structure

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 805-811.

Riley, D., Meinhardt, G., Nelson, C., Salisbury, M. J., & Winnett, T. (1991).

How effective are age-paced newsletters for new parents? A replication andextension of earlier studies. Family Relations, 40, 247-253.

Rodriquez, C. M., & Sutherland, D. (1999). Predictors of parents' physical disciplinary practices. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 651-657.

Small, S. A., & Eastman, G. (1991). Rearing adolescents in contemporary so

ciety: A conceptual framework for understanding the responsibilities and

needs of parents. Family Relations, 40, 455-462.

Stolz, L. M. (1967). Influences on parent behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford Uni

versity Press.

Strassberg, Z., Dogde, K. A, Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1994). Spanking in

the home and children's subsequent aggression toward kindergarten peers

Development and Psychopathology, 6, 445-461.

Straus, M. A. (1994). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment b

parents and its effects on c Ildren. Boston: Lexington/Macmillian.

Straus, M. A., & Mathur, A. (1996). Social change and change in approval o

corporal punishment by parents from 1968 to 1994. In D. Frehsee, W. Horn

& K. D. Bussmann (Eds.), Family violence against children: A challenge for

society (pp. 91-105). New York: de Gruyter.Straus, M. A., & Mouradian, V. E. (1998). Impulsive corporal punishment by

mothers and antisocial behavior and impulsiveness of children. BehavioralSciences and the Law, 16, 353-374.

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 PsychologyReview, 2, 55-70.

Straus, A., Sugarman, D., & Giles-Sims, J. (1997). Spanking by parents and

subsequent antisocial behavior of children. Journal of Pediatrics and Adoles-

cent Medicine, 151, 761-767.

Suitor, J. J., Pillemer, K., & Keeton, S. (1995). When experience counts: Th

effects of experiential and structural similarity on patterns of support an

interpersonal stress. Social Forces, 73, 1573-1588.Swinford, S. P, DeMaris, A., Cernkovick, S. A., & Giordano, P C. (2000). Hars

physical discipline in childhood and violence in later romantic involvements:

The mediating role of problem behaviors. Journal of Marriage and the Family62, 508-519.

Thompson, R. A. (1994). Social support and the prevention of child maltreat

ment. In G. B. Melton & E D. Barry (Eds.), Protecting children from abuse

and neglect foundations for a new national strategy (pp. 40-130). New YorkGuilford Press.

Tracy, E. M. (1990). Identifying social support resources of at-risk families

Social Work, 35, 252-258.

Whipple, E. E., & Richey, C. A. (1997). Crossing the line from physical disci

pline to child abuse: How much is too much? Child Abuse and Neglect, 21431-444.

Whipple, E. E., & Webster-Stratton, C. (1991). The role of parental stress in

physically abusive families. Child Abuse and Neglect, 15, 279-291.

Wolfner, G. D., & Gelles, R. J. (1993). A profile of violence toward children

A national study. Child Abuse and Neglect, 17, 197-212.

Young, K. T., Davis, K., & Schoen, C. (1996). The Commonwealth Fund survey

of parents with young children. New York: Commonwealth Fund.

88 Family Relations

exercise #1 article 1

Documents