Parenting Influences From the Pulpit: Religious ...

Journal of Family Psychology 1999, Vol. 13, No. 3,307-320

Copyright 1999 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0893-3200/99/S3.00

Parenting Influences From the Pulpit: Religious Affiliation as a Determinant of Parental Corporal Punishment Elizabeth Thompson Gershoff, Pamela C. Miller, and George W. Holden University of Texas at Austin This study examined religious affiliation as a source of differences in beliefs about and reported use of corporal punishment by 132 mothers and fathers of 3-year-old children. Conservative Protestants reported using corporal punishment more than parents of other religious groups, but no religious differences were found in parents' reported use of 8 other disciplinary techniques. Conservative Protestants' belief in the instrumental benefits of corporal punishment was associated with their frequency of corporal punishment use. More than parents of other religious affiliations, Conservative Protestants intended to use corporal punishment for children's moral, social, prudential, and escalated misbehaviors and expected it to prevent future transgressions. Religious affiliation, particularly a Conservative Protestant one, appears to have a strong and consistent effect on child rearing.

One of the most important and most salient tasks for parents of young children is discipline. How parents discipline their children predicts crucial aspects of children's positive and negative interpersonal behaviors, including the extent to which children comply with parental directives (Minton, Kagan, & Levine, 1971; Elizabeth Thompson Gershoff, Department of Human Ecology, University of Texas at Austin; Pamela C. Miller and George W. Holden, Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin. Pamela C. Miller is now at the Department of Psychology, University of Houston. This work was supported in part by a National Institute of Child Health and Human Development grant to George W. Holden (1 R01 HD26574-OIAI). Additional support came from a National Institute of Mental Health-sponsored postdoctoral fellowship through the Program for Prevention Research awarded to Elizabeth Thompson Gershoff. Portions of mis article were presented at the biennial meetings of the Society fenResearch in Child Development, Washington, DC, April 1997. We thank Christopher Ellison for his helpful comments on a draft of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Elizabeth Thompson Gershoff, who is now at the Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 871104, Tempe, Arizona 852871104. Electronic mail may be sent to Iiztg@imap4. asu.edu.

Power & Chapieski, 1986), internalize parental values (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994; Hoffman, 1983), behave altruistically (Zahn-Waxler, RadkeYarrow, & King, 1979), and act disrespectfully or aggressively (Strassberg, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1994). It is because parents' behaviors have such profound consequences for children's future behavior that understanding why parents choose certain discipline practices over others is an important task for psychological research. One source of disciplinary practices and beliefs that has rarely been examined is religion. An individual's religious beliefs often provide a guide for human interactions in general and parent-child interactions in particular (Holden, 1997; Wiehe, 1990). Religion has been a source of parenting beliefs in the United States since its Colonial days (Greven, 1991), and in some denominations American Christians are admonished to use the Bible as their most important parenting manual (e.g., Fugate, 1980). Despite the reticence of researchers to study religion as a possible determinant of parenting behavior, parents themselves often readily acknowledge the role played by religious teachings in helping them make child-rearing, and particularly disciplinary, decisions. Indeed, some parents use the wrath of God as a tool for disciplinary control, threatening their children that "God will punish" them for their misbehaviors (Nelsen &

307

308

GERSHOFF, MILLER, AND HOLDEN

Kroliczak, 1984). Of all parenting behavior, discipline is particularly conducive to the influence of religious teachings, because it is often through discipline that parents teach their children moral and social norms (Hoffman, 1983), issues that typically fall under the province of religion. Up to now, interest in religious affiliation as a predictor of parenting practices has been restricted to the prediction of corporal punishment. Indeed, Catholics, Protestants, and Jews alike cite the Old Testament as support for their use of corporal punishment, although specific directives to spank children in the text are rare (Carey, 1994; Greven, 1991). In particular, Conservative Protestant parents consistently report using corporal punishment more often than parents of other religious affiliations (Day, Peterson, & McCracken, 1998; Ellison, Bartkowski, & Segal, 1996; Giles-Sims, Straus, & Sugarman, 1995). One goal of the present study is to determine whether the religious differences found in parents' frequency of using corporal punishment extend to other types of parental discipline. Furthermore, this study examines parents' beliefs about corporal punishment as a potential source of the religious difference in parents' use of corporal punishment. These include parents' beliefs about the appropriateness, effectiveness, and effects of corporal punishment in general and for specific child misbehaviors. Corporal punishment is only one among a range of techniques parents use to punish and discipline their children's misbehaviors. In their attempts to secure compliance, parents reason with, withdraw privileges from, and issue time-outs to their children. Given that parents correct their young children's behavior as often as every 6 to 8 min (Minton et al., 1971) and that corporal punishment is used on average less than once a month with young children (Straus, 1994), corporal punishment constitutes only a small portion of the discipline parents use on a daily basis. The religious difference found for the infrequent behavior of corporal punishment may extend to parents' preferences for the techniques they use on a more regular basis. We predicted that Conservative Protestant parents' more frequent use of corporal punishment is indicative of a tendency to use powerassertive techniques in general, including yell-

ing at or threatening children, to obtain children's obedience. A likely source of religious differences in parents' use of corporal punishment is their beliefs about when and why it should be used as well as when and how it is effective in achieving child-rearing goals. Consistent with their frequency of using corporal punishment, parents who report a Conservative Protestant religious affiliation believe corporal punishment should be used more than parents of other religious affiliations (Ellison & Sherkat, 1993; Grasmick, Morgan, & Kennedy, 1992; Wiehe, 1990). Conservative Protestants' belief in the acceptability of corporal punishment appears to be an extension of their beliefs in human nature as evil, human sins as requiring punishment, and the Bible as an infallible guide for parenting practices (Ellison & Sherkat, 1993; Wiehe, 1990). These beliefs are codified in conservative parenting advice books that advocate the use of corporal punishment to ensure children's obedience to authority (e.g., Dobson, 1970; Fugate, 1980; Lessin, 1979; see review by Bartkowski & Ellison, 1995). Following from these religious differences in general support for corporal punishment, we sought to establish whether there are religious differences in parents' specific beliefs about when corporal punishment should be used and when it is most effective. In particular, whether parents select corporal punishment because of their belief in its instrumental utility or out of their emotional arousal in response to child misbehaviors may predict the frequency with which they use corporal punishment. This instrumental-emotional dimension of parents' beliefs about corporal punishment has only recently been identified (Holden & Miller, 1997; Straus & Mouradian, 1998). However, the instrumental-emotional distinction has important implications for the likelihood of physical abuse, as a combination of instrumental corporal punishment and negative affective arousal can escalate corporal punishment into physical abuse (Vasta, 1982). Indeed, the use of corporal punishment for emotional rather than instrumental reasons has been associated with increases in negative child behaviors (Straus & Mouradian, 1998). In this study, we examined whether parents of different religious groups vary in their inclinations toward instrumental or emotional use of corporal punishment. Because of their

RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION AND CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

309

strong belief in corporal punishment as a tool for may elicit differences among religious groups teaching authority, we predicted that Conserva- are the type of misbehavior and whether or not tive Protestant parents would be higher in the defiance is escalated. Parents have been instrumental incentives and lower in emotional found to use discipline techniques differentially impulses to use corporal punishment than for three types of misbehaviors, namely prudenparents of other religious groups. tial, moral, and social (Catron & Masters, 1993; By extension, a belief in the instrumental Gralinski & Kopp, 1993). Prudential transgreseffectiveness of corporal punishment also should sions pose a danger or threat to the child, manifest as an expectation of more positive and whereas moral transgressions involve harming fewer negative outcomes when corporal punish- others, violating the rights of others, or negament is used. Although securing child compli- tively affecting others' welfare. In social transance is typically at the top of parents' minds gressions, children fail to act in accordance with when they use corporal punishment or any form their surrounding social system (Smetana, 1997; of discipline, parents are also trying to achieve Tisak & Turiel, 1984; Turiel, 1977). Following other outcomes, such as having children learn from their tendency to use corporal punishment not to repeat dangerous behaviors in the future. more overall, we expected that parents with a We thus were interested in whether parents of Conservative Protestant affiliation would find all different religious groups agree on the particular of the misbehaviors as more deserving of positive and negative effects of corporal punish- corporal punishment than would parents of other ment on their children. We predicted that religious groups. Conservative Protestant parents, in keeping with Escalation, when children misbehave after their endorsement of corporal punishment's being told specifically not to, has received instrumental usefulness, would believe that particular attention from conservative parenting corporal punishment yields more positive and advisors. Often called "willful disobedience," fewer negative consequences for children than escalated misbehaviors are particularly challengdo parents of other religious groups. ing to Conservative Protestants (e.g., Dobson, In addition to their beliefs about the effects of 1970; Lessin, 1979), because they challenge corporal punishment in general, parents' use of parents' ultimate authority over their children. corporal punishment is likely affected by their Conservative parenting advisors warn that in beliefs about the appropriateness and effective- order to avoid problems with children in the ness of corporal punishment for specific types of future, escalated misbehaviors must be punished child misbehaviors. Although difficult child firmly. We thus expected that when presented temperaments can sometimes account for differ- with examples of children's escalated disobediences in the frequencies with which parents use ence, Conservative Protestant parents would be corporal punishment (Day et al., 1998), the more likely to use corporal punishment and less finding that difficult temperaments do not likely to use reasoning than parents of other appear to account for increases in corporal religious groups. As a follow-up to asking parents' beliefs punishment used by Conservative Protestant about the effects of corporal punishment in parents (Ellison et al., 1996) suggests that general, we also asked parents to predict the Conservative Protestant parents consider more likelihood of positive and negative outcomes child misbehaviors to be deserving of corporal punishment than do other parents. Parents select when corporal punishment and then reasoning their discipline in general (Dix, Ruble, & are used in response to specific child misbehavZambarano, 1989; Grusec, Dix, & Mills, 1982) iors. We anticipated that Conservative Protestant and their corporal punishment in particular parents would predict more positive and fewer (Catron & Masters, 1993; Chilamkurti & negative consequences when using corporal Milner, 1993) based on the type and severity of punishment than would other parents. children's misbehaviors. However, we do not know if there are religious affiliation differences Method in the likelihood that parents respond to various Participants child misbehaviors with corporal punishment (Ellison et al., 1996). A total of 93 mothers and 39 fathers were recruited Two specific dimensions of misbehaviors that from a database derived from birth announcements in


310

a midsize southwestern U.S. city. Mothers and fathers were invited to participate in one or more of the three components of this project; all were parents of 3-year-old children (range: 35 to 41 months), an age found to be associated with the highest frequency of spanking by parents (Straus, 1994). Seventy-four of the parents' children (56%) were female. The mothers ranged in age from 25 to 45 years with a mean of 34 years; fathers were on average 36 years old and ranged in age from 29 to 43 years. One hundred and seven of the parents (81%) were European American, 18 (14%) were Hispanic American, 3 (2%) were either African American or Asian American, and 4 (3%) parents did not report their ethnic affiliation. The majority of the parents (65%) had at least a college degree; the highest level of education of the remaining participants (35%) was either high school or some college. The participants' average Hollingshead occupational score was 6.8 (SD = 1 . 5 ; range = 3-9), interpreted as minor professionals (managers, small-business owners; Hollingshead, 1975). Twelve percent of the parents reported combined family incomes of between $15,000 and $29,000, 42% reported incomes of $30,000 to $59,000, and 46% reported incomes of $60,000 and above.

Measures Questionnaires Religious Affiliation Questionnaire (RAQ). This questionnaire (Ellison, 1995) asks respondents to identify their current religious affiliation according to the following categories: (a) Mainline Protestant (e.g., Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Unitarian); (b) Conservative Protestant (e.g., Adventist, Baptist, Pentecostal); (c) Roman Catholic; (d) Jewish; (e) other (e.g., Buddhist, Mormon, Hindu); and (f) no affiliation with any formal religion. Forty-seven parents reported a Mainline Protestant affiliation (36%), 33 reported a Roman Catholic affiliation (25%), 27 reported no religious affiliation (20%), and 25 reported a Conservative Protestant affiliation (19%). The other affiliations were selected too infrequently to be included. There was a significant difference in the religious affiliations of mothers and fathers, x 2 (3, N = 132) = 7.87, p < .05; mothers were more likely to report a Mainline Protestant (41%) or Roman Catholic (27%) religious affiliation, whereas fathers were most likely to declare no religious preference (33%) or a Conservative Protestant affiliation (23%). However, sex of the parent was a significant covariate with religious affiliation in only one analysis. As well, only one difference was found for parents' occupational level; parents' years of education, one of the indexes of socioeconomic status (SES), was not a significant covariate for any of the analyses.

Parental Beliefs About Spanking (PBAS). The 16-item PBAS questionnaire, developed for this study, was designed to assess parents' beliefs about the corporal punishment they administer to their own children. Sample items include, "How effective do you think spanking is to get your child to stop misbehaving in the future?"; "After your child has misbehaved and right before you discipline him/her, how irritated do you usually feel?"; and "Do you think spanking affects your relationship with your child by promoting respect?" This questionnaire had high internal consistency with this sample (Cronbach's a = .93). A factor analysis of the PBAS resulted in two factors, Instrumentality (factor loadings for 13 items: range = .52 to .91) and Emotionality (factor loadings for 3 items: range = .53 to .88). These factors accounted for 57% of the variance of the items. The Instrumentality factor reflects the extent to which parents agree that spanking (a) is not abusive, (b) is necessary, (c) is effective, (d) allows them to be less upset, (e) allows them to be in control, (f) does not cause them to be bothered a day later, (g) does cause them to think they were a good parent a day later, (h) promotes respect by child, (i) does not promote hostility in child, (j) promotes cooperation, (k) gets child to stop misbehaving immediately, (1) gets child to stop misbehaving in the future, and (m) gets child to obey authority. The Emotionality factor measures the extent to which parents report feeling (a) irritated before spanking their child, (b) frustrated before spanking their child, and (c) upset when seeing another parent spank a child. We inferred that the Instrumentality factor assesses parents' beliefs about whether particular goals are met by the use of corporal punishment, whereas the Emotionality factor taps the emotions parents associate with corporal punishment. Parental Responses to Child Misbehavior (PRCM). This questionnaire asks parents to rate how often in an average week they use nine disciplinary responses to their children's misbehaviors (Holden, Coleman, & Schmidt, 1995). Using an 8-point interval scale from never to 9 or more times per week, parents indicated how often they reason, divert, negotiate, threaten, use time-out, spank or slap, ignore, withdraw privileges, and yell in anger. The questionnaire was found to be internally consistent with this sample, Cronbach's a = .73. Test-retest reliability was assessed with a separate sample of 21 mothers, r(21) = .64, p < .01 (range = .93 [spank] to .26 [withdrawal of privileges]; Holden et al., 1995). The validity of the corporal punishment item has also been established through a high correlation with mothers' daily reports of spanking in phone interviews, r(38) = .77, p < .001 (Holden etal., 1995).


Phone Interview The phone interview, developed for this study, asked parents a series of questions regarding their beliefs about corporal punishment and its consequences for children. As part of a larger interview, mothers were asked whether their children experience any of five positive and eight negative consequences of being spanked. Regarding positive consequences, mothers were asked, "Does being spanked make your child . . . " (a) more obedient, (b) respectful of authority, (c) learn not to do dangerous things, (d) a stronger person, and (e) less rebellious. Mothers also reported the perceived negative consequences of spanking by answering, "Does being spanked make your child . . . " (a) feel bad about him or herself, (b) more aggressive with peers, (c) feel scared, (d) feel angry, (e) afraid of authority, (f) more rebellious, (g) resentful, and (h) hit back. The test-retest reliability of the entire interview was determined by reinterviewing eight mothers (9% of the sample) a second time, an average of 31 days after the first interview. The mean correlation between mothers' responses across the two times was r(8) = .79, p < .001 (range = .62 to .85).

Computer Vignettes We used a computer to present to parents six vignettes of children's misbehaviors. The misbehaviors illustrating each category of transgression were previously rated by mothers in a pilot study (n = 17) as equally serious on a 6-point scale ranging from not at all serious to extremely serious (prudential Ms = 5.7 and 5.6; moral Ms = 5.1 and 5.0; social Ms = 3.4 and 3.3). To assess the effect of escalated disobedience by the child on parents' discipline choice, one vignette of each type included willful disobedience. These escalated transgressions involved clear and knowing disobedience by the child after he or she understood the parent's request. Internal consistency across the six vignettes was high, with an average Cronbach a of .85 (range = .70 to .96). In the prudential nonescalated vignette, parents imagined that their children were opening some medicine they found; in the prudential escalated vignette, parents were asked to imagine that their children ran away from them in a busy parking lot after the parent asked the child to hold his or her hand. In the moral nonescalated vignette, the child bit a friend while arguing; in the moral escalated vignette, the child threw a book at and kicked the parent after being reprimanded. Finally, the social nonescalated vignette involved a child who interrupted the parent having an important telephone conversation; the social escalated vignette involved a child who sneaked out of the bedroom after repeatedly being told to stop coming out of the room. After reading

311

each vignette, parents were asked how likely (on a 7-point scale ranging from extremely unlikely to extremely likely) they were to respond to the misbehavior with corporal punishment and with reasoning. After reporting the likelihood that they would use corporal punishment and reasoning in each situation, parents were then asked to imagine that they had corporally punished their children for the misbehavior and to rate the probability of three positive and four negative outcomes: (a) immediate compliance to the parent's wishes, (b) future recurrence of the misbehavior, (c) long-term socialization of acceptable behavior, (d) emotional distress in their child, (e) feelings of guilt in the child over the transgression, (f) an increase in the child's respect for parental authority, and (g) their own experience of guilt.

Procedure There were 14 married couples in the sample, and thus for the analyses that included both mothers and fathers, we excluded these 14 mothers to ensure independent data (fathers were more difficult to recruit). We analyzed questionnaire data from 79 mothers and 39 fathers (89% of the total sample). We interviewed 85 of the mothers by phone (91% of all mothers; 8 declined to be interviewed), and a subsample of 38 mothers and 39 fathers (58% of total sample) came into the laboratory to participate in the computer vignette portion of the study.

Questionnaires Parents completed the questionnaires while either at the laboratory (for those participants who came to do the computer task) or at home and returned them by mail in a provided stamped envelope (for mothers interviewed by phone).

Phone Interview We telephoned mothers to participate in a telephone interview regarding their beliefs about and experiences with corporal punishment. The questions concerning positive or negative outcomes used in this study comprised only a few minutes of the 30-min interview.

Computer Vignettes In a research lab, parents operated a computer to respond to questions following six computerpresented vignettes, one escalated and one nonescalated situation for each of three types of child transgressions: prudential, moral, and social. For this task, parents were asked to imagine themselves in each situation with their own children; the name of


312

the parent's child appeared in the vignettes to facilitate the parent's identification with the situation. The order in which the six vignettes were presented was randomized across parents for the approximately 45-min-long task.

Results Religion and Reported Disciplinary Practices For the analysis of religious differences in parents' reported use of nine disciplinary techniques, an initial 4 (religious affiliation) X 9 (discipline practice) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) of the PRCM was significant, F(27, 290) = 1.57, p < .05. When we examined follow-up analyses of variance (ANOVAs), we found a striking result (see Table 1). The four religious affiliation groups did not differ in the frequency with which they reportedly administered eight types of discipline (in descending order of frequency): reason, divert, negotiate, threaten, time-out, yell in anger, ignore, and withdraw privileges. Contrary to our prediction, no pattern of reported disciplinary practices differentiated the groups. Rather, the only significant difference between groups was the frequency with which parents reported spanking their children. Post hoc Bonferroni tests revealed a consistent effect: Conservative Protestant parents

indicated that they spanked their children more often than Mainline Protestant parents, Roman Catholic parents, and parents with no religious affiliation. The latter three groups did not differ in the frequency with which they reported spanking their children, each averaging less than once per week, whereas Conservative Protestant parents reported using corporal punishment once or twice per week. These differences between religious groups were magnified in parents' reports of frequent spanking: 29% of the Conservative Protestant parents spank their children three or more times per week, compared with 5% of Mainline Protestants, 3% of Roman Catholics, and 0% of parents with no affiliation.

Religion and Beliefs about Corporal Punishment As a test for possible religious affiliation differences in parents' beliefs about the instrumental-emotional dimensions of corporal punishment, a 4 (religious affiliation) X 2 (Instrumentality and Emotionality factors) MANOVA of the PBAS revealed a significant main effect, F(6,216) = 3.82, p < .001. One-way ANOVAs identified significant group differences on the Instrumentality factor but not on the Emotionality factor (see Table 2). In follow-up Bonferroni tests, Conservative Protestant parents were

Table 1 Religious Differences in Parental Responses to Children's Misbehaviors Religious affiliation Mainline Protestant (» = 43)

Roman Catholic (n == 33)

Disciolinarv response

M

SD

M

SD

No affiliation (« == 23) M SD

Reason Divert Negotiate Threaten Time-out Spank or slap Ignore Withdraw privileges Yell

6.0 5.4 4.8 3.8 3.7 1.8. 3.0 3.0 3.1

1.3 1.6 1.8 2.1 1.5 0.8 1.9 1.7 1.9

5.8 5.4 5.4 3.9 3.9 1.7. 3.2 2.7 3.8

1.3 1.5 1.4 2.0 1.6 0.8 2.2 1.5 1.9

6.1 5.6 5.5 4.1 3.3 1.6. 3.2 2.8 2.9

1.3 1.4 1.8 1.9 1.4 0.7 1.5 1.7 1.7

Conservative Protestant (« = 19) M

SD

F

5.3 4.7 4.2 3.8 3.4 2.7b 2.7 3.1 2.4

1.4 1.7 2.3 2.1 1.5 1.6 1.7 2.2 1.6

1.83 1.04 2.59 0.18 0.62 5.17* 0.37 0.30 2.38

P .15 .38 .06 .91 .60 .002 .78 .83 .07

Note. N = 118. Means range from 0 (never) to 7 (nine or more times per week). Means in the same row that do not share subscripts differed atp < .05 in post hoc Bonferroni multiple comparisons. Sample sizes in individual analyses differ. *p < .01.


313

Table 2 Religious Differences in Parents' Beliefs About Spanking Religious affiliation Mainline Protestamt Roman Catholic No affiliation Conservative Protestant (n = 43) (n = 33) (n = 19) (« = 23) Belief M SD M SD M SD M SD F P Instrumentality 3.9a 1.3 3.6a 1.7 3.0a 1.2 5.0b 1.5 7.20** .001 Emotionality 5.1 1.0 5.1 1.2 5.1 1.1 4.3 1.2 2.30 .08 Note. N = 118. Means range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Means in the same row that do not share subscripts differed atp < .05 in post hoc Bonferroni multiple comparisons. **p = .001.

found to emphasize the instrumental benefits of corporal punishment significantly more than Mainline Protestants, Roman Catholics, and nonaffiliated parents. The only parent sex difference in this study was found here: Mothers with no religious preference were significantly less likely to endorse the instrumentality of corporal punishment than mothers of the three other religious affiliations, F(l, 104) = 6.37, p < .05 (MNA = 2.0 vs. MRc = 3.6, MMP = 3.2, & AfCP = 4.1; NA = no affiliation, RC = Roman Catholic, MP = Mainline Protestant, and CP = Conservative Protestant). We did not find this difference for fathers. When asked during phone interviews about the effects of corporal punishment, mothers of the four religious groups did not differ in the number of positive consequences they attributed to their use of corporal punishment, such as making the child more obedient or a stronger person (see Table 3). However, mothers across the four religious groups did identify significantly different numbers of negative consequences of their spanking, such as making the child more aggressive or making the child resentful (see Table 3). Post hoc Bonferroni tests determined that Mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics reported significantly more negative consequences of spanking than Conservative Protestants. Specifically, Conservative Protestant mothers were much less likely than other mothers to report that corporal punishment made their children aggressive (8%), resentful (8%), afraid of authority (0%), or more rebellious (0%). Given these findings, we wondered whether differences in parents' beliefs about the instrumentality of corporal punishment mediate the association between religious affiliation and

frequency of using corporal punishment. To test this possibility, we conducted two analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) using as covariates (a) parents' beliefs about the instrumental utility of corporal punishment and (b) their beliefs about the number of negative outcomes resulting from corporal punishment. In the first one-way ANCOVA predicting reported frequency of corporal punishment from religious affiliation with instrumentality as a covariate, the main effect of religion became nonsignificant, F(2, 77) = 2.14, ns, whereas the Instrumentality covariate was highly significant, F(l, 77) = 18.05, p < .0001. In the second ANCOVA predicting reported frequency of corporal punishment from religious affiliation and number of negative outcomes attributed to corporal punishment, the main effect of religion remained significant, F(3, 56) = 4.68, p < .01, whereas the negative outcomes covariate was not significant, F(l, 56) = 0.07, ns. These findings indicate that parents' beliefs in the instrumental effectiveness of corporal punishment mediates the association between religious affiliation and frequency of using corporal punishment. With regard to their beliefs about the appropriateness of corporal punishment for specific child misbehaviors in vignettes, a religious group main effect was found for parents' intended likelihood of spanking, F(3, 73) = 8.79, p < .0001, as well as their likelihood of reasoning, F(3, 73) = 3.42, p < .05, across the three types of misbehaviors. Bonferroni post hoc tests revealed that Conservative Protestants were significantly more likely than the other three religious groups to say that they would spank their children (AfCP = 3.3 vs. MMP = 1.9, MRC = 2.0, & MNA = 1.6). Furthermore, Conservative Protestants were signifi-


314

-H

iinooou? • ON CO oo p II II II II

V

II II II II

II

/—vts

5^ ^^

p :

m

. ^ ^ ^ e« ^

I 1.Si I

II

-c

ts r- CN t~ vo m in in

M\

~* V

fi

II II

RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION AND CORPORAL PUNISHMENT cantly less likely to indicate they would reason in response to child misbehaviors (MCP = 5.3) than Mainline Protestants (MMP = 6.2) and parents with no religious affiliation (MNA = 6.3). These religious differences in intentions to use corporal punishment and reasoning were not moderated by whether the child had committed a prudential, moral, or social transgression: The type of transgression did not differentiate the four religious affiliation groups regarding likelihood to spank, F(6, 144) = 1.41, ns, or likelihood to reason, F(6, 144) = 0.98, ns. Indeed, all parents in this study agreed that moral (M - 2.4) and prudential (M = 2.4) transgressions warrant corporal punishment more than social transgressions (M = 1.5). The escalation of children's disobedience did moderate parents' intentions to spank or reason, however. In nonescalated situations, parents in each of the religious affiliation groups did not differ in their likelihood of using corporal punishment or reasoning. Yet in escalated situations, in which parents are confronted with an openly defiant child, parents' intentions to spank increased, F(3, 73) = 5.57, p < .01, and to reason decreased, F(3, 73) = 3.65, p < .05. This was especially true of the intentions of Conservative Protestants (see Figure 1). Post hoc tests revealed that, when faced with escalated disobedience, Conservative Protestant parents would spank more (MCP = 4.3) than all other parents (AfMP = 2.3, MRC = 2.3, & AfNA = 1.8). In addition, Conservative Protestants would reason less in response to escalated disobedience (AfCP = 4.6) than all other parents (MMP = 6.1,AfRC = 5.5, &MNA = 6.2). Parents' occupational level was a significant covariate in this instance, F(3, 72) = 8.52, p < .01. On inspecting the correlations between occupational status and likelihood of reasoning, we found only one to be significant: as the status of their occupations increased, Roman Catholic parents were less likely to use reasoning in response to escalated misbehaviors, rRC(21) = -.66,/7