The Association between Parental Use of Physical ...

Philippine Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Volume 17 No. 1 (2012) 29-42

University of the Philippines Visayas

Original Research

The Association between Parental Use of Physical Discipline and Child Outcomes: A Literature Review Bernice Vania N. Landoy Division of Social Sciences College of Arts and Sciences University of the Philippines Visayas Miagao, Iloilo 5023, Philippines

Abstract The literature on physical discipline was surveyed to find out how its use is related to child outcomes, the factors that shape parental use of this disciplinary tactic, and the variables that impact on the relationship between physical discipline and child outcomes. Findings from 85 empirical and conceptual papers indicated that, in specific cultures, parents use physical discipline frequently and normatively, and its use is related to both negative and nonnegative child outcomes. Moreover, the results of research studies also show that the relationship between physical discipline and child outcomes is not unilinear, but is instead moderated and mediated by factors such as culture and the meanings of parental behavior, the ecology of the parents, the parent-child relationship, and the characteristics of parents and children. This review emphasizes the need for future researchers to focus on the variables that impact on the physical discipline-child outcomes relationship. Finally, this review affirms the role of both parents and children in shaping child development. Keywords: Physical discipline, corporal punishment, physical punishment, child adjustment, parenting

Pamamalo (spanking) is one of the discipline methods of choice of many Filipino parents. A thorough examination of old texts in the Philippines reveals that this method had been present during the country’s colonial past. For instance, Arte de la Lengua BisayaHiligaynon de la Isla de Panay (1894, p. 23) contains passages that suggest the number of times by which a child should be physically punished: “Pamangkot: Tagpila ang ihampac co sa mga bata?/A cuantos azotes he de dar a las muchachos? Sabat: Tagpolo ang ihampac mo sa canila./ Dales a diez azotes.” (Translation: Question: How many times should I spank the children? Answer: Spank them ten times.) In addition, one may look at Jose Rizal’s Noli Me Tangere and observe the use of physical discipline in institutions like the church and the school. For instance, in his chapter entitled “Altar Boys” Rizal (1886/1996) tells the story of Crispin and Basilio whom the sacristan mayor castigated after having been charged of stealing money. Certainly, one may argue that the

*For correpondence email: [email protected] Copyright © 2012 Landoy, BVN

national hero’s novel is fictional. However, because the stories exemplify the country’s situation during the Spanish period, even the use of physical punishment was probably real-life and factual. Corporal punishment is defined as the use of physical force with the intention of causing a child to experience pain but not injury for the purposes of correction or control of the child’s behavior (Strauss, 2001). In this paper, corporal punishment and physical punishment are used interchangeably with physical discipline. The two former constructs connote response suppression whereas the latter suggests instruction and guidance (Holden, 2002). The conceptual basis for this interchanging of the three terms are as follows: a) All three constructs have a very important similarity: the use of physical force to effect a change on the child’s behavior, and b) When parents use this disciplinary methodology, this usually involves the short term goal of behavior regulation and the long-term goal of continuous guidance of the child.

30

Landoy, BVN/J. Soc. Sci. & Hum 17, 1 (2012) 29-42

Parental use of physical punishment has received much attention in developmental psychology research because of concerns about its effects on children’s physical, behavioral and social development. In 1979, Sweden was the first nation to ban the use of corporal punishment in the household because of research findings of corporal punishment’s negative impact on children (Beckett, 2005). This move by Sweden created waves of similar responses in other countries. Consequently, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Norway, Croatia, Scotland, Canada, South Africa, Germany, and South Korea reviewed their domestic laws concerning corporal punishment of children by families, school, and the criminal justice system (Lombardo & Polonko, 2005). Locally, House Bill 4455 entitled “An Act Promoting Positive Discipline of Children and Prohibiting Corporal Punishment” was passed in 2011 in the House of Representatives (Flores, 2012). This House Bill, which was based on the Anti-Corporal Punishment Act of 2008 and was tackled in the Fourteenth Congress of the Republic of the Philippines, prohibits “all corporal punishment and all other forms of humiliating or degrading punishment of children and promoting positive and nonviolent discipline of children” (M. Teodoro, personal communication, September 16, 2009). Despite policies that forbid parents from using physical discipline, there is really no consensus among social scientists with regard to the impact of non-abusive physical punishment on children. Experts in this field continue to debate on whether physical punishment is indeed harmful or beneficial to children (Deater-Deckard, Petit, Lansford, Dodge, & Bates, 2003; Larzelere, 2000). Adding to the controversy surrounding the use of corporal punishment are research findings that point to the nonlinear relationship between physical discipline and child outcomes (Deater-Deckard & Dodge, 1997; Jutengren & Palmerus, 2002; Rohner, Kean, & Cournoyer, 1991). W hat k i nd of out come s doe s physical punishment bear on children? Does the use of physical punishment result in negative outcomes? What are the variables that may impact on the relationship between corporal punishment and child outcomes? Answers to these questions were obtained by examining empirical and conceptual literature on the use of non-abusive physical punishment by parents. This literature review sought to describe the frequency of physical punishment used by Filipino and non-Filipino parents, specify parents’ goals when they use physical punishment as a disciplinary tactic, and investigate the link between physical punishment and child outcomes. Finally, this paper also sought to sift through the variables that moderate and mediate the relationship between physical discipline and child outcomes.

Method A comprehensive library search of published primary sources on physical punishment from the 1960s to the present was conducted. Looking at five decades of research, this paper was intended to present the common results, themes, and patterns in physical discipline research. This literature review explicitly targeted articles from peer-reviewed journals and books that look into parental corporal punishment rather than physical abuse, and its association with child outcomes. Retrieval of pertinent journal articles was guided by key word searches using terms such as physical discipline, physical punishment, corporal punishment, spanking, and child outcomes. The procedure resulted in a collection of 85 empirical and conceptual published works. Of these, two were published in the 1960s, seven were published in the 1970s, four were published in the 1980s, 21 were published in the 1990s, and 51 were published after the year 2000. Fourteen (14) of the studies included Filipino parents and/or children in the sample; of these, nine were conducted by Filipino researchers. Moreover, 12 of the published works that were reviewed are conceptual papers and the rest are empirical papers. It is also worth noting that only three of the articles that were reviewed used the experimental method and studied the effect of punishment in a laboratory setting while all others used interviews, surveys, focus group discussions, and text analysis, and consequently utilized correlations, analysis of variance, analysis of covariance, regression, and structural equation modeling for statistical analysis. Moreover, included in this literature review are the results of 4 meta-analyses. Finally, only studies that analyzed nonclinical samples of parents, children, adolescents and emerging adults comprise this literature review.

Frequency of Use of Physical Punishment Results of previous research suggest that physical discipline is extensively used in the Philippines. Guthrie and Jacobs (1967) reported the result of childrearing practices among 279 mothers from Rizal, Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, and Bulacan. Guthrie and Jacobs found that 58% of the parents in their sample admitted to having used physical punishment at least fairly frequently and 15% more used it very often on young children. In addition, Licuanan (1979) found in her study of a low-income community in Quezon City that the most frequent method of discipline used by parents is physical punishment, which came in the form of spanking, pinching, and whipping. More recently, a 2004 research of World Studies of Abuse in Family Environments (WorldSAFE) in an urban neighborhood in Manila where 1,001 mothers


were sampled found that 75% of Filipino mothers who participated had spanked their child in the last 12 months and 51% had spanked the child with an object. The mothers likewise admitted to having twisted their child’s ear, pulled the child’s hair, slapped the child on the face or back of the head, shaken their child, hit their child on different parts of the body other than the buttocks with an object, and kicked the child. Similarly, a research by Sanapo and Nakamura (2010) on 270 Grade 6 pupils from Iloilo City, Philippines found that majority (61%) had experienced physical punishment at home. Among those who were physically punished, 74.5% reported having been pinched while 49.7% reported having been beaten by an adult member of the household. Multiculture and multi-race studies on parental discipline, on the other hand, found varying incidences of the use of physical punishment. In their interviews with 336 mother-child dyads in China, India, Kenya, Philippines and Thailand, Lansford et al. (2005) found that mothers and children in Kenya and Italy generally reported more frequent use of physical discipline than did mothers and children in other countries. In addition, mothers and children in China and Thailand generally reported less frequent use of physical discipline, and mothers and children in India and the Philippines reported moderate frequency of physical discipline. In another study, Wissow (2001) investigated the use of spanking in a national sample of 2,017 families with children below the age of three years old in the U.S. Parents were asked whether they have ever spanked their children. Wissow reported the following rates of ever spanking: 41% among Asians, 47% among Latinos, 57% among Whites, and 67% among African Americans. This finding is comparable to what Barkin, Scheindlin, Ip, Richardson, and Finch (2007) found in their investigation of 2,134 parents of 2-to-11-year old children. Barkin et al. (2007) investigated the use of various parental discipline methods by parents, majority of whom belong to the high-income group. Barkin et al. found that spanking incidence was only 9% in their sample, while time-out was the most commonly used form of disciplinary tactic. Finally, Barkin et al. noted that it was the African American parents who reported the highest incidence of spanking.

Why Parents Use Physical Punishment As the aforementioned descriptive studies show and as the following qualitative research findings explicate, the use of physical punishment seem common among Filipino, African and African American parents. The succeeding studies that are discussed in this section shed light to this observation.

31

To clarify the meaning of physical discipline and child abuse, de la Cruz, Protacio, Balanon, Yacat, and Francisco (2001) conducted separate focus group discussions with children and adults in their sample and found that for the adults, disciplining the child is understood in the context of what should be done or “dapat”–a norm (p.130). The act of disciplining a child is a road to that child becoming a responsible and competent adult in the future. The children in the study recognized that there are some instances of child transgression when physical discipline is indispensable. Ramiro, Madrid, Lozada, and Perez (2004) likewise found that both Filipino adults and children in their sample view spanking as a normative discipline method. Ramiro et al. (2004) also attested that children looked at discipline as a manifestation of their parent’s love and concern for them. Similarly, Save the Children Sweden conducted a focus group discussion with Filipino male and female adolescents, aged 13 to 17 years old. The researchers found that participants attributed desirable meanings to physical discipline, viewing it as important “because it helps them recognize and understand what is right from wrong, and develop appropriate attitudes that will make them better people or ‘mabuting tao’” (Ong, Domingo, & Balanon, 2008, p. 14). Payet and Franchi (2008) correspondingly studied the use of corporal punishment by adults and highlighted the circumstance within which physical discipline is used. Although this study sampled schools in South Africa, the finding by Payet and Franchi stressed the significance of an environment of care where corporal punishment is used. The practice of physically punishing children is entangled with other adult behavioral manifestations of concern for the child such as giving compliments or spending time with the child. It may be inferred from the result of Payet and Franchi that good parenting, which is an important ingredient for the development of an individual, includes the use of corporal punishment. Other than it being a normative practice in specific cultures, the more practical reason why parents use physical punishment is because of its immediate effect. The most basic goal of parents when they administer physical punishment is to stop the child from misbehaving right away (Gershoff, 2002a, 2002b). In the first place, it is usually children’s disruptive or aversive behaviors that serve as the most common antecedents for parental discipline. Kremer, Smith, and Lawrence (2010) found this in their analysis of 207 parental diary anecdotes of disciplinary incidents with children below five years old. To lend support to this justification for such parental practice, earlier studies on learning that were done in the psychology laboratory have already shown that corporal punishment is indeed effective in

32


securing short-term, immediate compliance (Newsom, Flavell, & Rincover, 1983). Moreover, Larzelere (2000) found that parental use of physical discipline decreased noncompliance and fighting among 2-to-6-year-old children.

The Effect of Physical Punishment on Children Negative Child Outcomes Consistent with the contention of classic social learning theory, it is assumed that because physical punishment entails the inf liction of pain, the child learns that under some situations, it is acceptable and appropriate to inflict pain on other people (Bandura, 1974; McCord, 1996). Correspondingly, researchers found that the use of physical discipline is related with problematic behavior such as delinquency and aggression (Brenner & Fox, 1998; Gershoff, 2002a; Larzelere, 2000; Mulvaney & Mebert, 2007; O’Leary, 1995), and externalizing behavior (Jutengren & Palmerus, 2002; B. J. Sadock & V. A. Sadock, 2003; Van Leeuwen, Mervielde, Braet, & Bosmans, 2004). Externalizing behavior is a collection of behaviors that tend to occur together (Wicks-Nelson & Israel, 2009). Children with externalizing behavior may be hostile, verbally abusive, impudent, defiant, and negativistic toward adults. Moreover, physical punishment has also been found to be related to antisocial behavior (Kilgore, Snyder, & Lentz, 2000), and approving attitudes towards, as well as a higher tendency to carry out acts of violence later on (Lombardo & Polonko, 2005; Owens & Strauss, 1979). In a similar vein, Strauss, Sugarman, and GilesSims (1997) tested the hypothesis that when parents use corporal punishment to correct their children’s behavior, the number of consequent antisocial behaviors of the child escalates. Investigating 807 mothers of children aged 6 to 9 year old who participated in the National Longitudinal Study of Youth in the US, Strauss et al. (1997) found that children who had been spanked had elevated rates of antisocial behavior two years later. Strauss et al. concluded that the more frequent the corporal punishment and the longer it lasts in the life of the child, the greater the probability of behavior problems because the child has already been desensitized to its impact. Physical punishment has also been found to have a correlation with problematic psychosocial functioning. For instance, physical punishment was significantly associated with poor school performance, and behavioral and emotional difficulties (Alyahri & Goodman, 2008; Mathurin, Gielen, & Lancaster, 2006), problems in children’s cognitive ability (Strauss & Paschall, 2009), problems in children’s internalization of

values (Jutengren & Palmerus, 2002; Gershoff, 2002a), and low competence and self-esteem (Larzelere, 2000). Also, Abolfotouh, El-Bourgy, Seif El Din, and Mehanna (2009) found that corporally punished Egyptian youth scored significantly poorer in their relationship with others than those Egyptian children who have never been corporally punished. Nonnegative Child Outcomes Not all st udies on physical punish ment found negative outcomes, however. Despite studies that presented the detrimental effects of corporal punishment, the use of this parental discipline method has consistently been controversial because of the research findings that have found non-negative results. A meta-analysis by Larzelere (2000) generally pointed to the beneficial consequences of physical pu n ish ment rat her t ha n det r i ment al outcomes particularly when it was used nonabusively, flexibly, not too frequently, and primarily as a backup for milder disciplinary tactics. These beneficial consequences included increased compliance, a decrease in aggression, increased parental warmth, and a decrease in subsequent fighting among African Americans. Aside from the immediate, non-negative effects of physical punishment, some studies also found longterm beneficial consequences. For instance, when they compared spanking with verbal discipline, Tennant, Detels, and Clark (1975) found that the former is associated with a lower likelihood of using three illegal drugs later on in life whereas the latter is strongly associated with a higher tendency of using illegal drugs. These results are relevant in light of the statement by Newsom, Favell, and Rincover (1983) that many parents avoid using physical punishment because of ill-founded anxieties of hypothetical, allpowerful negative effects. This avoidance may result in the continuity of serious behavior problems that may have been eliminated had the parent opted to use physical discipline in the first place. Lonigan, Elbert, and Johnson (1998) also said that notwithstanding the fact that several countries have banned the use of spanking whereas several others are deliberating on doing the same, spanking might possibly be effective if evaluated as a psychological intervention. Another meta-analysis by Larzelere and Kuhn (2005) compared conditional spanking, customary physical punish ment and predominant physical punishment with alternative disciplinary methods such as reasoning, love withdrawal, and isolation or time out. Conditional spanking was defined as “spanking under limited conditions of child transgression that have been associated with better child outcomes” (Larzelere & Kuhn, 2005, p. 3). On the other hand, customary punishment was defined as the typical manner by


which parents delivered physical punishment, whereas predominant physical punishment referred to parents’ use of physical punishment over and above other forms of discipline. Larzelere and Kuhn found that the use of conditional spanking was related with significant reductions in defiance and noncompliance, and antisocial behavior, and conditional spanking did not vary from other alternative disciplinary tactics in its relation to the development of a conscience. Larzelere and Kuhn concluded that corporal punishment only becomes detrimental to the child when it is used severely and predominantly.

Factors that Account for the Inconsistent Findings on Physical Punishment’s Effects Varied Ways by which Physical Discipline and Child Outcomes were Measured The inconsistent findings of the association between physical punishment and child outcomes may be attributed to research methodology. First, researchers differ in the way they operationally defined “physical discipline” (Gershoff, 2002a). For instance, some researchers failed to discriminate between physical punishment and physical abuse (Larzelere, 2000). Moreover, whereas some researchers focused only on the frequency of physical discipline (e.g., Barkin et al., 2007), other researchers looked at the severity of physical punishment that was delivered to the child (e.g., Larzelere & Kuhn, 2005; Lynch et al., 2006; Smith, 2004) and contended that the effects of physical punishment are most detrimental when the punishment is delivered in the most severe, harsh and frequent manner. Another reason for the mixed findings is the varied methodologies that researchers employed in studying physical discipline. While some researchers gathered retrospective data (e.g., Graziano & Namaste, 1990) that required adolescent, emerging adult or young adult participants to recall the frequency and severity of physical discipline that they received in childhood, other researchers used self-report data of corporal punishment (e.g., Lansford et al., 2005; Lansford, Alampay, et al., 2010; Lansford, Malone et al., 2010) that they recently administered (in the case of parents) or received (in the case of children). The source of data on physical punishment is another factor that accounts for the varying results. For one, parenting and its effects have typically been assessed from the perspective of the parents and other adult observers (e.g., preschool teachers in the study of Polaha, Larzelere, Shapiro & Pettit, 2004). When children’s perceptions of parenting are factored in, their reports are often integrated with those of multiple informants, rather than being considered in their own right (Gaylord, Kitzman, & Coleman, 2003). There is

33

a scarcity of published studies on children’s reports of their own parent’s behaviors, especially among those in middle childhood (Gaylord et al., 2003). In a similar vein, Larzelere (2000) stated that the results of his meta-analysis emphasized the need to study physical punishment in the context of the parentchild relationship and the culture, particularly on how both play a role in shaping the risks and outcomes of physical punishment. This is parallel to the suggestion given by Paolucci and Violato (2004) who recommended that future research studies should focus on moderating and mediating variables, and how these variables influence child outcomes. In their classic article, Baron and Kenny (1986) distinguished a moderating variable from a mediating variable. A moderating variable is “a qualitative… or quantitative… variable that affects the direction and/ or strength of the relation between an independent or predictor variable and a dependent or criterion variable” (p.1174) while a mediating variable is a variable that “accounts for the relation between the predictor and the criterion and explains how external physical events take on internal psychological significance” (p. 1176). Whereas a moderating variable can alter the strength and direction of the relationship, in this case, between physical punishment and child outcomes, a mediating variable explains the nature of the relationship. The succeeding sections enumerate specific variables that may serve either as mediating or moderating variables in the relationship between physical punishment and child outcomes. Cultural Meanings of the Use of Physical Discipline C u r r e nt d e velo p m e nt r e s e a r ch e r s s e e development in an ecological framework, with the parent and child growing in nested subsystems. One context that is increasingly recognized as essential to human development is culture. Culture “consists of distinctive patterns as well as norms, ideas, values, and assumptions about life that are shared by the people in a given society and that guide and regulate specific behaviors and inculcate valued competencies” (Bornstein & Cheah, 2006, p. 15). Culture affects many domains of family life including the ways in which parents socialize and discipline their children. Gunnoe and Mariner (1997) contended that the context in which spanking occurs is more important than spanking per se in predicting its effects on children’s development because the context dictates how this particular act will be perceived and received by the child. Therefore, in cultures where physical punishment is accepted, parental use of physical punishment is perceived as helpful in bringing up the child. Conversely, in cultures where physical punishment is not normative, this method of discipline may be viewed as a form of

34


abuse on children. These different perceptions impact on child adjustment differentially. Lansford et al. (2005) tested the hypothesis that the association between parent’s use of physical discipline and child adjustment is moderated by the mothers’ and the children’s perceptions of the normativeness of physical discipline. Lansford et al. found that children’s perception of the normativeness of physical discipline was a significant moderator in the relationship between physical discipline and child outcomes. Accordingly, when children perceived the use of physical discipline as normative, physical discipline was less strongly related to undesirable negative child outcomes of aggression and anxiety. Stevenson, Chen, and Lee (1992), and Jutengren and Palmerus (2002) maintained that cross-cultural studies also show that the same parenting behaviors may have different meanings in different cultures. A case in point is the positive value placed on harsh punishment and shaming ideologies in traditional Chinese families (Fung & Lau, 2009; Stevenson et al., 1992). On the other hand, those in Western cultures view these methods as harmful to children. Finally, spanking is more likely to be seen as an indication of lack of parental concern in European-American families whereas AfricanAmerican subcultures view it as a means of establishing appropriate disciplinary control (Larzelere, 2000). Ecology and its Influence on Parental Use of Physical Discipline The Cumulative Stress Model emphasizes that a convergence of multiple risk factors better predict parenting problems than do single determinants (Belsky, 1984; Thompson et al., 1999). For instance, mothers who suffer from ecological risks as defined by factors such as low family socio-economic status, low educational attainment, lack of social support, and single parent status, are predicted to use more coercive means in disciplining their children (Lansford et al., 2009). The study by Giles-Sims, Strauss and Sugarman (1995) and Deater-Deckard et al. (2003) illustrate this point. Giles-Sims et al. (1995) found that mothers who worked only a few hours a week, lived in poverty, and received government financial assistance engaged in significantly higher levels of physical discipline compared to other mothers. Similarly, Deater-Deckard et al. investigated 566 individuals when they were in kindergarten, and when they were in 6th and 8th grade, and found that children who suffer the most severe forms of physical punishment are those African-Americans who come from low socio-economic households. Among fathers, Gracia and Herero (2008) reported that those who are less educated and are old hold high acceptance for the use of physical punishment. When a parent accepts or endorses the use of physical discipline there is an increased risk for physical abuse especially in conditions of high stress (Crouch & Behl, 2001). Consequently,

parents who are less educated, less sensitive and have positive attitudes towards harsh disciplinary methods bring up children who exhibit high externalizing behavior (Miner & Clarke-Stewart, 2008). A not he r c on s e q u e n c e of t h i s a d ve r s e constellation of parental experiences and behavior is problematic social adjustment later on in life. For instance, Leary, Kelley, Morrow and Mikulka (2007) found that those who experienced the highest level of physical punishment in their families of origin reported higher family conflict, more negative parental relationships, and more negative social relationships in their adult life. The Context of the Parent-Child Relationship The use and effect of physical discipline may also vary according to the broader context of the parent-child relationship (Baumrind, 1996; DeaterDeckard & Dodge, 1997; Frankenberg, Holmqvist, & Rubensen, 2010; McKinney, Milone, & Renk, 2011). In their focus group discussion with 80 Tanzanian parents and grandparents, Frankenberg et al. (2010) found four ways by which spanking is meted out on the child as a function of the caregiver’s intention and goal. These four discipline strategies include: to beat with care, to treat like an egg, as if beating a snake, the non-care of nonbeating. To beat with care or moderate and controlled spanking, takes place in a loving and caring relationship while as if beating a snake is severe spanking that is intended to discipline and punish a bad child. On the other hand, to treat like an egg is usually manifested by grandparents who hesitate on physically punishing the child although they believe that it is necessary, while non-care of non-beating is manifested by parents who neither physically punish nor discipline their children. The most favored physical discipline strategy as reported by participants is to beat with care. This study by Frankenberg et al. (2010) shows that Tanzanian parents regard corporal punishment as a facet of responsible caregiving and is therefore an essential part of parenting. Frankenberg et al. also illustrated that when parents carry out physical punishment, particularly to beat with care, it is done in conjunction with other methods of disciplining the child such as induction (where the parent explains to the child how his misbehavior affected others) within the context of a responsive and supportive parent-child relationship (Baumrind, 1996). As previously mentioned, the child may perceive a specific parental behavior in different ways. Consequently, this perception affects how physical punishment impacts on child adjustment. Whereas the previous section talked about how culture shapes the relationship between physical punishment and child adjustment by implicitly guiding individuals’ perception and interpretation of the normativeness of a disciplinary tactic, another variable that can affect the physical


punishment and child adjustment link is the child’s perception of being accepted or rejected by the parent. The Parental Acceptance-Rejection Theory ascertains that if children interpret their parents’ behavior as rejecting and hostile, it will have deleterious effects on their adjustment (Rohner, 1986). Parental acceptance is defined in terms of the ‘‘warmth, affection, care, comfort, concern, nurturance, support, or simply love’’ that children receive from their parents (Rohner et al., 2005, p. 5). In contrast, parental rejection and hostility are defined as the ‘‘absence or significant withdrawal of these feelings and behaviors and by the presence of a variety of physically and psychologically hurtful behaviors and affects’’ (Rohner et al., 2005, p. 5). Consistent with this, Rohner, Kean, and Cournoyer (1991) found in a sample of 349 9-16-year-olds from St. Kitts, West Indies, that parents’ use of physical discipline negatively affected children’s adjustment in part through its effect on children’s perception of being rejected by their parents. Parent and Child Characteristics Gender. Carunungan-Robles (1986) analyzed children’s perception of parental punitiveness according to the sex of the parent and found no significant difference between children’s perception of their mothers’ and fathers’ punitiveness. The result indicated that Filipino mothers and fathers equally serve as agents of punishment of their children. This result, however, is not consistent with what foreign studies have found. Chang, Dodge, Schwartz, and McBride-Chang (2003) sampled 325 Chinese children and their parents and found that child aggression may be related to the child’s and parent’s gender. Chang et al. also found that harsh parenting from mothers affected child emotion regulation more strongly than from fathers, whereas fathers’ harsh parenting had a stronger effect on child aggression. Also, Fisher and Fagot (1993) found that mothers, especially when they are highly traditional and have antisocial tendencies, are more likely to use negative discipline strategies such as corporal punishment. Mothers have also been found to use physical punishment to a higher degree compared with fathers (Day, Peterson & McCracken, 1998; Lansford, Alampay, et al., 2010; Sanapo & Nakamura, 2010). In similar fashion, results of a meta-analysis revealed that the mean effect size of mothers’ harsh parenting on child externalizing behavior is higher than that involving fathers’ harsh parenting (Rothbaum & Weisz, 1994). Although the previously mentioned results suggested that mothers tended to use physical discipline to a higher degree, some studies mentioned the opposite. For instance, fathers utilized harsher physical discipline with boys than mothers (McKee et al., 2007).

35

These disparate results may be attributed to the differential role that mothers and fathers play in the lives of their children. According to Bornstein and Cheah (2006), various categories of parenting such as nurturance, social interaction, and instruction, may be distributed across numerous members of a culture. However, the ultimate responsibility for young children within the context of the nuclear or extended family usually falls on the mother. This does not mean, however, that fathers do not participate in caregiving or parenting. Parke et al. (2005) noted that there is clear evidence that mothers and fathers contribute through different pathways to their children’s development. Parke et al. claimed that among Asian American and Asian families, there are two general findings that characterize the father’s role in the family: as breadwinner and caregiver. However, fathers’ strong commitment to be the breadwinner of the family resulted in men’s limited involvement with the care of their children (Ishii-Kuntz, as cited in Parke, 2005). In a similar vein, Liwag, de la Cruz, and Macapagal (1998) found that whereas Filipino mothers’ chief role is in child rearing, Filipino fathers’ chief role is that of family provider. Among Filipino fathers, child caretaking is only a secondary role. Another possible explanation for the differential effects of physical discipline according to the parent’s gender is due to the normative roles that are defined for and assigned to mothers and to fathers. It seems reasonable that, whereas higher frequencies of physical discipline by mothers may be logical by-products of norms that legitimize mothers as primary caregivers and are, therefore expected, if not acceptable, fathers’ delivery of physical discipline may not necessarily be the case (Day et al., 1998). Fathers are often cast in less direct parenting roles. Studies have also shown that the frequency and severity with which a child is physical punished is partly inf luenced by the child’s gender. In the Philippines, it is usually the male child who receives the more punitive punishment compared to the female child (Liwag, de la Cruz, & Macapagal, 1998; Sanapo & Nakamura, 2010). This tendency by Filipino parents to punish male children more harshly can be traced to societal expectations of males to be tough. Similarly, male Cambodian children are punished more severely using methods such as kicking, hitting with an object, and punching, while female children are punished by pinching, pulling, and joint twisting. Research has presented varied results in terms of the interaction of parents’ and children’s gender. In Hart et al.’s (1998) study, father’s coercive discipline strategy was more strongly correlated with daughters’ than sons’ overt aggression, while mothers’ was similarly correlated with daughters’ and sons’

36


aggression. In Deater-Deckard and Dodge’s (1997) study, however, the average correlation between harsh parenting and child aggression across several age groups was higher when the gender of the parents and children were the same. Parent’s endorsement of physical punishment. Whether parents sanction the use of physical punishment also affect the link between physical discipline and child outcomes. One study looked at mother’s endorsement of physical discipline and how it moderated the relationship between physical discipline and child depressive symptoms (McLoyd, Kaplan, Hardaway, & Wood, 2007). The researchers found that the relation between spanking frequency and child-reported depressive symptoms was stronger for children of non-endorsing mothers than for children of endorsing mothers (McLoyd et al., 2007). More specifically, the positive relation between physical discipline and children’s depressive symptoms was statistically significant only for children of nonendorsing mothers. The researchers surmised that mothers who did not endorse the use of physical discipline on their children, but who used it nevertheless, might have responded to child misbehavior with a hierarchy of discipline strategies that increased their level of coerciveness. Child’s age. Child age has been linked to the severity of the parent’s physical punishment. Parents report the use of more severe forms of corporal punishment such as hitting on the bottom using objects, slapping the face, head or ears, and pinching, when children are between 5 and 8 years old than when they are 0 and 4, or 9 and 17 years old (Gershoff, 2002a). Children’s approval of the use of physical punishment may also var y as a function of age (Jimenez, 1976). As part of Jimenez’s study of the moral development of Filipino children, vignettes were presented to children of different age groups. The child characters that were featured in the vignettes committed mistakes and the participants were asked to recommend a consequence following each child’s rule transgression. Jimenez found that younger children tended to support the use of punishment to a higher degree compared to older children. Moreover, Gu n noe and Mar i ner (1997) hypothesized that child age is one important variable that impact on the relationship between physical discipline and child outcomes. Gunnoe and Mariner cited social learning theory by saying that since adolescents may see themselves as similar to adults, they may model the parental discipline behavior more readily than do younger children. Children’s cognition. Researchers forwarded a number of empirical evidence that point to children’s

cognitions as another important variable that accounts for the differential effect of physical discipline on child outcomes (Gershoff, 2002b; Grusec & Goodnow, 1994; Jutengren & Palmerus, 2002; ; Lansford et al., 2005, Ripoll-Nuñez & Rohner, 2006). To begin with, children may ascribe two tenable meanings to spanking, in particular, and physical discipline, in general. Children may see physical discipline either as a legitimate expression of parental authority, or an adult’s act of aggression (Gunnoe & Mariner, 1997). Dunn (1993) emphasized that it is also important to consider children’s perceptions of parenting because these influence how they interact with their parents and, consequently, with other children. Children’s perceptions of parenting have been shown to be related to children’s psychosocial adjustment, externalizing behavior, aggression, peer rejection, and popularity as a function of their impact on the parenting behavior that is being assessed (Gaylord et al., 2003). On the other hand, classic studies on physical discipline pointed to the significance of children’s understanding of punishment. Parke (1969) and Cheyne (1971), for instance, found that when children did not understand why they were being punished because no explanation was provided, high intensity punishment produced more response inhibition compared to low intensity punishment. Among the two facets of children’s cognition that researchers have more recently focused on are children’s perception of the normativeness of physical discipline, and children’s endorsement of physical discipline. The child’s perception of normativeness of physical discipline. The perception of normativeness of physical discipline refers to the child’s appraisal of whether physical discipline is being practiced by other parents in his or her community. Children assign meanings to parental behaviors and may see a parent’s action as a sign of acceptance or rejection (Rohner, 1986). Children who interpret parental behavior as a form of rejection are the ones who are at greater risk for negative outcomes (Lansford et al., 2005). This interpretation is anchored on whether the child sees that other parents in his or her community practice the same discipline method on their own children. Studies that focus on children’s perception of the normativeness of physical discipline are scarce. One study, however, has clearly illustrated the need to focus on this variable for future research work. The 2005 study by Lansford et al. that was mentioned in the preceding paragraph also investigated whether normativeness of physical discipline moderated the link between mothers’ use of physical discipline and children’s adjustment. Fifty Filipino mother-child dyads were among those who took part in the study. Preliminary data analysis revealed that mothers and children in the Philippines


generally perceived the use of physical discipline as moderate and normative. Furthermore, Lansford et al. (2005) tested the hypothesis that the association between parent’s use of physical discipline and child adjustment will be moderated by the mothers’ and the children’s perceptions of the normativeness of physical discipline, as well as the actual normativeness of physical discipline. This study found that when children perceived physical punishment as normative, parental use of physical discipline was less strongly related to undesirable negative child outcomes. The child’s endorsement of physical discipline. Aside from the child’s perception of the normativeness of physical discipline, the child’s endorsement of this disciplinary tactic also plays a role in the physical punishment-child outcome equation. In their study of 679 young, unmarried adults’ recollection of discipline incidents when they were children, Gaziano and Namaske (1990) found that majority of their sample (93.2%) experienced being physically punished when they were children and those who were physically punished held very accepting attitudes towards its use. Moreover, Gaziano and Namaske reported that those who held accepting attitudes towards physical punishment intend to carry on this disciplinary tactic when they become parents. Even if physical discipline is aversive, children may endorse its use because of perceived parental authority over them–a quality of power assertive techniques such as physical discipline (Hoffman, 1970). Subsequent to this, children may use this power assertive technique on other children. Hoffman added that power assertion provides a model of aggression that leads to antisocial or immoral conduct. Grusec and Goodnow’s Two-Process Approach in Children’s Internalization integrates social learning theory and cognitive, motivational, and affective factors to explain the child’s imitation of parental behaviors and internalization of values (Trommsdorff, 2006). Grusec and Goodnow (1994) highlighted the importance of the child’s accurate perception and acceptance of the parental message that comes during the disciplinary situation as a precursor to the child’s internalization of values. Internalization is defined as the process of taking over the values and attitudes of society as one’s own so that the production of socially acceptable behavior is influenced not by anticipation of external consequences but by intrinsic or internal factors. According to Grusec and Goodnow, in order for the child to internalize parental values following discipline, the child has to accurately perceive the message that the parent is trying to convey, and, subsequently, accept the parent’s message. In many disciplinary situations, failure of internalization occurs because the child may not accurately perceive the parent’s message, or the child rejects the parent’s message altogether. This model by

37

Grusec and Goodnow highlights children’s cognitive and emotional processes that are at work when they are being disciplined. Consequently, these cognitive and emotional processes impact on child adjustment. For instance, if children thought that their parent’s use of physical punishment is justified and saw it as a manifestation of their parent’s love for them, they may readily accept the parental discipline method of choice and the message (e.g., I am doing this because I want you to be a better person), and end up feeling cared for by their parents. Conversely, if the child interpreted physical punishment as unjustifiable, the child may reject the parental message and end up harboring ill feelings towards the parent. Hence, children’s interpretation of their parent’s behavior and the message that goes along with it should be given attention as this interpretation impact on child adjustment, not just parental behavior per se. Finally, factors that may account for the stability and change of children’s endorsement of physical punishment should also be given focus because earlier research involving prospective, longitudinal investigations has shown that parenting in one generation predicts parenting in the next from a modest to moderate degree. This “passing on” of parenting and parental discipline strategy is referred to as the intergenerational transmission of parenting (Belsky, Conger, & Capaldi, 2009).

Conclusion A child’s development involves the acquisition of culture and in so doing, the child continuously assimilates cultural messages, tacit or otherwise, from interactions with members of the community (Harkness & Super, 2002). Therefore, the child develops in a specific context, and it is imperative that researchers understand how the process in a given developmental niche impact on the child via the beliefs and behaviors that the child learns and the consequent meanings that these behaviors convey. One of those parental behaviors that affect child development is parental discipline, in general, and physical punishment, in particular. Researchers have found that parents employ physical discipline. In some cultures, the use of physical discipline in the domestic sphere by adults has veritably been found to be frequent, normative and expected. It can be surmised that in contexts where corporal punishment is generally accepted, it may be regarded as a requisite for the desired development of the child. This finding is very important in light of the proposed legislation in the Philippines to ban the use of corporal punishment in the household. Proposing for the abolition of cor poral punishment without providing parents with alternative disciplinary tactics that are grounded in the local

38


context may weaken the caregiving environment for both caregivers and children. Research has clearly illustrated that parental use of corporal punishment is associated significantly not only with positive outcomes of immediate compliance, but also with short-term and long-term negative consequences such as child externalizing behavior, aggression, problems in moral internalization, and poor cognitive capacity. This echoes Gershoff’s (2002a) contention that the use of physical punishment to obtain the compliance of the child could not outweigh the predicted negative consequences. And yet, social scientists continue to voice out varied stances with regard to the advantages or disadvantages of physical punishment. The varying research results and the sharp contradiction among researchers can be explained by the way past researchers operationally defined “physical punishment,” the way this variable was measured and how data was gathered, and to a large extent, the country from which the samples came. More importantly, however, the results of past research on physical punishment were varied because of the factors that impact on the relationship between physical punishment and child outcomes. These variables include culture, the family ecology, the parent-child relationship, parental characteristics and child characteristics. This paper emphasizes the necessity for future researchers to tease apart the variables and factors that often come into play in the physical discipline situation. Hence, while contemporary researchers focus on the link between physical punishment and child outcomes, they must also look into the variables that mediate and moderate the relationship between physical punishment and child outcomes. This paper highlights the powerful role of parents in shaping child adjustment. Parents discipline their children against a backdrop of cultural norms that dictate and instill parental goals and behaviors. Certainly, parent’s behaviors, including the use of physical punishment, impact on children. However, in keeping with the transactional theories of child development that emphasize that development does not happen in a vacuum, this paper also highlights the salient role that children’s cognition play in the shaping of their own developmental outcomes, thus demonstrating their active participation in parenting. Inasmuch as parents strongly influence their children’s adjustment through the intricate process of parenting, children’s cognition of parental discipline is equally pivotal to their development.

References Abolfotouh, M. A., El-Bourgy, M. D., Seif El Din, A. G., & Mehanna, A. A. (2009). Corporal punishment: Mother’s disciplinary behavior and child’s psychological profile in Alexandria, Egypt. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 5(1), 5-17. Alyahri, A., & Goodman, R. (2008). Harsh corporal punishment of Yemeni children: Occurrence, type and associations. Child Abuse and Neglect, 8, 766-773. Bandura, A. (1974). Behavior theory and the models of man. American Psychologist, 859-869. Barkin, S., Scheindlin, B., Ip, E. H., Richardson, I., & Finch, S. (2007). Determinants of parental discipline practices: A national sample from primary care practices. Clinical Pediatrics, 4(1), 64-49. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderatormediator va r iable dist i nct ion i n social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. Baumrind, D. (1996). A blanket injunction against disciplinary use of spanking is not warranted by the data. Pediatrics, 98, 828-832. Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55, 83-96. Belsky, J., Conger, R., & Capaldi, D. M. (2009). The intergenerational transmission of parenting: Closing comments for the special section. Developmental Psychology, 45(5), 1276-1283. Bornstein. M. H., & Cheah, C. S. L. (2006). The place of “Culture and Parenting” in the Ecological Contextual Perspective on Developmental Science. In K. H. Rubin & O.B. Chung (Eds.), Parenting beliefs, behaviors, and parent-child relation. (pp. 1-33). Madison Avenue, New York: Psychology Press. Brenner, V., & Fox, R. A. (1998). Parental discipline and behavior problems in young children. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 159(2), 251-256. Carunungan-Robles, A. (1986). Perceptions of parental nur t urance, punitiveness, and power by selected Filipino primary school children. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 19, 18-28. Chang, L., Dodge, K. A., Schwartz, D., & McBrideChang, C. (2003). Harsh parenting in relation to child emotion regulation and aggression. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(4), 598-606. Cheyne, J. A. (1971). Some parameters of punishment a f fe c t i ng r e si s t a n c e t o d ev iat io n a nd


ge ne r al i z at ion of a proh ibit ion. Child Development, 42, 1249-1261. Crouch, J. L. & Behl, L. E. (2001). Relationships among parental beliefs in cor poral punishment, reported stress, and physical child abuse potential. Child Abuse and Neglect, 25, 413-419. Day, R. D., Peterson, G.W., & McCracken, C. (1998) Predicting spanking of younger and older children by mothers and fathers. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 79-94. de la Cruz, M. T. C., Protacio, E., Balanon, A.G., Yacat, J., & Francisco, C. T. (2001) Trust and power: Child abuse in the eyes of the child and the parent. Quezon City: Save the Children UK and United Nations Fund. Deater-Deckard, K., & Dodge, K.A. (1997). Spare the rod, spoil the authors: Emerging themes in research on parenting and child development. Psychological Inquiry. 8(3), 230-235. Deater-Deckard, K., Pettit, G. S., Lansford, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Bates, J. E. (2003). The development of attitudes about physical punishment: An 8-year longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(3), 351-360. Dunn, J. (1993). Young children’s close relationships: Beyond attachment. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Fisher, P. A., & Fagot, B. I. (1993). Negative discipline in families: A multidimensional risk model. Journal of Family Psychology, 7(2), 250-254. Frankenberg, S. J., Holmqvist, R., & Rubensen, B. (2010). The care of corporal punishment: Conceptions of early childhood discipline strategies among parents and grandparents in a poor and urban area in Tanzania. Childhood, 17(4), 455-469. Fung, J. J., & Lau, A. S. (2009). Punitive discipline and child behavior problems in ChineseAmerican immigrant families: The moderating effects of indigenous child-rearing ideologies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33(6), 520-530. Gaylord, N. K., Kitzmann, K., & Coleman, J. K. (2003). Parents and children’s perceptions of parental behavior: Associations with children’s psychosocial adjustment in the classroom. Parenting: Science and Practice, 3(1), 23-47. Gershoff, E. T. (2002a). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analysis and theoretical review. American Psychological Association, 128(4), 539-579. Gershoff, E. T. (2002b). Corporal punishment, physical abuse, and the burden of proof: reply to

39

Baumrind, Larzelere, and Cowan (2002), Holden (2002), and Parke (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 602-611. Giles-Sims, J., Strauss, M. A., & Sugarman, D. B. (1995). Child, maternal, and family characteristics associated with spanking. Family Relations, 44, 170-176. Gracia, E. & Herero, J. (2008). Is it considered violence?: The acceptability of physical punishment of children in Europe. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 210-217. Graziano, A. M., & Namaste, K. A. (1990). Parental use of physical force in child discipline: A survey of 679 college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5(4), 449-463. Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the child’s internalization of values: A reconceptualization of current points of view. Developmental Psychology, 30(1), 4-19. Gunnoe, M. L., & Mariner, C. L. (1997). Toward a developmental-contextual model of the effects of parental spanking on children’s aggression. Archives of Pediat rics and Adolescent Medicine, 151, 768 – 775. Guthrie, G. M., & Jacobs, P. J. (1967). Child rearing and personality development in the Philippines. Manila: Bookmark, Inc. Harkness, S., & Super, C. M. (2002). Culture and parenting. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 2: Biology and ecology of parenting (2nd ed., pp. 253-280). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hart, C. H., Nelson, D. A., Robinson, C. C., Olsen, S. F., & McNeilly-Choque, M. K. (1998). Overt and relational aggression in Russian nurseryschool aged children: Parenting style and marital linkages. Developmental Psychology, 34, 687-697. Hoffman, M. L. (1970). Conscience, personality, and socialization techniques. Human Development, 13, 90-126. Jimenez, M. C. (1976). The development of moral judgment in Filipino urban children. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 9, 3-34. Jutengren, G., & Palmerus, K. (2002). A comparison of Swedish and US fathers’ self-reported use of parental discipline. Children & Society, 16, 246-259. Kilgore, K., Snyder, J., & Lentz, C. (2000). The contribution of parental discipline, parental monitoring, and school risk to early-onset conduct problems in African American boys and girls. Developmental Psychology, 36(6), 835-845.

40


Kremer, M., Smith, A. B., & Lawrence, J. A. (2010). Family discipline incidents: An analysis of parental diaries. Journal of Family Studies, 16(3), 251-263. Lansford, J. E., Chang, L., Dodge, K. A., Malone, P. S., Oburu, P., Palmerus, K.,…Quinn, N. (2005). Physical discipline and children’s adjustment: Cultural normativeness as a moderator. Child Development, 76(6), 1234-1246. Lansford, J. E., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., Criss, M. M., Shaw, D. S., & Bates, J. E. (2009). Trajectories of physical discipline: Early childhood antecedents and developmental outcomes. Child Development, 80(5), 13851402. Lansford, J. E., Alampay, L. P., Al-Hasaan, S., Bacchini, D., Bombi, A. S., Bornstein, M. H.,… Zelli, A. (2010). Corporal punishment of children in nine countries as a function of child gender and parent gender. International Journal of Pediatrics, 1-12. Lansford, J. E., Malone, P. S., Dodge, K. A., Change, L., Chaudhary, N., Tapanya, S.,… Deater-Deckard, K. (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 Behavioral Development, 34(5), 452-461. Larzelere, R. E. (1996). A review of the outcomes of parental use of nonabusive or customary physical punishment. Pediatrics, 98, 824–828. Larzelere, R.E. (2000). Child outcomes of nonabusive and customary physical punishment by parents: An updated literature review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 3(4), 199-221. Larzelere, R. E., & Kuhn, B. (2005). Comparing child outcomes of physical punishment and alter native disciplinar y tactics: A metaanalysis. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Reviews, 8(1), 1-37. Leary, C., Kelley, M. L., Morrow, J. & Mikulka, P. J. (2007). Parental use of physical punishment as related to family environment, psychological well-being and personality in undergraduates. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 1-7. Licuanan, P. B. (1979). Aspects of child rearing in an urban low-income community. Philippine Studies, 27, 453-468. Liwag, M. A. C., de la Cruz, A. S., & Macapagal, M. E. J. (1998). How we raise our daughters and sons: Child-rearing and gender socialization in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 31, 1-46. Lombardo, L. X. & Polonko, K. A. (2005). A comparative analysis of the corporal punishment of children:

An exploration of human rights and U.S. Law. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 29(2), 173-200. Lonigan, C. J., Elber t, J. C., & Joh nson, S. B. (1998). Empirically supported psychosocial interventions for children: An overview. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 138–145. Lynch, S. K., Turkheimer, E., D’Onofrio, B. M., Mendle, J., Emery, R. E., & Slutske, W. S., et al., (2006) A genetically-informed strudy of the association between harsh punishment and offspring behavioral problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(2), 190-198. Mathurin, M. N., Gielen, U. P., & Lancaster, J. (2006). Corporal punishment and personality traits in the children of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Cross-Cultural Research, 40(3), 306-324. McCord, J. (1996). Unintended consequences of punishment. Pediatrics, 98(4), 832-834. Mckee, L., Roland, E., Coffelt, N., Olson, A. L., Forehand, R., Massari, C., Zen, M. S. (2007). Harsh discipline and child problem behaviors: The roles of positive parenting and gender. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 187-196. McKinney, C., Milone, M. C., & Renk, K. (2011). Parenting and late adolescent emotional adjustment: Mediating effects of discipline and gender. Child Psychiatry Human Development, 42, 463-481. McLoyd, V. C., Kaplan, R., Hardaway, C. R., & Wood, D. (2007). Does endorsement of physical discipline matter? Assessing moderating influences on the maternal and child psychological correlated of physical discipline in African American families. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(2), 165-175. Miner, J. L., & Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (2008). Trajectories of externalizing behavior from age 2 to 9: relations with gender, temperament, ethnicity, parenting and rater. Developmental Psychology, 44(3), 771-786. Miner, J. L., & Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (2008). Trajectories of externalizing behavior from age 2 to 9: relations with gender, temperament, ethnicity, parenting and rater. Developmental Psychology, 44(3), 771-786. Mulvaney, M. K., & Mebert, C. J. (2007) Parental cor poral pu n ish ment predicts behavior problems in early childhood. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(3), 389. Newsom, C., Favell, J. E., & Rincover, A. (1983). Side effects of punishment. In S. Axelrod & J. Apsche (Eds.), The effects of punishment


on human behavior (pp.285-316). New York: Academic Press. O’Leary, S. G. (1995) Parental discipline mistakes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 11-14. Owens, D. J., & Straus, M. A. (1979). The social structure of violence in childhood and approval of violence as an adult. Aggressive Behavior, 1, 193-211. Paolucci, E. O., & Violato, C. (2004). A meta-analysis of the published research on the affective, cognitive, and behavioral effects of corporal punishment. The Journal of Psychology, 138(3), 197-221.

41

Rohner, R.P. (1986). The warmth dimension: Foundations of parental acceptance-rejection theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rothbaum, F. & Weisz, J. R. (1994). Parental caregiving and child externalizing behavior in nonclinical samples: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 55-74. Sadock, B. J., & Sadock, V. A. (2003). Synopsis of psychiatry: Behavioral Sciences/Clinical Psychiatry, 9th ed. Philadelphia, U.S.A: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Sanapo, M. S., & Nakamura, Y. (2010). Gender and physical punishment: The Filipino children’s experience. Child Abuse Review, 20(1), 39-56.

Parke, R. D. (1969). Effectiveness of punishment as an interaction of intensity, timing, agent nurturance, and cognitive structuring. Child Development, 40, 213-235.

Save the Children Sweden. (2008). Ending all forms of corporal punishment of children: Corporal punishment in the Philippines. [Brochure]. Ong, M., Domingo, J., & Balanon, F. G.: Authors.

Parke, R. D., Dennis, J., Flyr, M. L., Morris, K. L., Leidy, M. S., & Schofield, T.J. (2005) Fathers: Cultural and ecological perspectives. In T. Luster & L., Okagaki (Eds.), Parenting: An ecological perspective, 2nd ed. (pp. 103-144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers.

Smith, A. (2004). What do children learn from being smacked?: Messages from social science theory and research. Journal of Children’s Issues Center, 8(2), 7-15. [abstract]

Payet, J. P. & Franchi, V. (2008). The rights of the child and “the good of the learners”: A comparative ethnographical survey on the abolition of corporal punishment in South African schools. Childhood, 15(2), 157-176. Polaha, J., Larzelere, R. E., Shapiro, S. K., Pettit, G. S. (2004). Physical discipline and child behavior problems: A study of ethnic group differences. Parenting: Science and Practice, 4(4), 339-360. Ramiro, L., Madrid, B., Perez, E., & Lozada, D. (2005). Understanding child discipline and child abuse in the Filipino context: Comparing perspectives of parents, children, professional and communit y lea de rs. Q uezon Cit y, Philippines: Plan Philippines and University of the Philippines-Child Protection Unit. Ripoll-Nuňez, K. J. & Rohner, R. P. (2006). Corporal punishment in cross-cultural perspective: Directions for a research agenda. Cross Cultural Research, 40(3), 220-249. Rizal, J. (1996). Noli me tangere. (M. S. Lacson-Locsin, Trans.) Makati City, Philippines: Bookmark, Inc. (Original work published 1886) Rohner, R. P., Kean, K. J., & Cournoyer, D. E. (1991). Effects of corporal punishment, perceived caretaker warmth, and cultural beliefs on the psychological adjustment of children in St. Kitts, West Indies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 681-693.

Stevenson, H. W., Chen, C., & Lee, S. (1992). Chinese families. In J. L. Roopnarine & D. B. Carter (Eds.), Parent-child socialization in diverse cultures: Advances in applied developmental psychology (pp. 17-33). Norwood, MA: Alex. Straus, M. A., Sugarman, D. B., & Giles-Sims, J. (1997). Spanking by parents and subsequent antisocial behavior of children. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescents Medicine, 151, 761–767. Straus, M. A., & Paschall, M. J. (2009). Corporal punishment by mothers and development of children’s cognitive ability: A longitudinal study of two nationally representative age cohorts. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 18(5), 459-483. Tennant, F. S., Jr., Detels, R. & Clark, V. (1975). Some childhood antecedents of drug and alcholol abuse. American Journal of Epidemiology, 102, 377-385. Thompson, R. A., Christiansen, E. H., Jackson, S., Wyatt, J. M., Colman, R. A., Peterson, R. L., Wilcox, B. L., & Buckendahl, C. W. (1999). Parent attitudes and discipline practices: Profiles and correlates in a nationally representative sample. Child Maltreatment, 4(4), 316-330. Trommsdorff, G. (2006). Parent-child relations over the lifespan: A cross-cultural perspective. In K. H. Rubin & O. B. Chung (Eds.), Parenting beliefs, behaviors, and parent-child relation. (pp. 143-183). Madison Avenue, New York: Psychology Press.

42


Van Leeuwen, K. G., Mervielde, I., Braet, C., & Bosmans, G. (2004). Child personality and parental behavior as moderators of problem behavior: Variable-and Child-Centered Approaches. Developmental Psychology, 40(6), 1028-1046. Wissow, L. S. (2001). Ethnicity, income, and parenting contexts of physical punishment in a national sample of families with young children. Child Maltreatment, 6(2), 118-129. WorldSAFE. (2004). World Studies of Abuse in Family Environments. Retrieved January 29, 2009, from http://www.inclen.org/research/ ws.html#Pilot.