Conservative Protestantism and the Parental Use of Corporal Punishment Author(s): Christopher G. Ellison, John P. Bartkowski, Michelle L. Segal Source: Social Forces, Vol. 74, No. 3 (Mar., 1996), pp. 1003-1028 Published by: University of North Carolina Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2580390 Accessed: 27/01/2010 00:24 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uncpress . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. University of North Carolina Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Forces. http://www.jstor.org
Conservative Protestantism and the Parental Use of Corporal PunishmentAuthor(s): Christopher G. Ellison, John P. Bartkowski, Michelle L. SegalSource: Social Forces, Vol. 74, No. 3 (Mar., 1996), pp. 1003-1028Published by: University of North Carolina PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2580390
Accessed: 27/01/2010 00:24
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
The use of corporal punishmentto disciplinechildren has been the focus ofperennialpopularand academiccontroversy seeLarzelere 994;Straus1994a,1994b).Although physical punishment s stronglysupportedandwidely usedby Americanparents (Straus& Gelles1986;Wauchope& Straus1990),criticsclaim that corporalpunishment rainschildren n violence (1) by teaching hatit is appropriate or powerfulpersonsto subordinateothersby using physicalforce, (2) by teaching that feelings of frustrationand anger justify the use ofviolence,and (3) by establishingan association n a youngster'smindbetween
love and violence(Gray1988;Maurer1974;Straus1991).Consistentwith sucharguments, ome researchndicatesthat children ubjected o corporalpunish-ment tend to be more aggressivewith peers and others than children whoexperience alternative orms of discipline (Hotaling,Straus & Lincoln1990;Straus1991).There s also evidence thatpersonswho arespankedor slappedfrequently n childhoodmaybe more likely to use corporalpunishmentand to
i) The University of North CarolinaPress Social Forces, March1996,74(3):1003-1028
* Portions of this study were presented at the 1994 meetings of the Association for theSociology of Religion, Los Angeles, and the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion,
Albuquerque.Theauthors thankNorval Glenn,GeorgeHolden,Paula Nesbitt,Daniel Powers,and two anonymous reviewersfor helpful comments.Theauthors are solely responsiblefortheanalyses and interpretationspresentedhere.Direct correspondence o ChristopherG. Ellison,Departmentof Sociology, 336 BurdineHall, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712-1088.
engage in harshparentingand domesticabuse as adults (Egeland, acobvitz&Papatola1987;Simons et al. 1991;Simons et al. 1993).In addition,even mild to
moderate orporalpunishment an sometimescauseseriousphysical njuries oyoung children (Taylor & Maurer 1985), and incidents that begin as mildpunishment can escalate into abusive encounters.Further, ome researchershave relatedharshforms of physical punishmentto negative developmentaloutcomes, ncludingdelinquency, sychopathology,cademic ailure, ubstanceabuse, and others (Eckenrode,Laird & Doris 1993;Maccoby& Martin1983;Wolfe 1987). Indeed, some studies suggest that the experienceof corporalpunishment even inclines children toward criminal violence in adulthood(Straus1991;Widom1989).
Given these and other concerns,researchershave worked to identify the
socialantecedentsof corporalpunishment.Forinstance,manyhave hypothe-sized (1)thatworking-classparents upportanduse corporalpunishmentmorethantheirmiddle-andupper-class ounterpartse.g.,Bronfenbrenner958),and(2)thatAfricanAmericanparentssupportand use corporalpunishmentmorethan theirwhite counterparts e.g., Alvy 1987).Todate, however,theempiricalevidence on both points remainsdecidedlymixed (Cazenave& Straus1990;Duvall & Booth1979;Erlanger 974).
Until recently, one importantsource of cultural support for corporalpunishment eceivedshortshrift romresearchers:eligion.n anearlyexceptionto this general patternof neglect, Erlanger 1974)analyzed retrospectivedatacollected n the 1960s,and he noted thatBaptists 1)were morelikelyto reportthat they had been spankedoften as children,and (2) as adults,were morelikelyto approveofspanking n general hanotherrespondents.Although hesereligious differenceswere substantial n magnitude, hey received only briefdiscussion n thatstudy - which was devotedmainlyto social class differencesin corporal punishment - and they were largely ignored by subsequentresearchers.
Since the publicationof Erlanger's(1974) article, several studies haverenewedscholarlyfocus on religiousvariations n attitudestowardcorporal
punishment,with particular ttention o the distinctiveviews of ConservativeProtestants.1 or instance, analyzingdata on a nonrandom ampleof churchmembers from portions of Kentuckyand Ohio, Wiehe (1990) reportedthatindividualsaffiliatedwith ConservativeProtestant hurchesaremorelikelytoview corporalpunishmentas anappropriate esponse o childmisbehavior hanare membersof moreliberalreligious groups. AlthoughWiehe did not gaugethe theologicalbeliefs of his respondentsdirectly,he arguedthatthe churchesthat he classified as conservativealso tend to endorseliteralistor inerrantistviews of theBible,and he suggestedthatthese beliefscontribute o pro-corporalpunishmentattitudes.
Followinga similar ine of argument,Grasmick ndcolleagues (Grasmick,Bursik& Kimpel 1991; Grasmick,Morgan& Kennedy 1992) used data onsamples of OklahomaCity adults to show that membersof ConservativeProtestantdenominations reespecially nclinedto favorcorporalpunishmentin homes and schools. In one of these studies, Grasmick,Bursik,and Kimpel(1991)examined the scripturalbeliefs of their respondentsdirectly,and theyconcluded that high levels of ConservativeProtestantsupport for corporal
punishmentare largely accounted or by the tendencyof ConservativeProtes-tants to embrace iteralist nterpretaiions f the Bible.
Analyzingdata from the 1988 GeneralSocialSurveys,EllisonandSherkat(1993a)also reportedthatthe membersof ConservativeProtestantdenomina-tions supported corporalpunishment more strongly than other Americans.Moreover,they found that the relationshipbetweenConservativeProtestantdenominational ffiliationand support or corporalpunishments mediatedbythreekey theological enets: 1) the belief thatthe Bibleshould be interpreted sthe literalWordof God;(2)the belief thathumannature s fundamentally infuland corrupt;and (3) the belief that persons who violate God's rules must bepunished. In anotherstudy, Ellison and Sherkat (1993b)showed that thiscomplexof theologicalbeliefsalsoaccounts orthedisproportionateConserva-
tive Protestantsupport for "authority-minded" arentalvalues - i.e., thetendencyto emphasizeobedience n childrearing.
Althoughthese recent investigationshave shed new light on a neglectedtopic,theyfocusexclusivelyon attitudesowardcorporalpunishment mongthegeneralpublic.Consequently,hey provideno directevidence hatConservativeProtestantparentsthemselvesactuallyusephysicaldisciplinemore often thanotherparents.Ourstudy augmentsthe literature n this area n several ways.We begin by reviewing "insiderdocuments"on the topic - popularchild-rearingmanualsby conservative eligiouscommentators to develop a seriesof theoreticalargumentslinking ConservativeProtestantismwith corporalpunishment.We thenexplorethese ideasusing data from the 1987-88NationalSurveyof Familiesand Households(hereafterNSFH).Ourworkcenterson theparents of toddlersand preschoolers childrenaged 14), and the parentsofgrade school-agedchildren (childrenaged 5-11).We considerthe influenceofseveral sets of factors- ConservativeProtestantaffiliationand conservativetheology, parental and household characteristics, hild characteristicsandbehaviors,and parentalchild-rearing alues - on the frequencywith whichparentsuse corporalpunishment o disciplinespecificchildren. n theconclud-ing section of the article,we discuss severalpromisingdirections or future
researchon the links between ConservativeProtestantism ndchilddiscipline.
Conservative ProtestantTheology and Child Discipline
Why might ConservativeProtestantparentsuse corporal punishmentmorefrequently than other parents? Following the methodologicalcounsel ofMcNamara 1985),we turn to an understudiedset of insiderdocuments,thesubstantialbody of popularchild-rearingmanualsproducedand distributedprimarilywithin ConservativeProtestant ommunities ince the late 1960s(fordetailson this literature, ee Bartkowski&Ellison1995).Best-selling ontribu-
tors to this literature nclude such conservative uminariesas JamesDobson(1970,1976, 1987),founder of the Focus on the Family organization,BeverlyLaHaye 1977), ounderof ConcernedWomen orAmerica,notedconservativeChristian radio television evangelist Chuck Swindoll (1991), and MarlinMaddoux(1992),presidentof the USARadioNetwork,among manyothers.2
A carefulreviewof thesepopularConservativeProtestantmanualsrevealsa clear andgenerallycoherent heologicalrationaleunderlying upportfor the
corporal punishmentof children (see Ellison & Bartkowski1996;Ellison &Sherkat1993a).Conservative eligiousbeliefsabout therightandresponsibility
of parentsto discipline childrenwith physicalforce commonlybeginwith theview thatthe Bible s the inerrantWordofGod, the ultimatesourceof authorityand guidance regarding every aspect of human life, including child rearing(Dobson 1970:197 and 1976:234-35;Fugate 1980:262-63;LaHaye 1977:145).Religiousscripture s widely regardedas purposivedivine communicationwithhumanity,and therefore t is oftenpresumedto containreliableand sufficientinformation to guide the conduct of all human affairs. However, the implica-tions of the doctrine of inerrancy for families, politics, and other humanendeavors are perenniallycontested among ConservativeProtestants(e.g.,Barnhart1993; Lindsell 1976). The theological and social meanings associated
with biblical inerrancy are debated, produced, and disseminated by way ofinterpretive communities, or loose networks of theologians, pastors, and elite
laity who share fundamental assumptions about the text (see Boone 1989).
The doctrine of biblical inerrancy is crucial for several reasons. First,
contemporary constructions of inerrancy typically emphasize the ubiquity and
divinely ordained nature of spiritual and worldly authority relations and
articulate the principle that Christians should submit themselves to the
leadership of duly constituted authorities in every area of life - church, family,school, workplace, and government (Ammerman 1987; McNamara 1985; Rose
1988). However, perhaps nowhere is this "authority-mindedness" (Wald, Owen
& Hill 1989) clearer than in the popular literature on child rearing and familylife. According to Conservative Protestant authors, families are characterizedby
specific patterns of authority relations (superordinate and subordinate roles) that
should always remain unchallenged (Bartkowski & Ellison 1995).The primary responsibility of children is to obey parental directives; in turn,
parents are admonished to fulfill their obligations as authority figures rather
than abrogating their leadership role within the family (see Christenson 1970;Fugate 1980). In support of these views, Conservative Protestant commentatorsmarshal an impressive array of scriptural passages in which children are
expectedto honor and obey parentalauthority Exodus20:12;Ephesians6:1-2;1 Timothy 3:4-5), under threat of divine judgment (Exodus 21:15-17;Deuter-onomy 21:18-21;Proverbs 30:17).
In addition to this preoccupation with themes of hierarchy and authority
relations, contemporary constructions of biblical inerrancy draw heavily on Old
Testament passages to emphasize themes of human sin and punishment (see
Ellison &Sherkat1993a, 1993b).Conservative Protestant commentators on child
rearing argue that all individuals are born sinful (Psalms 51:5, 58:3) - that is,
predisposed toward selfish conduct and inclined to rejectauthority in all forms
(Christenson 1970:95-98; LaHaye 1977:3;Maddoux 1992:19-20).3For instance,Chuck Swindoll (1991) encourages parents to combat the "foolishness ... bound
up in the heart of a child" (Proverbs 22:15)with "diligent discipline" (Proverbs
13:24):
"Foolishness"oundsrathermischievous nd mpish .. somewhatightheartednd fun-loving.But the Hebrewssaw it as far moreserious."The ool hassaid in his heart Thereis no God"' (Psalm 14:1).The "foolish"possess a God-mocking, nstruction-hatingnature.Fools, therefore,despise discipline.Foolishnesshas a disrespect or authority.
Conservative Protestantism and Corporal Punishment / 1007
Determinedo go its own way, it resistsall reproof.And remember, ll this 'is boundupin the heart of a child"- yourchild (88, emphasis n original).
Beverly LaHaye (1977) sounds an even shriller alarm:
[God]gave eachof us a free will to choose evil or good,and the childthat is not trainedto choosegoodwill undoubtedly hooseevl.... Itis of greatbenefit o theparentwhenhe realizesthat it is natural or his child to have a desire forevil. The child is not justbeingobstinateanduncooperative ut is following hatnaturaldesire o learnmoreaboutand to experience vil(3,emphasis n original).
According to Conservative Protestant parenting specialists, "willful
defiance" is virtually inevitable among children, particularly toddlers, and such
defiance carries dangerous long-term consequences if unchecked. They believethat without appropriate discipline, children will grow up lacking respect for
parents and other authority figures, nurturing rebellious tendencies that will
make them unfit citizens, unproductive workers, and unhappy spouses and
1977:2).Although Conservative Protestantchild-rearing specialists extol the value of
stem discipline - and particularly corporal punishment - on instrumental or
pragmatic grounds, for securing behavioral conformity and training children for
adulthood, most also believe that this form of punishment conveys an important
religious lesson to youngsters about the nature of God. In brief, they argue thatparents symbolize God's authority to children, and that many children come to
conceptualize or envision God, and to understand their relationship to God,
through parental imagery (e.g., LaHaye 1977:69;Swindoll 1991:95).Consequent-
ly, these commentators conclude that while parents must teach their children by
example that God is kind and loving, it is equally important to communicate by
example the swift and uncompromising nature of divine punishment (Christen-son 1970:99-100;Dobson 1976:171-72;Fugate 1980:4142).
A crucial part of the Conservative Protestant rationale for firm child
discipline involves the imperative of conversion (Ellison & Sherkat 1993a;
Greven 1977). If the sinful tendencies of youngsters go unchecked, their verysouls are believed to be in jeopardy. Many Conservative Protestants fear that if
children have not been trained to submit to worldly authority figures, they will
also be unable or unwilling to submit themselves to God's supreme authorityand guidance, a key requisite of salvation (Daugherty 1991:72;Fugate 1980:190;
LaHaye 1977:132).These eternal implications of child discipline are underscored
vividly by Dobson (1976:172-73):
If a little child is taughtto disrespectheauthority fhisparents, ystematicallyrom hetenderyearsof childhood to mock their eadership,o "sass" hemand disobeytheir
instructions,o exercise xtreme elf-will romthe earliestmomentsof awareness thenit is mostunlikelythat this same child will turn his faceup to God,abouttwenty yearslater,andsay humbly,"HereI am, Lord; end me!"Torepeat,a childearns oyield o theauthority fGodbyfirst earningo submitratherhanbargain)o the eadershipfhisparents.(emphasisadded)
Given such distinctive and strongly held views on sin and its consequences,
religious conservatives stress the urgent need for parents to begin "shaping the
wills" of theirchildren at an early age. Virtuallyall ConservativeProtestantwriters agree that Christianparentsare morally obligatedto use physical
"chastisement"with the "rod' becausethis is the primarybiblicallyordainedresponse to overt challenges to parental authority (Daugherty 1991:67-68;LaHaye 1977:14547;Lessin1979:24;Swindoll 1991:85-88).n supportof thisclaim, they refer to numerous scripturalpassages that they interpretasencouraging he use of physicalforce to shape the will of children(2 Samuel7:14;Proverbs23:13-14,29:15;Hebrews12:6-8; ee Greven 1990:52-55 or analternative eadingof thesepassages).
Althoughthere s broadconsensusamongConservativeProtestantparent-ing writers hatcorporalpunishments a necessaryand importantpartof childrearing, t bearsmentioningthat thereis less agreementon other issues. For
instance,a few writerscountenance he expansiveuse of corporalpunishmentfor virtuallyany offense,reasoning hatmostdisciplinarynfractions ltimatelyconstitute disobedienceof one sort or another(e.g.,Fabrizio1969),and somedecline to rule out the use of physical punishment o disciplinechildrenofalmostany age, includingadolescents(e.g., Fugate1980).However,the mostprominentconservativereligiouswriters(Dobson1976, 1987;Swindoll1991)advocatecorporalpunishmentprimarily f not exclusivelyto confrontwillfuldefiance, mainly by toddiers. Dobson (1976, 1987) also suggests that thefrequencyof physicalpunishments hould diminishaschildrengrowolder anddevelop appropriatenternalbehavioral ontrols,and he explicitlydiscourages
strategies, ncluding positivereinforcement,o build a child'sself-esteemandmaximizecompliance Dobson1976:78; aHaye1977:141-42;windoll1991:104-5), naturalor logical consequencesas punishment or childish irresponsibility(e.g., Dobson 1976:32), nd other techniques.
The foregoing review of popular ConservativeProtestantchild-rearingliterature uggestsseveralguidinghypothesesregarding eligiousdifferencesnthe physical punishment of children. First, because conservative churchcommunities are likely to encourageand support the use of "traditional'parentingpracticesby theirmembers,we expectthat membersof ConservativeProtestantdenominationswill use corporalpunishmentmore often than otherAmericanparents.Second, given the argumentsdeveloped above,we expectthattheologicalconservatism especiallybeliefthat the Bible s inerrantandshould guide all human affairs - will be positively associated with thefrequency of corporal punishment and that the estimated net effects ofdenominational ffiliationwill be mediatedvia theologicalconservatism.
Third, given the concern over human sinfulnessamong many religiousconservatives,t is possiblethat the links between ConservativeProtestantism
and physical punishmentwill be partlymediatedvia parents'assessmentsofchild behavioralpatterns. Fourth, n light of the focus on intergenerationalhierarchy n conservativereligiouschild-rearingmanuals,we expectthat thelinks between indicators of ConservativeProtestantism bothaffiliationandtheologicalconservatism) ndcorporalpunishmentwill be partlymediatedviaparentalvalues that emphasizechildren's obedience. The remainderof thisarticledesignsand executesan empirical est of thesehypotheses.
To explore the relationshipsbetween ConservativeProtestantismand theparentaluse of corporalpunishmentto disciplinetoddlersand preschoolers(ages14) andgradeschool-agedchildren ages5-11),we analyzedatafromtheNSFH.Directedby sociologistsat theUniversityof Wisconsin-Madisonuring1987-88(for details, see Sweet, Bumpass& Call 1988),the NSFH is a cross-sectionalnationalprobability ampleof 13,017men and women 19 yearsoldand over. This includes oversamplesof blacks,PuertoRicansand MexicanAmericans, ingle-parentamilies,amilieswith stepchildren,ohabiting ouples,and recentlymarriedpersons.
The NSEHdataareidealfor the purposesat hand,and superior o thedataused in most prior studies, for severalreasons.First,findings from a largenationalprobability ampleare morereliableand generalizable hanfindingsfrom smallercommunitysamplesor from conveniencesamples.Second,theNSEHdataset includesinformation n theConservativeProtestantdenomina-tional ties and scripturalbeliefsof primaryparentalrespondents,along withextensive nformation n otherparental ndhouseholdcharacteristics.hird, heNSFH nstrument ncludesa series of questionsaboutfocalchildrenwho were
selectedat random from the rosterof householdmembers.By using dataonthese focal children,we are able to investigatethe frequencywith whichcorporalpunishment s used to disciplineparticularyoungsters.Further, he
NSFHpermitsus to considerweekly requenciesrather than the less preciseannual r lifetimemeasures hat aresometimesused in researchon this topic.
Moreover,we arealsoable toconsider heeffectsof variouschild character-isticsandbehaviorson the frequencyof corporalpunishment.Ouranalysesarerestrictedo theprimaryrespondingparentsof focaltoddlersandpreschoolersandfocalgradeschool-aged hildren.Theseanalysesarepresented equentially.Data areweightedto account orthe differential robability f selection n both
the sampleand the household,as well as biases in responserates.
DEPENDENTVARIABLE:FREQUENCYOF CORPORALPUNISHMENT
Theparentsof focal childrenwere askedthe followingquestions:"Sometimeschildren behave well and sometimes they don't. Have you had to spank[FOCALCHILD]when [he/she] behavedbadlyin thepastweek?"Thosewho
respondedaffirmativelywere then asked "Abouthow many timeshave youhadto spank[FOCALCHILD]n the pastweek?"Consistentwith thefindingsof previousresearch(e.g.,Wauchope& Straus1990),corporalpunishment s
employedmorefrequentlyon toddlersandpreschoolershanon older children.Roughly52%of the parentsof focal childrenaged14 reportedusing corporalpunishmentduringthe week priorto the interview,with 20%spankingtheirchild once. To reduce skewness,we truncate his variableso thatthe highestresponsecategory s "sixor more"spankingsper week; approximately %oftheparental espondents eportedusingcorporalpunishmenthisfrequently.nthe analyses that follow, we use ordinary least squares (OLS)regression
techniques o estimatethe effectsof religiousvariablesand covariateson thisoutcomemeasure.
Amongtheparentsof gradeschool-agedchildren, ome23%of theparentsreported using corporal punishment during the week prior to the NSFHinterview. Most of these parents(18%of the total) spankedonce. Given theradicallyskewed distributionof theseresponses,we constructa dichotomousvariable o distinguish hoseparentswho usedcorporalpunishment rom thosewho did not. Because he limitationsof OLSregression echniques ormodelingdichotomousoutcomesare well known,we use logisticregression,n which thedependentvariable s the natural og of the odds of a given responsecategory(e.g., spankingversusnot spanking)(Aldrich& Nelson 1984).
KEY INDEPENDENTVARIABLESCONSVATW PROTESrANTUM
A dummy variableis used to identify persons affiliated with ConservativeProtestant hurches,ncludingthefollowing groups:SouthernBaptist, ndepen-dentBaptist,other fundamentalistBaptist Primitive,FoursquareGospel, etc.),Church of Christ, Church of God, Independentor Open Bible churches,Adventist, Alliance Church,Church of God in Christ,Assemblies of God,Pentecostal,Holiness, Apostolic, and other fundamentalistor evangelicalchurches.'
Theologicalonseratism
Tomeasure hetypesof beliefsregarding eligiousscripture hatwere discussedearlier,we use a two-item ndex(r = .73,p < .001,Cronbach's lpha=.85)basedon respondents'agreementwith the following statements: 1) "TheBible isGod's word and everythinghappened or will happen exactly as it says."(2)"TheBible is the answer to all importanthumanproblems."Responsestoeach item rangefrom (1) "stronglydisagree" o (5) "stronglyagree,"and themeanscore is used as our indicatorof theologicalonservatism.5
CONTROLVARIABLES
ChildBehaviors
Ouranalyses ncludeseveralvariables appingparental eportsof thefrequencywith which the focal child exhibited various types of behaviors,moods, anddemeanors during the three months prior to the NSFH interview.Primaryrespondingparents of focal childrenaged 14 were read a list of ten suchbehaviors,including (1) "Isfussy or irritable"; 2) "Loses emper asily"; (3)"Bullies, r is cruel or meanto others";and (4)Obeys r "doeswhat you ask."For each statement,responsecategorieswere (1) "not true,"(2) "sometimes
true,"and (3)"often rue."6Primary espondingparentsof olderchildrenwereread a similar ist of behaviors(withidenticalresponsecategories), xceptthat"fussyor irritable"was not includedon theirlist. Inpreliminaryanalyses,weexploredthe associationbetween the otherchild behaviorson these lists (e.g.,"feels sad or depressed,""feels fearful or anxious," "gets along well withothers," "tries new things") and the frequency with which children are
subjected o corporalpunishment.We detectedno relationshipsbetween theseadditionalchild behaviorsand the frequencyof corporalpunishment.
Authority-MindedarentalValues
To gauge parents'valuationof obedienceby theirchildren,we used a two-itemindex.As partof a largerbatteryof traits,parentswere asked how important tis fortheirchildren o "always ollow familyrules"and to "alwaysdo what youask."Responsecategories ange rom (1)"notatall important"o (7) "extremelyimportant."We note that these parentalvalues items differ somewhat fromthose used in many previous studies (Alwin 1984;Ellison & Sherkat1993b), nwhich respondentswere asked to rank the importanceof a series of childcharacteristics.The two items identified above are combined into an index(r=.55, p <.001, Cronbach'sa -.71), and the mean score is our indicator ofauthority-mindedarentalalues.
RespondentndHousehold haracteristics
We can haveconfidence n ourfindingson therelationships etweenConserva-tive Protestantismand the use of corporal punishmentby primary parentalrespondents only when we have controlled for the potentially confoundingeffects of a range of sociodemographic nd background actors, ncluding thefollowing: age of respondent (in years); gender of respondent (1 =female);
race/ethnicityof parent(1=black, =Hispanic, =white/Anglo);totalhouseholdincome in tens of thousands of 1986 dollars, logged); parent'seducationinyears);numberof children ounger han5 in the household (besidesthe focalpreschooler); umberof childrenged5 andolder n the household(besidesthefocal child);and the primary parental respondent'smarital status (1=singleparent).7
ChildCharacteristics
In addition, we also include dummy variables to identify the child's sex
(1=female hild), as wellas
to indicate whetherthe
focalchild is a
stepchild(1=stepchild)r an adoptedchild (1=adopted).n the analysesof focaltoddlersandpreschoolers,we use dummyvariables o identifythechild'sage (1=age4,1 =age 3, 1 =age 1, 0 =age 2), becausepreliminaryanalysesindicatedthat theestimatedeffects of age on thefrequencyof corporalpunishments curvilinearfor childrenof thisage group.We alsoinvestigated he associationbetweenageand corporalpunishmentfor older children and found the relationship o begenerally inear.Thereforewe includea linearageeffect n the modelsforgradeschool-agedchildren.Means and standarddeviationsof the variablesused inthe finalanalysesaredisplayedin Table1.
A NOTE ON MISSINGDATA
As a rule, valid sample means are substituted for missing values on mostpredictorvariables in orderto maximize the effectivesamplesize. Ancillaryanalysesshow that this meansubstitutionproceduredoesnotsignificantlyalterour results. Because a relatively large proportion of NSFH respondents
TABLE : DescriptiveStatisticson All VariablesaContinued)
Children ChildrenAged14 Aged 5-11
Childcharacteristics
Female .46 .51
(.50) (.50)Age 2.47 7.81
(1.09) (1.95)Stepchild .01 .04
(.10) (.21)Adopted .01 .03
(.12) (.18)
Childbehaviors
Obeys 2.31 2.48
(.54) (.53)Loses emper 1.99 1.86
(.70) (.72)
Bulliesothers 1.36 1.32
(.57) (.55)Fussy 1.98
(.58)
Child-rearingalues
Authority-mindedarental alues 5.64 5.91
(1.04) (.89)
N 1,393 1,829
a Meandescriptivetatistics.tandardeviationsre n parentheses.
Findings
THE CORPORALPUNISHMENTOF CHILDRENAGES 14
Table2 presentstheresultsof a series of OLSregressionmodelsestimating henet effectsof Conservative rotestant enominationaliesand conservativeBible
beliefs on the frequencywith which parentalrespondentsphysicallypunishfocal children14 years old. Themodelsare organized n hierarchicalashion;they are designedto takeinto account(1) the possibleconfoundingeffectsofvarious sociodemographicand household backgroundfactors and (2) thepossiblemediating ffectsof focalchildcharacteristicsndparental hild-rearingvalues.Model1includesConservative rotestanteligiousaffiliation, longwithcontrols orsociodemographicharacteristicsf the household, ocalchild, and
primary parental respondent. Theological conservatism is added in model 2. Inmodel 3, indicators of positive and negative child behaviors are added, andauthority-minded child-rearing values are included in the final model (model 4).
Several findings are especially important. In model 1, Conservative Protes-
tant denominational affiliation emerges as a weak (v<.06) positive predictor of
the frequency of corporal punishment, even net of the potentially confoundingeffects of various household, respondent, and child characteristics.As expected,this estimated net effect is completely attenuated with the inclusion of theologi-cal conservatism in model 2. It is noteworthy (1) that the estimated net effect oftheological conservatism is greater than that'of Conservative Protestantism, and
(2) that the addition of theological conservatism significantly enhances thepredictive power of the model. These empirical patterns indicate that while
members of Conservative Protestant groups embrace disproportionatelyconservative iews abouttheBibleandrelated ssues,thesebeliefsarealso held
to a lesserdegreeby membersof otherreligiouscommunities.Theological onservatism emainsa significantpredictorn models 3 and 4withminimalchange n the size of theparameter stimate,despitetheadditionof statistical ontrols or childbehaviorsandparental hild-rearingalues.Thus,it appears that despite their sensitivity to issues of sin and punishment,ConservativeProtestantparents are no more likely than other parents toevaluate he behaviorof their children nglobally egative erms- as disobedi-ent, temperamental,and so forth. Further,although parents' theologicalconservatism s positively associatedwith valuationof obedience and self-control n children(r=.34,p<.001),theadditionof controls or suchauthority-
mindedparentalvalues reduces he estimatednet effectof theological onserva-tism only slightly.8
As is frequently he case with surveyresearch, he size of the parameterestimates for religious variables is not overwhelming,and their uniquecontributiono the overallexplanatorypowerof themodels appearsrelativelymodest,approximately -3%.However,giventhewidespread oncernaboutthesocial antecedentsand consequencesof corporalpunishmentamongacademicandpopularexperts,ourresultsmayhaveimportantmplications.According othe estimated ull model (model4), eachincrement n thetheologicalconserva-tism index of the respondent s associatedwith an increaseof .221 in weekly
spankingsadministeredo the focal childaged14. On average, hen,a parentwith the maximumscoreof 5 on the theologicalconservatism ndex- thatis,one who strongly agreesthat the Bibleis inerrantand containsanswers to allhumanproblems spanksorslapshis or hertoddlerorpreschooler884moretimes per week on averagethan a theologically iberalparentwho receivesascoreof 1 and stronglydisagreeswith these scriptural iews. To be sure,it isimportantnot to reify these parameterestimates.Nevertheless,assumingagenerally constant average rate of physical punishment by parents, theseestimates translate nto a differenceof nearly50 episodes (.221x [5-1]x 52 -
45.698)of physicalforceover the course of a 12-month 52-week)period.9In additionto examiningthe main effectsof religiousvariables,we also
included various cross-product interaction)erms in model 4 of Table 2 toinvestigate several contingentrelationships.For instance,we examinedthepossibility that the estimatednet effect of theological conservatismon thefrequencyof corporalpunishments stronger orblacksandHispanics han forwhites/Anglos, for fathers(becausemanyConservativeProtestanthouseholdsare organized n patriarchalashion),and for parentswith less educationandincome. In addition, we tested for variations in the effect of theologicalconservatismby the age and genderof the young child.
We also considered two additionalpossibilities:(1) It is reasonable toanticipatethat, while many parentsof various religiousbackgroundsvalueobediencein their children,the connectionbetween such authority-mindedvalues and the frequencyof corporalpunishment s strongerfor theologicalconservatives.2)Althoughmanyparentsbfall theological tripesmay respondto repeatedchildmisbehaviorwith corporalpunishment,t is conceivable hatcertaintypes of persistentmisbehavior e.g., disobedience,crueltyto others)
may be especially likely to elicit physical punishment from theologicallyconservativeparents.Ancillaryanalyses (not shown) yielded no clear support
for any of these contingenthypotheses.
THE CORPORALPUNISHMENT OF CHILDRENAGES 5411
Table 3 presents logistic regression models estimating the net effects ofConservativeProtestantism ndcovariateson the log odds of corporalpunish-mentby the parentsof children5-11yearsold. Thesemodels are organized nhierarchical ashion, similar to those presentedin Table 2. Again, severalpatternswarrantattention.Model 1 indicatesthat membershipn a Conserva-tive Protestantdenomination s associatedwith an increaseof nearly50% n the
odds thatrespondingparents pankedorslappedtheirgradeschool-aged hildduringtheweek prior to theNSFH nterview,net of the confoundingeffectsofrespondent,household, and child characteristics. he inclusion of theologicalconservatism n model 2 reduces this association but does not attenuate tentirely.As in Table2, theologicalconservatism emainsa significantpredictorof corporalpunishment n models3 and 4. Infact,these models reveal a slightsuppressorpattem; he estimatedneteffectof theological onservatism ctuallyincreases omewhatonceparentalassessmentsof child behaviorsaretaken ntoaccount. nthe full model (model4), each ncrement n the theological onserva-tism index is associatedwith an increaseof nearly20%n theodds of spanking
or slappinga grade school-agedchild.Thus, according o theseestimates, he log odds of using corporalpunish-
ment in a given week are nearly 75% .185x [5-1]= .740) higherfor a parentwith the maximumscoreof 5 on this index - i.e., a strong theologicalconser-vative - than for a parent of similar backgroundcharacteristicswith theminimumscoreof 1 on the index- i.e., a strong theological iberal.
Parentalaffiliationwith a ConservativeProtestant enomination lsobearsa weak (and marginally significant)but positive association with corporalpunishment hroughout hispanel of models.In thefull model,thelog odds ofusing corporalpunishmentare roughly 33%(exp [.284])greaterfor a parentwho reportsaffiliationwith a ConservativeProtestant roupthan fora parentwith similar backgroundcharacteristicswho is not affiliated with such adenomination v < .08).As in the analysesof the parentsof focaltoddlersandpreschoolers,tests designed to identify various interactive or contingentrelationshipswith the ConservativeProtestant ariables urnedup no reliableevidenceof suchpatterns.
ESTIMATEDNET EFFECTSOF COVARIATES
Althoughthe estimatedeffectsof the covariates hemselvesare nottheprimaryfocus of our study, the NSFH datayield a numberof useful insightsinto theantecedentsof corporalpunishment.Giventhe dearthof evidenceon thistopic,several empirical patterns involving covariates also merit brief discussion.Mothersof very young childrenand grade school-agedchildrenuse corporalpunishmentmorefrequently han fathers.Youngerparentsspankor slap theirchildren more often than older parents, althoughthe estimatednet effect of
aLogisticregression oefficients.Exponentiatedoefficients re in parentheses.
t p <10 p <.05 p <.01 p <.001
parent's age is attenuated in the models for grade school-aged children bycontrols for parents' assessments of child behavior. Parents with multiple
toddlers and preschoolers also physically punish their children - including
their older children - more frequently than other respondents. Taken together,
these patterns are broadly consistent with the notion that parents who are
inexperienced and stressed tend to spank or slap their children more often than
others.
Given the substantial body of prior work associating socioeconomicdifferences in child rearing with attitudes toward corporal punishment men-
tioned at the outset of this study, it is interesting that household income and
parental education are only relatively weak predictors of the use of corporal
punishment, for younger and for older children.10While observers have long
suggested that African Americans resort to corporal punishment more frequent-ly than whites/Anglos (e.g., Alvy 1987), we find no substantial black-white
differences n the spankingof eithertoddlersor preadolescents ncethe effectsof relevantsociodemographic nd otherbackground actorsareheld constant.
Further,althoughwe find no differencesn the corporalpunishmentof gradeschool-agedchildrenbetweenHispanicsandwhites/Anglos, Hispanicparentsreportspankingorslapping heir oddlersandpreschoolersessfrequently hanwhite/Anglo parents.
Consistentwith previousresearch e.g.,Wauchope& Straus1990),we findthatchildcharacteristicsndparentalassessmentsof childbehavioralso haveimportant implicationsfor child discipline. In the NSFH, parents' use ofphysicalforcepeaksaroundage 2, declinesslightlyat age 3, and then tails offconsiderablyby age4. Corporalpunishment eemsto plateauaroundages 5-6,when the child is enteringthe school-age period, and then declines mono-
tonicallythereafter.There s also a substantialgenderdifference n the use ofcorporalpunishment:Boysof all agesarespankedorslappedmuchmore oftenthangirls. Further, dopted grade school-aged ocalchildrenconfrontelevatedrisksof physical punishment; heyare more than50%morelikely (exp [.413])than otherchildrento have beenspankedor slapped by parentalrespondentsduringthe week priorto the interview.
It is notsurprising hatrespondentswho evaluate heirchildrenas obedientuse corporalpunishment nfrequently,while respondentswho indicatedthattheiryoungchildrenengagein undesirablebehaviors i.e., that they are fussyor temperamental, r that they bully others- tend to employ physical force
much more often. Given the cross-sectional ature of the NSFH data and thefact thatchild behaviorsaremeasured romparentalassessmentsrather hanfrom observation,he causalprocessthatunderlies hese empiricalassociationsremainsunclear.It is somewhat surprisingthat authority-mindedparentalvalues(i.e.,valuationof children'sobedienceandconformity) reonly modestlyassociatedwith the corporalpunishmentof childrenages 1-4 and very weaklylinked with the corporalpunishmentof olderchildren,once the confoundingeffectsof backgroundactorsarestatistically ontrolled.Thisfindinghighlightsthe need to explorethe factorsthat mediatethe links betweenabstract,globalparentalvalues and concreteparentalbehaviors(Holden&Edwards1989).
Discussion
After a long period of scholarly neglect, a small but growing literaturehascalled attentionto the relationshipsbetweenConservativeProtestantism ndattitudestoward the corporal punishmentof children.Severalstudies havesuggested that membersof ConservativeProtestantdenominationsare morelikely to support the principle of corporal punishmentthan other persons(Erlanger 974;Wiehe1990).Morerecently,researchers ave shown that such
denominationalvariationsmay actuallyreflect the influenceof specificcon-servative heologicalbeliefs,particularlyommitmento the doctrineof biblicalinerrancy Ellison& Sherkat1993a;Grasmick,Bursik&Kimpel1991).
We have extended this literatureby linking conservativetheologicalorientationswith the actualuse of physiLalpunishment o disciplinetoddlersand preschoolers (ages 14) and grade school-aged children (ages 5-11).Analyzingdatafroma largenationalsurvey,we havepresentednew evidence
thatparentswho believe (1) thatthqBible s the inerrantWordof God and (2)that it provides answers to all human affairs and problemsuse corporalpunishment o disciplinetheirchildrenmore frequently hanparentswith lessconservative heologicalviews. In addition,consistentwith the thrustof someearlier esearch e.g.,Ellison&Sherkat 993a), tatistical ontrols or theologicalconservatism irtuallyeliminate heestimated ffectsofConservative rotestantdenominational ffiliation.Further,helinkbetweentheologicalbeliefs andtheuse of physical punishmentpersistseven when the potentiallyconfoundingeffectsof numerousparentaland householdcharacteristics,hildcharacteristicsandbehaviors,and globalparentalchild-rearing alues are taken nto account.
While our findings underscore the importanceof religious values
particularlyhoseassociatedwith ConservativeProtestantism for the studyof childdiscipline, heyalsoraisea numberof importantquestions hatwarrantclarification n the future.First,the NSFH- like most large-scale urveys-does not contain detailed informationon the typeand intensityof corporalpunishment.Anecdotal evidence suggests that terms like "spanking"and"slapping"maycoveravarietyofdisciplinarypractices, anging rommild tapsor swats on the buttocks to more determinedbeatings with belts and otherobjects, o the most severe formsof abuse.Obviouslythe levels of force andintensity implied by these differences,and the probableconsequences forchildren, may vaxy considerably.Although some accounts suggest that
ConservativeProtestants re prone to use particularly iolent formsof physicalpunishment(Capps1992;Maurer1982),much moreinformations needed onthe diverse forms of corporal punishment administered by ConservativeProtestantsand otherparents(Bartkowski995).
Second, given our findingthat the comparatively requentuse of corporalpunishment by conservativereligious parents is not attributable o morenegativeglobal ssessmentsofchildren'sbehavior,we need more nformation nhow parents arrive at decisions on disciplinary responses to specific hildmisbehaviorsunderparticularircumstances,ndespeciallyon how Conserva-tive Protestantparents may differ from others in their decision-making
processes.For nstance,giventheimportance f themesof sin andpunishmentin ConservativeProtestantheologyandchild-rearing hilosophy,parentsmaybe especially prone to interpret specific child misbehaviorsas instances of"willful disobedience," o downplay alternativeexplanations or these mis-behaviors e.g.,"childishrresponsibility"),nd todeemphasizehe role ofothertypes of situational nformation e.g.,child illness, fatigueor emotionalupset,parentalstress).In this way, the distinctivetheologicalviews of ConservativeProtestant arentsmaybe introducednto thedecision-makingrocess,possiblyleading parentsto engagein a specificversionof "thefundamental ttributionerror" thatis, to attributemisbehaviordispositionally,s a consequenceof the
child'scharacter,ather hansituationally,s a consequence f thecircumstancessurrounding he event (Grasmick& McGill1994).A multimethodapproachinvolvingnotonlystandard urvey nstruments, ut alsopersonalized ignettes,in-depth nterviews,and perhapsobservationalmethods will ultimatelyberequiredto investigatethese and other possible religious variations in theparentaldecisionmaking process.
be premature o draw firm conclusionsabout the effectsof mild to moderatecorporalpunishment.
Nevertheless, f the concernsof many academicand popularchild devel-opment specialistsare on target, then we might expect to find that childrenfrom theologicallyconservative amilies - who as a grouparemore likely toexperience requent orporalpunishment han others exhibitheightenedriskofvariousundesirable hildand adolescentoutcomes.Yet eadingConservativeProtestant ommentators damantly ontend hatprudentphysicaldiscipline sessential orpreventingsuch outcomesand for raisinghealthy,happy,Christianchildren(Christenson 970;Daugherty1991;Dobson 1970,1976;LaHaye1977;Swindoll1991).And while theempiricalevidence s notunequivocal,a numberof studies over the years have reported hat religiosityand religious participa-
tion amongyouths - especiallythose from conservativebackgrounds areassociatedwith lower risk of substanceuse and abuse, otherformsof delin-quentbehavior,teen pregnancy,and even academic ailure(e.g., Beck,Cole &Hammond1991;Burkett1993;Stark1984).
Whymight corporalpunishmenthave fewer harmful(perhapseven somebeneficial) onsequencesor Conservative rotestantshan orotheryouths?Wesuggest two possible reasons. First, the effectsof even frequentspankingorslappingmay be less damagingin cultural contextsin which the practiceofcorporalpunishment s widely acceptedas legitimate. t is conceivable hatthediscoursewithin ConservativeProtestantamilies,churches,and communities
-where corporalpunishmenthas been thenorm ormanygenerations Greven1977) may mitigatethe negativeemotions(amongchildrenandparents) hatsometimes accompany physical punishments in other contexts. Second,Conservative rotestantsmay implement his punishmentdifferentlyromotherparents.For nstance,religiouschild-rearingmanualsoftendevote considerableattention to the details of administering corporal punishment,instructingparentson when to spank,what type of "rod" o use,how and whereto hit thechild safely,and so forth (e.g.,Dobson1976 and Lessin1979;see Bartkowski1995;Ellison&Bartkowski 996;Greven1990).As we notedearlier,while a fewreligious commentatorsadvocate the broad use of relativelyharsh corporalpunishment(Fabrizio1969; Fugate1980),the most popular of these authors(Christenson 970;Dobson 1970, 1976;Swindoll1991)recommend he use ofmoderate physical force only in clear instances of "willful disobedience."Further,hey specificallycounselagainstspankingwhen theparent s angryorwhen the behavioral nfractionnvolves childish rresponsibility r some otherwell-intentionedmistake.These authors are carefulto distinguishmoderatecorporal punishmentfrom physical abuse, and to warn parents about thepotentialfor escalation(Dobson1976:73-76; windoll 1991:82-85).Moreover,severalleading ConservativeProtestantcommentatorsalso advise parentsto
initiate a periodof intimacyand affectionwith the child afterthe punishment(Christenson 970;Dobson 1976).In short,such mild to moderatespankingwould differsubstantially rom
the frustrated,hostile use of physicalforce decriedby academicand popularparenting pecialistsalike.Ofcourse, o date there s littleempiricalnformationon the precise methods of implementationactually used by theologicallyconservativeparents,or the extent to which theirpractices n this areaparallel
those recommendedby Dobson andothers.Similarly, t is unclearwhethertheeffectsof such methodswould be morebenignthanthenegativeconsequences
associatedwith harsherpractices.Given that religious conservativesalmostcertainlyconstitute he largestandbest-organizedonstituencyadvocating heuse of corporal punishment, the resolution of these issues should be animportantpriorityof researchers n the future.
Notes
1. Herewe use the term Conservativerotestants anumbrella erm to referto fundamentalistsand otherevangelicals.Althoughthe fundamentalist abel is sometimesused in precisely suchan inclusive fashion,this label is hotly contested.Many evangelicalsreject he fundamentalistlabel becauseof its pejorativeconnotation n the mediaand in broader ociety and because ofvariousreligiousand politicaldifferenceswith fundamentalists.
2. We use these insider documentsto clarifythe worldview of ConservativeProtestantswithregard to issues of child discipline. We do not assume that these child-rearingmanualsinfluencethe practicesof parents,butonly thattheseauthorsgenerallyreflectand articulate heviews and sensibilities of religious conservatives. Because our goal is to identify commonthemes in this popular literature,we necessarily downplay the heterogeneityon some issueswithin the conservativecamp (Bartkowski 995;Ellison&Bartkowski 996).Inaddition,whileour work focuses on contemporary eligious conservatives,Greven(1977)has calledattentionto the considerablecontinuitybetweentheir views on child rearingand those of many earlyAmericanevangelicals.
3. Whilemost prominentConservativeProtestant hild-rearingwriters endorse such beliefs in
originalsin, theirbeliefs are not unanimous. Forinstance,Campbell(1989, 1992) argues thatmany writers in this genre exaggeratethe salience of themes of sin and punishmentat theexpenseof a more fundamentalmessageof divine love and mercy.
4. Someresearchers ave suggestedthatindicators appingvariations n religiosityorreligiousparticipationmaybe morecloselyrelated o familyattitudesandpractices han denominationalties or theologicalorientations e.g.,Alwin 1986).Therefore,we also constructedan eight-pointordinalmeasure of the frequencyof churchattendancesimilarto that includedin the GeneralSocialSurveys.This variable was unrelatedto the frequencyof corporalpunishment.
5. The NSFH interview schedule also containsa thirditem tappingConservativeProtestantsensibilities. This item asks respondentsto indicate their level of (dis)agreementwith thefollowing statement:"I regard myself as a religious fundamentalist.'This item seems less
closely related to the theoreticalargumentsoutlined earlier than the items on Bible beliefs.Further,becausethetermxfundamentalistas no clear translation n Spanish, he inclusionof thisitem would require droppinga small numberof Hispanicswho completedthe interview inSpanish.Forthese reasons,we omit the "fundamentalist"tem from our analyses.
6. These indicatorsof child behaviorsaremoderately ntercorrelated.20< r < .35).Howeverthey do not comprisea satisfactoryndex(a < .55)in any combination, nd the increment o Ris greater when they are added individually as predictorsof the frequency of corporalpunishment.
7. The numbers of Asian and Pacific Islanders,Native Americans/AmericanIndians,andvarious othercategorieswere too small to analyze,and these groupswere droppedfrom themodels that follow. In addition,the numbersof Puerto Ricans(evenwith oversampling)andCuban Americanswere still too small for separate analysesof these diverse segmentsof the
Hispanic (Latino)population.Althoughthe NSFH also oversampledcohabitors, here are notenough cohabiting respondents who are parents of focal children to permit meaningfulanalysis.
8. Giventhe hierarchical tructureof these OLSregressionmodels,one possible interpretationof this findingis thatauthority-minded arentsate proneto evaluate theirchildren'sbehaviornegatively. Because the preoccupationwith issues of authority and (dis)obedience mayinfluencethe encodingand interpretation f child conduct,and hence the overall assessmentof childbehaviorsduringtheperiod priorto the interview,onemightexpectthat the estimated
net effect of parental child-rearingvalues would be slight once the potentiallyconfoundingeffects of these assessmentswere taken into account.However,ancillarymodels (not shown)cast doubt on this interpretation;when we estimatedmodels thatindudedparentalvalues and
excluded arents'reportsof child conduct, the results did not change.9. We acknowledge some potential for response bias.Theologically iberal respondentsmaytend to understatetheir 'true" or accurate evels of corporalpunishmentfor fear of invitingdisapproval from the interviewer or from their fellows. On the other hand, religiousconservativesmay be inclined to respond accurately,or even to exaggerate heir use of suchdisciplinary techniques, because their use is approved and encouraged within manyConservativeProtestantcommunities.Of course,all respondents,but especiallyconservative
religiousparents,who spankor slap their childrenmay also be inclined to underestimatehefrequencyof these practices,due to the specterof interventionby local or state social serviceagenciesconcemed with child protection.Therefore,we doubt that responsebias adequatelyaccountsfor the empiricalpatternsdiscussed in the text.
10. In additional analyses (Ellison, Bartkowski& Segal 1996), we estimated the effects ofConservativeProtestantism nd covariateson an ordinal measureof the frequencyof corporalpunishment with responsecategories"never," seldom," 'sometimes,"or"veryoften")askedof all NSFHprimaryrespondentswho were parentsof childrenunder12 living in the home.While most findings paralleledthosereported n the text,it is interesting hat both householdincome and (particularly)parentaleducationemergedas significant nversepredictorsof thefrequencyof corporal punishmentin those analyses.The meaningof this discrepancy s notentirely clear, but one possibility is especially intriguing:Some better-educatedand moreaffluentparent respondentsmay have provided (what for them may be) socially desirableresponses, underestimating their frequency of corporal punishmentwhen presented withvague, ordinalresponsecategories.Such"hedging'may have beenmore difficult forparentalrespondentswho were asked for a more precisecount covering the week priorto the NSFH
interview.11. Because southern and rural residence are relatedto attitudes towardcorporalpunishment(e.g., Flynn 1994),we included these variablesin preliminarymodels.When both residentialvariableswere consistently unrelatedto the frequencyof corporal punishment,they weredropped from subsequentanalyses.
12. Nelsen and Kroliczak(1984)and Nunn (1964)presentevidence that parents'use of thethreatthat "Godwill punish" perhaps particularly haracteristic f ConservativeProtestanthouseholds - may promoteself-blame and obedience n children.However, they reportthatthe impact of these parental"coalitionswith God" on the developmentof internalcontrolsseems to depend on images of God and perhapsotherfactorsas well. Additional research sneeded to determinewhetherphysical punishmenthelps to promoteinternalcontrolsamongConservativeProtestantyouths.
Alwin, Duane F. 1984. "Trends n ParentalSocializationValues:Detroit,1958-1983."AmericanJournal fSociology 0:359-82.
. 1986. "Religion and Parental Child-RearingOrientations:Evidence for a Catholic-ProtestantConvergence."American ournal fSociology2:41240.
Anumerman, ancy T. 1987. BibleBelievers. utgersUniversity Press.
Barnhart,Joe E. 1993. "What's All the FightingAbout? Southem Baptists and the Bible."Pp. 124-43 in SouthernBaptistsObserved,dited by Nancy T. Anumerman.University ofTennesseePress.
Bartkowski,JohnP. 1995. "Sparethe Rod ... or Sparethe Child? DivergentPerspectives onConservativeProtestantChild Discipline.' Reviewof ReligiousResearch.7:97-116.
Bartkowski,JohnP., and ChristopherG. Ellison. 1995."DivergentModels of Childrearing nPopular Manuals: Conservative Protestants vs. the MainstreamExperts."SociologyofReligion 6:21-34.
Beck, Scott H., Bettie S. Cole, and Judith A. Hammond. 1991. "Religious Heritage andPremaritalSex: Evidence from a National Sample of Young Adults." Journalor theScientific tudyof Religion 0:173-80.
Boone,KathleenC. 1989. TheBibleTells ThemSo:TheDiscourse f Protestant undamentlism.SUNYPress.
Bronfenbrenner, rie. 1958. "Socializationand Social Class throughTime and Space.' Pp.400-25 in Readings n SocialPsychology,3d ed., edited by Eleanor Maccoby, TheodoreNewcomb, and Eugene Hartley. Holt, Rinehart& Winston.
Burkett,Steven R. 1993. "PerceivedParents'Religiosity, Friends' Drinking,and Hellfire: APanelStudy of AdolescentDrinking."Reviewof ReligiousResearch5:134-54.
Campbell,Ross,with Pat Likes. 1989. KidsWhoFollow,KidsWhoDon't.VictorBooks.
Duvall, Debra, and Alan Booth. 1979. "Social Class, Stress, and Physical Punishment."International eviewofModernSociology :103-17.
Eckenrode,John,Molly Laird,and JohnDoris. 1993. "School Performanceand DisciplinaryProblemsamongAbused and Neglected Children.'Developmentalsychology9:53-62.
Egeland, Byron,DeborahJacobvitz,and K. Papatola.1987. "IntergenerationalContinuity ofAbuse."Pp. 255-76in ChildAbuseandNeglect:BiosocialDimensions,dited by RichardJ.
Gelles and J.B.Lancaster.Aldine.Ellison, ChristopherG., and John P. Bartkowski.1996. "Religionand the Legitimationof
Violence:The Case of ConservativeProtestantism nd CorporalPunishment." n TheWebof Violence:FromInterpersonalo Global,edited by Lester Kurtz and JenniferTurpin.Universityof Illinois Press. In press.
Ellison, ChristopherG., JohnP. Bartkowski,and MichelleL. Segal. 1996. "Do ConservativeProtestant Parents Spank More? Evidence from the National Survey of Families andHouseholds."SocialScienceQuarterly.n press.
Ellison, ChristopherG., and Darren E. Sherkat. 1993a. "ConservativeProtestantism andSupportfor CorporalPunishment."American ociologicaleview58:131-44.
Conservative Protestantism and Corporal Punishment / 1027
Flynn, Clifton P. 1994. 'Regional Differencesin Attitudes toward Corporal Punishment."Joumalof Marriage nd the Family56:315-24.
Fugate,J. Richard.1980. What he BibleSaysabout.. Child-Training.lpha/Omega.Grasmick,Harold G., RobertJ. Bursik,and M?LouKimpel.1991. "ProtestantFundamentalism
and Attitudes toward CorporalPunishmentof Children."Violence nd Victims :283-97.
Grasmick,Harold G., and Anne L. McGill.1994. "Religion,AttributionStyle, and PunitivenesstowardJuvenile Offenders."Criminology2:2346.
Grasmick,Harold G., CaroleS. Morgan,andMaryannB. Kennedy.1992. "Support orCorporalPunishmentin the Schools:A Comparisonof the Effects of Socio-economicStatus andReligion.SocialScienceQuarterly3:179-89.
Gray,Ellen. 1988. "TheLink between Child Abuse and JuvenileDelinquency:WhatWe Knowand Recommendations or Policy and Research."Pp. 109-123 in FamilyAbuseand ItsConsequences,dited by GeraldT.Hotaling,David Finkelhor, .T.Kirkpatrick,nd Murray
A. Straus.Sage.Greven,Philip.1977. TheProtestantTemperament:atterns f Child-Rearin&eligiousExperience,
and theSelf n EarlyAmerica.Knopf.
. 1990. Sparethe Child:TheReligiousRoots of Punishment nd the PsychologicalmpactofPhysicalAbuse.Knopf.
HoldenmGeorge W., and Lee A. Edwards. 1989. "ParentalAttitudes toward Childrearing:Instruments, ssues,and Implications."Psychologicalulletin 06:29-58.
Hotaling,GeraldT., MurrayA. Straus,and A.J.Lincoln.1990."IntrafamilyViolenceandCrimeand Violence outsidethe Family."Pp. 431-70 in PhysicalViolencenAmerican amilies: iskFactorsand Adaptationso Violence n 8,145 Families, dited by Murray A. Straus andRichardJ.Geiles. Transaction.
Kurz,Demie. 1991. "CorporalPunishmentand Adult Use of Violence: A Critiqueof 'Disci-pline and Deviance." SocialProblems8:155-61.
LaHaye,Beverly.1977. How to DevelopYourChild'sTemperament.arvest House.
Larzelere,RobertE. 1986. "ModerateSpanking:Model or Deterrentof Children'sAggressionin the Family?"Journal f FamilyViolence :27-36.
.1994. "Should the Use of CorporalPunishmentby ParentsBe ConsideredChild Abuse?No."Pp.204-9 in DebatingChildren'sives:CurrentControversiesnClildren ndAdolescents,edited by MarshaA. Mason and EileenGambrill.Sage.
Larzelere,RobertE., Michael Klein, Walter R. Schumm,and Samuel A. Alibrando. 1989."Relationsof Spankingand OtherParentingCharacteristicso Self-Esteemand PerceivedFairnessof ParentalDiscipline."Psychologicaleports 4:1140-42.
Lindsell, Harold. 1976. TheBattleor the Bible.Zondervan.
Maccoby, Eleanor,and John A. Martin. 1983. "Socialization n the Context of the Family:Parent-Child Interaction."Pp. 1-101 in Handbook f ChildPsychology, dited by PaulMussen.Wiley.
Maddoux, Marlin. 1992. WhatWorriesParentsMost:SurvivalStrategiesn a ChaoticWorld.Harvest House.
. 1982. "ReligiousValues and Child Abuse." Pp. 57-63 in Institutional buseof Children,edited by RanaeHanson.Haworth Press.
McCutcheon,AllanL.1988. "Denominations ndReligiousIntermarriage:rendsamongWhiteAmericans n the TwentiethCentury."Reviewof ReligiousResearch0:213-27.
McNamara,Patrick H. 1985. "The New ChristianRight'sView of the Family and Its SocialScience Critics:A Study in Differing Presuppositions." ournal f Marriage nd theFamily47:449-58.
Nelsen, Hart M., and Alice Kroliczak1984. 'Parental Use of the Threat 'God Will Punish':Replicationand Extension." ounal or the Scientific tudyof Religion 3:267-77.
Nunn, Clyde Z. 1964. "Child-Control hrough a 'Coalitionwith God.'" Child Development35:417-32.
Rose, Susan D. 1988. KeepingThemOut of the Handsof Satan:Evangelical choolingn America.Routledge,Chapman& Hall.
Simons,RonaldL, JayBeaman,RandD. Conger,and W. Chao. 1993. "ChildhoodExperience,Conceptionsof Parenting,andAttitudesof Spouse as Deteiminantsof ParentalBehavior."Journal f Marriage ndtheFamily55:91-106.
Simons,RonaldL.,ChristineJohnson,and RandD. Conger.1994. "HarshCorporalPunishmentversus Qualityof Parental nvolvementas an Explanation f AdolescentMaladjustment."Journal f Marriage ndthe Family56:591-607.
Simons,RonaldL, Les B.Whitbeck,RandD. Conger,andWuChyi-In.1991."Intergenerational
Transmissionof HarshParenting."Developmentalsychology7:159-71.Stark, Rodney. 1984. "Religion and Conformity:Reaffirminga Sociology of Religion."
Sociological nalysis45:27342.
Straus, MurrayA. 1991. "Disciplineand Deviance:Physical Punishment of Children andViolenceand Other Crime n Adulthood."SocialProblems8:133-54.
-. 1994a. "Should he Use of CorporalPunishmentby ParentsBe ConsideredChildAbuse?Yes." Pp. 197-203 in DebatingChildren'sLives: CurrentControversies n ChildrenandAdolescents,dited by MarshaA. Masonand EileenGambrill.Sage.
1994b.Beating he Devil Out of Them:Corporal unishmentn American amilies and ItsEffects n Children. exingtonBooks.
Straus,MurrayA., and RichardJ.Gelles.1986."SocialChangeand Change n FamilyViolence
from 1975 to 1985 as Revealed by Two National Surveys."Journal f Marriagend theFamily48:465-79.
Sweet, James A., LarryBumpass,and Vaughn Call. 1988. "TheDesign and Content of theNational Survey of Families and Households." Center for Demography and Ecology,Universityof Wisconsin,Madison.
Swindoll,Chuck.1991. TheStrongFamily:GrowingWise n FamilyLife.Multnomah.
Taylor,Leslie,and Adah Maurer.1985. ThinkTwice:TheMedicalEffects f PhysicalPunishment.GenerationBooks.
Wald, KennethD., Dennis E. Owen, and Samuel S. Hill. 1989. "Habitsof the Mind?TheProblemof Authorityin the New ChristianRight."Pp. 93-108 in ReligionandPoliticalBehaviorn the UnitedStates,editedby TedG. Jelen.Praeger.
Wauchope,BarbaraA., andMurrayA. Straus.1990."PhysicalPunishmentandPhysicalAbuseof AmericanChildren:ncidenceRatesby Age, Gender,andOccupationalClass."Pp.133-48 in PhysicalViolencen American amilies: iskFactors ndAdaptationso Violencen 8,145Families,dited by MurrayA. Strausand RichardJ.Gelles.Transaction.
Weiss, Bahr,Kenneth A. Dodge, John E. Bates, and GregoryS. Pettit. 1992. "Some Conse-quencesof EarlyHarshDiscipline:ChildAggressionanda MaladaptiveSocialInformationProcessingStyle."ChildDevelopment3:1321-35.
