8/8/2019 Exercise #1 Article 3

1/10

The Effectiveness of Parental Discipline for Toddler Misbehavior at Different Levels of Child

DistressAuthor(s): Robert E. Larzelere and Jack A. MerendaSource: Family Relations, Vol. 43, No. 4, Family Processes and Child and AdolescentDevelopment (Oct., 1994), pp. 480-488Published by: National Council on Family RelationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/585381 .

Accessed: 16/01/2011 01:47

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

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

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

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

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

page of such transmission.

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

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

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

Family Relations.

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfrhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/585381?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfrhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfrhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/585381?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfr

8/8/2019 Exercise #1 Article 3

2/10

THE EFFECTIVENESSOF PARENTALDISCIPLINEFOR TODDLEMISBEHAVIORAT DIFFERENTLEVELSOF CHILDDISTRESS*

Robert E. Larzelere andJack A. Merenda**Behavioral theories and Hoffman's information-processing theory have differing implications for how the effectiveness ofparental discipline varies according to the level of distress experienced by the child. Consistent with behavioral theories, pun-ishment was more effective in delaying the next recurrence of disobedience when toddlers' distress was high than when it waslow or moderate. Consistent with Hoffman, reasoning and a punishment-reasoning combination were most effective at a mod-erate level of toddler distress. Thus, firm reasoning and a combination of reasoning with mild punishment are recommended.

D espite decades of research onparental discipline, major contro-versies still remain. Leading re-search investigators have acknowledgedthat evidence is inconclusive about theeffectiveness of alternative parental dis-cipline responses to child misbehavior(e.g., Grusec & Goodnow, 1994; Patter-son, 1982). Consider, for example,whether punishment (i.e., negative con-sequences) or reasoning should be pre-ferred as a discipline response to misbe-havior. Behavioral parental training pro-grams feature time out as a consequencefor child misbehavior (e.g., Forehand &McMahon, 1981). The only form of rea-soning in such training programs is aspecification of the conditions for timeout. On the other hand, cognitive social-ization theorists recommend reasoningrather than punishments such as timeout or spanking (e.g., Hoffman, 1977;Lepper, 1983).

This study is part of a research pro-gram designed to synthesize behavioraland cognitive views of socialization, andis one of the few attempts to do so. Theprogram investigates the effectiveness ofalternative parental discipline responsesin delaying the next recurrence of tod-dler misbehavior. Of central interest inthis particular study is how the effects ofalternative discipline responses vary ac-cording to the level of child distress ex-perienced following the parental disci-pline response.

Before summarizing the implica-tions of behavioral versus cognitive the-ories for the role of child distress in dis-cipline effectiveness, some definitionsare in order. In this article, a disciplinetechnique is a specific tactic used by aparent in response to an incident ofchild misbehavior. A discipline responseis a set of one or more discipline tech-niques that constitute the entire parentalresponse to a particular misbehavior in-cident. Negative consequences or sim-ply consequences refer to punitive disci-pline techniques or responses, includingtime out, withdrawal of privileges, andnonabusive spanking.

A child's emotional reaction to disci-pline is considered to be relevant formoral internalization according to be-havioral and cognitive theories of social-ization. First, behavioral theories holdthat moral inhibition occurs because ofconditioned anxiety. Conditioned anxi-ety, in turn, develops when misbehav-iors are paired with negative conse-quences (Aronfreed, 1968). Behavioralstudies of negative consequences havefound that the greater the intensity ofthe consequences, the greater their ef-fectiveness (Azrin & Holz, 1966; Matson& DiLorenzo, 1984; Van Houten, 1983).This suggests that the higher the level ofa child's anxiety following negative con-sequences, the greater the resultingmoral inhibition. Some laboratory ana-logue studies have found that the severi-ty of negative consequences increasedsubsequent moral inhibition when noverbal component was included in thediscipline response. However, the inclu-sion of reasoning reduced or eliminatedthe association between consequenceseverity and subsequent moral inhibition(Cheyne, Goyeche, & Walters, 1969;Cheyne & Walters, 1969; Parke, 1969).

Second, Hoffman's (1977, 1983) in-formation-processing theory views thecognitive and affective aspects of disci-pline incidents as crucial for moral inter-nalization. He divides discipline respons-es into three types: power assertion,love withdrawal, and induction. Powerassertion depends on parents' power ad-vantage relative to that of the child, thatis, the use of force, deprivation of privi-leges, or threats. Love withdrawal tech-niques implicitly remove parental lovetoward the child, such as nonphysicalexpressions of parental anger or disap-proval. Induction communicates reasonsfor the desired behavior, including con-necting appropriate behavior to thechild's desires or to its effect on otherpeople. Most discipline responses have apower-assertive component, a love-with-drawal component, and an inductioncomponent. Mild forms of the first twocomponents are considered necessary to

get a child to pay attention to the indution component. If parents use too litpower assertion and love withdrawathe child may ignore the induction component. Too much power assertionhowever, may interfere with the childcognitive processing of the inductiocomponent.Thus, according to Hoffman, sommild, intermediate level of power asstion is optimal for attention to and retetion of the induction component. Athough the attentional processing aspeof Hoffman's theory is appealing, thehave been few attempts to verify it epirically. Hoffman's evidence consisprimarily of child correlates of parenreasoning, on the one hand, and power assertion, on the other (Hoffma1970, 1977). Parental use of reasoning positively associated with moral behaior in their children, whereas power sertion tends to be negatively associatewith moral behavior (Hoffman, 197Rollins & Thomas, 1979). Hoffman acounts for these results by arguing thmost induction elicits sufficient affect children to get their attention, wheremost power assertion elicits too mucfear and anxiety for optimal cognitivprocessing.

*The authors gratefully acknowledge the supportBiola University Faculty Research Grant; a Biola UniverSabbatical Grant; Grant T32 MH 17126 from the Center Studies of Antisocial and Violent Behavior, National Institof Mental Health, to Oregon Social Learning Center; andther Flanagan's Boys' Home. Students who provided inpensable help to this project included William N. SchneidJoyce Handler, Angela Rose Huntsman, Diana Elliott, RichErenst, Jack Young, Shari Bridgman, Sharmon Skill, Celiavanagh, Thomas Young, Roberta Miller, and Theodore MThe authors are grateful to Jamie Sinclair and two anomous reviewers for their very helpful comments on previversions. This article is based on the second author's distation and was presented at the Convention of the AmeriPsychological Association, Toronto, August 1993.**Robert E. Larzelere is Director of Residentialsearch, Father Flanagan's Boys' Home, Youth Care BlBoys Town, NE 68010. Jack A. Merenda is now a clinipsychologist at Associated Psychological Services, 2 NoLake Ave., Suite 610, Pasadena, CA 91101.Key Words: aggression, noncompliance, parental displine, punishment, toddlers.

(Family Relations, 1994, 43, 480-488.)480 FAMILY October 1994

8/8/2019 Exercise #1 Article 3

3/10

A few studies have provided indirectevidence for the attentional aspect ofHoffman's theory. Research has shownthat the verbal component of a disciplineresponse is more effective under condi-tions of mild consequences than underconditions of severe consequences(Cheyne et al., 1969; Cheyne & Walters,1969; Hoffman, 1963). Cheyne's studiesfound physiological indicators of atten-tional processes (e.g., heart-ratedecelera-tion) only under conditions that com-bined a verbal component with mildconsequences (as opposed to severeconsequences). Kochanska (1991) mea-sured the extent to which parents usedmostly power assertion methods or in-duction methods when their child was 1-1/2 and 3-1/2 years of age. Greater use ofinduction predicted several measures ofconscience 5 to 6 years later, but only intemperamentally anxious children. Rela-tive usage of power assertion versus in-duction was generally unrelated to subse-quent measures of conscience in lessanxious children. These findings may beconsistent with Hoffman's posited atten-tional processes in that greater power as-sertion may be necessary to get the atten-tion of less anxious preschoolers than isthe case for more anxious preschoolers.Thus, a balance between induction andpower assertion may be necessary toelicit an optimal degree of attention fromless anxious toddlers. But no study hasconfirmed the major implication of theattentional aspect of Hoffman's theory,that is, that an intermediate level of af-fect (or power assertion) during a disci-pline episode is associated with highermoral internalization than are eitherlower or higher levels of affect.Although behavioral therapists haveemphasized time out and cognitive-so-cialization theorists have emphasizedreasoning, few studies have investigatedthe effects of combining negative conse-quences and reasoning in a discipline re-sponse. The studies that have consid-ered a punishment-reasoning combina-tion as a distinct category have generallyfound it to be a relatively effective disci-pline response (Chapman & Zahn-Waxler, 1982; Cheyne & Walters, 1969;Crockenberg & Litman, 1990; Davies,McMahon, Flessati, & Tiedemann, 1984;Dix & Grusec, 1983; LaVoie, 1974;Parke, 1969).

The major hypotheses of this studyare derived from behavioral theories andfrom Hoffman's theory:1. Consistent with behavioral theo-ries, when negative consequences areused without reasoning, the effective-ness of the discipline response is expect-ed to increase with the level of child dis-tress.

2. Consistent with Hoffman's theo-ry, when reasoning is incorporated intothe discipline response, intermediatelevels of child distress are expected tocorrespond with optimal effectiveness.3. Consistent with the laboratoryanalogue studies, when negative conse-quences and reasoning are used togeth-er, effectiveness will not be positivelyrelated to the level of child distress(Cheyne et al., 1969; Parke, 1969).Effectiveness will be measured bythe mean delay until the next recur-rence of that type of misbehavior. Thetargeted discipline problems representthe two most common kinds of toddlermisbehavior: disobedience and fighting(Larzelere, Amberson, & Martin, 1992).The age range of 25 to 38 months waschosen because perceived disciplineproblems reach their maximum frequen-cy during those months (Larzelere et al.,1992).One important question about rea-soning with toddlers is whether they are

developmentally ready to process thatinformation. Hoffman (1983) has arguedthat most children have sufficient cogni-tive processing skills by ages 2 or 3.Zahn-Waxler, Radke-Yarrow, Wagner,and Chapman (1992) concluded, "chil-dren as young as 2 years old have thecognitive capacity to interpret the physi-cal and psychological states of others"(p. 127). Therefore, one aspect of thisstudy is to determine whether reasoningis useful as a discipline response foryoung preschoolers.

SubjectsForty volunteer mothers of childrenfrom 25 to 38 months of age participat-ed in the study. The toddlers included21 boys and 19 girls. Most of the moth-ers responded to a local newspaperstory offering a $50 United States Sav-ings Bond to participants in the study. Afew mothers were referred by otherstudy participants. Sixty percent of themothers were full-time homemakers;this was preferred to maximize the con-sistency of the data collection. Mothers

working outside the home for more than24 hours per week were not eligible forthe study.Fifty percent of the working moth-ers were in working-class occupations,as were 45% of the fathers. The otheremployed parents were in middle-classoccupations. The median family incomewas $34,500 in 1986. One third of themothers had college degrees, anotherthird had some college education, and

all but one of the others had completehigh school. Eighty-five percent werCaucasian, 13% were Hispanic, and 3were Asian-American. All were two-paent families.Procedure

Mothers provided data using a strutured diary format similar to methodused by Goodenough (1931) and bZahn-Waxler and Radke-Yarrow (1982Each mother received a 90-minute traing session in her own home to familiaize her with the procedures for recoring the relevant data in the DisciplinRecord booklet (see Figure 1). She rviewed written definitions of the 2parental discipline techniques on thDiscipline Record and practiced themusing written and video-taped vignetteof discipline incidents. The video traiing tape depicted the 21 parental displine techniques and then illustraterole play vignettes of complex disciplinsequences for the mothers to code.The experimenters telephoned thsubjects twice weekly throughout thduration of the study to maintain compliance with the data collection and discuss any practical problems. To detemine the consistency of record keepingeach mother was asked on three occsions how soon a discipline incident wtypically recorded in the DisciplineRecord and what percentage of relevaincidents they recorded in the previouweek. The mean answers to these quetions were 9.6 minutes and 88.0%, rspectively.

MeasuresThe Discipline Record. The Discpline Record (see Figure 1) is a strutured parental diary in which parenrecord (a) each occurrence of thechild's fighting or disobedience and (each discipline technique they used response to that occurrence, selectedfrom a list of 21 techniques. In additiothe Discipline Record contains spacefor designating which type of misbehaior occurred (fighting or disobedienceand the date and time of each incidenFighting was defined for the mothers "physical fighting with siblings or othchildren," and disobedience was definefor them as "disobedience to spokeparental commands." Mothers alsrecorded the time periods of toddlesleep or separation from the mother.

The effectiveness of a discipline rsponse was measured by the length time until the next recurrence of the taget misbehavior, either disobediencefighting. Separation time and sleep timwere not counted in the time until rOctober 1994 FAMILY 48FEAMILYN48

8/8/2019 Exercise #1 Article 3

4/10

Figure 1. The disciplinerecord.THEDISCIPLINERECORD

PARENTAL ATITUDE Not Angry (NA) - Slightly ACTING*KEY ngry (SA) - Mod. Angry (MA) - Very Angry (VA)CHILD'S EMOTION (Intensity) Not Distressed (ND)- 1 Divert Child to Other Beh.Slightly Distressed (SD) - Mod. Distressed (MD) - Fo-d-r-m-eoVery Distressed (VD) J 2 Appropriate Beh.

Behavior FD FD FD FD FDDate 3 Planned IgnoringTime

Room 4 Model the BehaviorTALKING _ Putting child in boring_________________ 5 place, timeout

1 Command to Start 6 Remove Source of Diff.2 Command to Stop 7 Slap child's hand3 Desc. of Consequence 8 Spank4 Explanation 9 Other corporal punishment5 Label Behavior Bad 10 Withdraw privileges6 Offer a Reward Other techniques7 Scold/Shame PARENT'S ATTITUDE'8 Seek Information W9 Threaten y 0

10 Verbal withdrawl of Aff. CHILD'S Intensity*11 Yell =_=_=_EMOTION Duration (mins)

currence. Because the distribution of therecurrence-delay times was skewed, alog transformation of the time was usedfor most analyses, log1o (time + 1).Using recurrence delays to measureeffectiveness of discipline responses isan improvement from correlational anal-yses in that the antecedent variables (dis-cipline response and associated childdistress) always precede the consequent

variable (recurrence delay). Thestrength of the evidence for causality insuch analyses is diminished, however,by the extent to which the recurrencedelays are due to between-subject differ-ences instead of within-subject differ-ences. The problem is that part of thedifferences in mean delays until a misbe-havior recurs is due to subject differ-ences in the total frequency of reportedmisbehaviors over the 4-week data col-lection period. The mother who report-ed 140 fighting incidents necessarily av-eraged shorter times between fightingincidents than did the mother who re-ported only three fighting incidents.Thus, any mean differences in recur-rence delays in the main analyses couldhave been due to mothers of frequentfighters being less likely to use an appar-ently optimal discipline response thanwere the mothers of infrequent fighters,which would reflect between-subjectdifferences. Stronger causal evidencewould be shown by within-subject dif-ferences, that is, evidence that an opti-mal discipline response led to signifi-

cantly longer recurrence delays thanwere typicalfor that child.To isolate within-subject differ-ences, some analyses used family-specif-ic z scores. This z score was a furthertransformation of the log delay, basedon each family's own mean and standarddeviation of its log-delay scores. Each re-sulting z score indicated the extent towhich the recurrence delay was longer

(positive scores) or shorter (negativescores) than the mean for that particularchild. Analyses of family-specific zscores attempted to provide morecausally relevant information than in themain analyses.The 21 discipline techniques report-ed on the Discipline Record were used todefine seven discipline responses, de-rived from the following four disciplinecategories: Corporal Consequences con-sisted of any reported use of "slap child'shand" or "spank." Noncorporal Conse-quences included any use of "time out"or "withdraw privileges." Forced Compli-

ance consisted of any use of "forced per-formance of appropriate behavior" or "re-move source of difficulty." Reasoning in-cluded any use of "description of conse-quences," "explanation," or "seek infor-mation." The seven resulting disciplineresponses for this article were CorporalConsequences alone (i.e., without Rea-soning), Noncorporal Consequencesalone, Reasoning alone, Reasoning andCorporal Consequences, Reasoning andNoncorporal Consequences, Reasoning

and Forced Compliance, and Other. Bdefinition, an Other response includedneither kind of consequences nor reasoing. Any response that included "othcorporal punishment," which was cosidered the most abusive discipline tecnique, was also included in the Other rsponse category even if ConsequencesReasoning was used. Three fighting indents and 14 disobedience incidents wita Consequences or Reasoning component were placed in the Other categordue to this rule. The most common forof "other corporal punishment" was slaping a child's face. Forced Compliancwithout Reasoning was included in thOther category after determining that thmean Child Distress associated with it dnot differ significantly from the rest the Other category.

Test-retest reliabilities (i.e., stabilicorrelations) were calculated for each the seven discipline responses separatly by misbehavior type, by correlatinfrequency of reported use during thfirst 2 weeks with frequency of reporteuse during the last 2 weeks of data colection. For disobedience incidents, thtest-retest reliabilities of the seven discpline responses were .87 (NoncorporaConsequences alone), .45 (CorporaConsequences alone), .67 (Reasoningalone), .77 (Reasoning plus Forced Compliance), .34 (Reasoning plus Noncorporal Consequences), .48 (Reasoning pluCorporal Consequences), and .7(Other). For fighting incidents, the relibilities were .74, .78, .93, .64, .27, .7and .71, respectively. These are minimaly acceptable, except for the least frquent categories involving Corporal oNoncorporal Consequences. Nevertheless, the distinction between those twtypes of consequences was maintainebecause of the importance of the ditinction between them.

Child Distress was measured by aequally weighted composite of the twdistress items from the bottom of thDiscipline Record (Intensity and Durtion), divided into four levels ranginfrom lowest to highest distress. Mothereported the intensity and durationthe child's distress following each discpline incident. Discipline incidents thwere reported as having no child ditress (i.e., the lowest intensity level anzero minutes duration) were countedthe lowest level of distress. The remaiing incidents were divided as equallypossible into three additional levelsdistress, ranging from low to high ditress. The maximum low distress scorrepresented being slightly distressed fo1 minute. The maximum medium ditress score consisted of being moderatly distressed for 2 minutes. The high d482 FAMILY October 1994RELAllONS

8/8/2019 Exercise #1 Article 3

5/10

Table 1Mean Child Distress Scores by Discipline ResponseType of Discipline Incident

Discipline Response Disobedience FightingNoncorporal consequences 7.88a 13.lOaCorporal consequences 9.57b 8.29bReasoning 4.82 5.77cReasoning and forced compliance 8.15a 8.80bReasoning and noncorporal consequences 11.04bc 12.13aReasoning and corporal consequences ll.3OC 13-93aOther 3.79 5.05cNote. The means within a column that share the same subscript are not significantly differentfrom each other, using Fisher's Least Significant Difference test, p < .05. All other pairwise com-parisons within the same column are significantly different.

tress score represented greater intensityor durations longer than 2 minutes

Effects of DisciplineResponses on Child DistressChild Distress varied by the seven

discipline responses in a way generallyconsistent with expectations. One-wayanalyses of variance (ANOVAs) resultedin significant effects of Discipline re-sponses on Child Distress, F(6, 2,914) =81.27 for Disobedience incidents, F(6,758) = 29.68 for Fighting incidents, ps 2,3> 1 4,2>1Corporal consequences 1.74 2.66 2.88 3.30 L n.s.(23) (61) (90) (103) 4 >ReasoningReasoning alone 2.06 2.31 2.61 2.24 n.s. n.s.(199) (161) (130) (97)Reasoning and forced compliance 2.28 2.30 2.47 2.43 n.s. n.s.(22) (40) (51) (64)Reasoning and noncorporal consequences 1.94 3.98 2.61 3.04 n.s. n.s.

(8) (12) (14) (35)Reasoning and corporal consequences 2.51 3.17 4.28 2.56 n.s. C(7) (9) (25) (54) 3>1Neither Negative Consequences Nor ReasoningOther 1.81 2.11 2.47 2.50 L n.s.(682) (411) (276) (176) 4,3,2 >

Note. The number of discipline incidents within each cell is in parentheses.aTests of statistical significance of Child Distress within each type of discipline response: L = significant linear effect, p < .05. C = significant curvilear effect, p < .05. The numbers summarize pairwise comparisons, using Fisher's Least Significant Difference Test, p < .05. For example, 4 > 2,3 >means that "4. High" Distress had a significantly higher mean log delay than did either "2. Low" or "3. Medium," both of which had significanthigher mean log delays than did "1. None." The left-hand column summarizes statistical tests using a log transformation of hours to reduce skeness, Logl0 (hours + 1). The right-hand column summarizes statistical tests of family-specific z-score transformations of the logl0 (hours + 1), to ilate within-family effects. n.s. = not significant.Ii October 1994 FAMILY 48liii ~~~~~~~~~~~RELATIONS

8/8/2019 Exercise #1 Article 3

6/10

Figure 2. Meanhours until the next disobedience recurrenceby child distressand disciplineresponse.4

None Low Medium HighChild Distress

Consequences --Other -VReason, not Conseq. -WReason+ Conseq.

[-3, -1, +1, +3]) and a curvilinear con-trast predicted by Hoffman when Rea-soning was part of the discipline re-sponse (i.e., [-2, +2, +2, -2]). The differ-ence between the linear and curvilinearcontrasts specified precisely the differ-ence in expected effects of Child Dis-tress on recurrence delays, comparingConsequences alone against all four Rea-soning responses.

Multiplying the Discipline contrastby the Distress contrast yielded the inter-action contrast's coefficients for each ofthe 28 cells of the 4 X 7 ANOVA. This in-teraction contrast was significant, indi-cating that the relationship betweenChild Distress and recurrence delay dif-fered for Consequences and for Reason-ing responses in the precise way predict-ed by behavioral versus Hoffman's theo-ries, respectively, t(2,894) = -3.16, p

8/8/2019 Exercise #1 Article 3

7/10

Table 3Mean Hours Until Recurrence of Fighting by Discipline Response and Degree of Child DistressDegree of Child Distress Significancea

z-scoredDiscipline Response 1. None 2. Low 3. Medium 4. High Log (hrs.) log (hrs.)Negative Consequences Without Reasoning

Noncorporal consequences 8.45 4.15 7.11 5.88 n.s. n.s.(2) (6) (6) (29)Corporal consequences 3.36 3.01 5.94 6.97 n.s. L(5) (9) (23) (14) 3> 1, 2ReasoningReasoning alone 4.58 3.42 3.77 5.92 cbc n.s.(37) (48) (47) (33) 4 > 2Reasoning and forced compliance 10.22 4.04 5.39 6.58 n.s. n.s.(9) (8) (17) (23)Reasoning and noncorporal consequences 15.92 0.76 6.46 11.74 cc cc(2) (2) (7) (11) 4, 1 >2Reasoning and corporal consequences 7.80 - 7.18 5.41 n.s. Lb(2) (0) (3) (22)

Neither Negative Consequences Nor ReasoningOther 5.42 3.74 5.14 6.02 cc n.s.(127) (107) (87) (79) 4, 1 > 2

Note. The number of discipline incidents within each cell is in parentheses.aTests of statistical significance of Child Distress within each type of discipline response: L = significant linear effect, p < .05. C = significant curvilinear effect, p < .05. The numbers summarize pairwise comparisons, using Fisher's Least Significant Difference Test, p < .05. For example, 4, 1 >means that "4. High" Distress and "1. None" each had significantly higher mean log delays than did "2. Low" Distress. The left-hand column summarizes statistical tests using a log transformation of hours to reduce skewness, Logl0 (hours + 1). The right-hand column summarizes statistical tests ofamily-specific z-score transformations of the log10 (hours + 1), to isolate within-family effects. n.s. = not significant.bp < .10, two-tailed test (p < .05, one-tailed test).cCurvilinear effect in direction opposite of that predicted by Hoffman's theory (U-shaped instead of inverted U).In addition, the theory-derived interac-tion contrast did not remain significant,t(2,894) = -1.38, p = .17. However, twosimple effects showed significant resultsthat were consistent with the above re-sults (see Table 2): Distress had a posi-tive linear effect on the z-scored delaymeasure for Noncorporal Consequences.Distress had a significant curvilinear ef-fect on the z-scored delay measure forReasoning plus Corporal Consequences.

In simple effects of combined cate-gories of discipline responses, the lineareffect of Child Distress on the z scorelog delay remained significant for allConsequences-alone discipline respons-es, F(1, 2,894) = 5.13,p < .05. However,the curvilinear effect of Child Distresson the z-scored log delay for Reasoningresponses only approached significance,for example, for Reasoning plus Conse-quences, F(1, 2,894) = 3.22,p < .10.Effects on Delays UntilFighting Recurrences

A different pattern of resultsemerged for Fighting incidents (seeTable 3 and Figure 3). In general, disci-pline responses of any kind delayed thenext fighting recurrence longer at boththe no-Distress level and at the high-Dis-tress level than they did at the low-Dis-tress level.The effects of Child Distress by Dis-cipline Response on the delay until thenext recurrence of Fighting was tested

with a 4 X 7 (Child Distress X DisciplineResponse) ANOVA, using the log trans-formation of recurrence delay. Therewas a main effect for Distress level, F(3,738) = 5.58, but the Discipline effectand the Distress X Discipline interactionwere not significant.Follow-up analyses of the Distress ef-fect found a significant curvilinear effect,F(1, 738) = 13.00, p < .001, and a near-

significant linear effect, F(1, 738) = 3.53,p < .10. Fisher's Least Significant Differ-ence Test indicated that low Distress hada significantly shorter mean delay thandid any of the other Distress levels, ps

8/8/2019 Exercise #1 Article 3

8/10

Figure3. Meanhours until the next fightingrecurrenceby child distressanddisciplineresponse.12

10

8

2!0 I

None Low Medium HighChild Distress

Consequences A-Other - Reason, not Conseq. * Reason + Conseq.

and CorporalConsequences resulted inhigh ChildDistress,which exceeded themaximally effective, intermediate levelsof ChildDistress.Further,34%of the oc-currences of Reasoningalone were asso-ciated with no Child Distress, whichwas associated with the least effectiveuse of Reasoningalone.

The enhanced effectiveness of rea-soning at intermediate evels of child dis-tress was found only for disobedienceincidents, not for fighting incidents. Thedifferentialresults for disobedience ver-sus fighting incidents maybe due to thesource of the child's distress, whichcomes primarily rom the parent in dis-obedience incidents, but primarily romthe peer or sibling in fighting incidents.Thus, unlike disobedience incidents, in-termediate distress after fighting inci-dents maybe associatedwith continuingattention to the peer or sibling, not at-tention to the reasoning component ofthe parent'sdisciplineresponse.Distresscaused by fightingcould in-terfere with cognitive processing of theparentalreasoning component in threeways. First,the frustratingaspect of thefighting situation might hinder thechild's attention to parental reasoning.Second, when the parent appliesenough power assertion to force the

child's attention away from the frustrat-ing situation, the total child distressmight be too much for optimal cognitiveprocessing. Third, the motivating effectof the child's distress might be split be-tween satisfying the parent and resolv-ing the interpersonal conflict.These explanations may account forwhy discipline responses were least ef-fective at the second level of child dis-tress ("Low"), which was predicted tobe one of the more effective distress lev-els, at least for Reasoning responses. Ifintermediate and high levels of child dis-tress involve peer-elicited distress to asubstantial degree, then the child maypay adequate attention to the parentaldiscipline only at the level of no childdistress and at the higher distress levels.When there is no child distress, the par-ent is not competing with the peer orsibling for attention. When the child isalready upset with a play partner, a sideeffect of getting the child to pay atten-tion to the parent may be high levels ofchild distress.

In contrast to the case with Disobe-dience incidents, Reasoning makes nodifference in the relationship of childdistress to discipline effectiveness. Thisimplies that the child is not cognitivelyprocessing the reasoning component

during Fighting incidents. Given somlevel of child distress, the effectivenesof discipline increases with greater chidistress, consistent with the results fConsequences alone following Disobedence incidents. The practical implicatioof this explanation is that parents shoulwait until after their children havcooled off before reasoning with themabout alternatives to fighting, except the case of minor incidents of physicaaggression. The purpose of a disciplinresponse to most fighting would be put a stop to the fighting now and eplain alternatives and reasons later.

The methodologies used in thstudy have strengths and weaknessesthat need to be addressed. Strengths iclude measures and analyses specific each discipline incident, including mesuring the effectiveness of a disciplinresponse with the delay until the nexmisbehavior recurrence. We also atempted to go beyond correlational, btween-subject analyses. However, onlyfew relevant statistical tests were signicant when within-subject effects werisolated by using family-specificscores. It should be noted that z scoremay overcorrect, by equating each famly's average recurrence delay regardleof the child's temperament and the paenting quality.

The strengths of these researchstrategies have corresponding weakneses. One weakness of using discipline icidents as the unit of analysis is that thANOVA assumption of independent oservations was violated. Successive rcurrence delays were independenteach other, after controlling for familiemean recurrence delays. Neverthelessthe central results were due to betweenfamily differences as well as within-famly differences in the effectiveness of dferent discipline responses. This raisthe possibility that the results could bdue to idiosyncracies of this sample40 families. Further, a small number those families may have influenced Dcipline-Distress combinations that wercrucial for the results obtained in thstudy. Thus, replications of these resulare needed before we can have full cofidence in them.

Future research could improve odistinguishing different kinds of emotional reactions of children to discipline iterventions. Hoffman (1977) has arguethat fear leads to an external moral orietation (e.g., fear of getting caught)whereas empathy facilitates an internmoral orientation. Using negative consquences in a way that elicits high chidistress may lead to an external mororientation, whereas reasoning may bmore conducive to an internal moral oentation.

486 FAMILY October 1994 p

8/8/2019 Exercise #1 Article 3

9/10

Implications for ParentEducationRegardless of their particular per-spective, all parent education programsshould consider the implications of Hoff-man's (1977, 1983) theory for their pro-gram. Parent training programs that in-corporate consequences such as timeout should train parents to combine con-sequences with reasoning in a way that

minimizes child distress. This conclu-sion needs to be balanced, however,with the tendency for children to be es-pecially resistant when parents are firstimplementing such a training program(Barkley, 1987; Ollendick & Cerny,1981). For example, G. R. Patterson(personal communication, 1989) hasfound that preadolescents often misbe-have more persistently for about the firsttwo weeks of his parenting program be-fore improvements are seen.Parenting programs that do not in-corporate consequences need to in-struct parents to be particularly firm inusing alternative types of discipline re-sponses, such as reasoning. Otherwisetrainers are in danger of fostering natter-ing, an increasing frequency of verbalcomplaints to the child, which in turnare frequently ignored. Frequentparental nattering is a predictor of delin-quency (Patterson, 1982).All parent education programs needto consider how parents should adjusttheir discipline responses according toeach particular child and situation. Ifverbal interventions are adequate to geta child's attention, power assertion may

rarely be needed. A combination of mildpower assertion and reasoning maywork better with less anxious children.Adjusting discipline responses to thetemperament and mood of the childmay be an important component ofparental flexibility (Grusec & Goodnow,1994).What does this study contribute tothe debate about the role of negativeconsequences or punishment in parentaldiscipline? The controversy may be dueto the fact that the effects of negativeconsequences vary under different con-ditions. This study is useful in identify-

ing some conditions that maximize theeffectiveness of negative consequences.First, negative consequences aremost effective in delaying misbehaviorrecurrences when combined with rea-soning (Larzelere & Schneider, 1991).The reasoning-consequences combina-tion is most effective when child distressis kept lower than is typically the casefor that discipline response. This impliesthat mild versions of a reasoning-conse-

quences combination are better. Otherstudies indicate that (a) any use of nega-tive consequences should have a speci-fied maximum intensity, such as a 3-to-5-minute maximum for time out or twoslaps with an open hand to the buttocksthat leave no marks (Forehand & McMa-hon, 1981); (b) negative consequencesshould be used primarily to back upmilder discipline responses, such as rea-soning, a single warning, or time out(Roberts & Powers, 1990); (c) responsesto misbehavior should focus on a smallnumber of clearly targeted misbehaviorswhile ignoring less serious misbehaviors(Roberts, McMahon, Forehand, &Humphreys, 1978); (d) parents shouldturn to alternative discipline responsesor professional help rather than increas-ing the intensity of consequences if theyprove ineffective; and (e) negative con-sequences should be appropriate to thechild's age. The effectiveness of a care-fully prescribed spanking as a backupfor time out has been demonstrated onlyfor children from 2 to 6 years of age(Roberts & Powers, 1990). The effective-ness of time out has been demonstratedfor preadolescents as well (Patterson,1982). These restrictions for effectiveuse of negative consequences obviouslyrequire sober parents who are in controlof their emotions.

The implications of this study needto be placed in their appropriate con-text. The focus has been only on disci-pline responses to misbehavior. Positiveparenting in other contexts is probablyat least as important. Other research hasshown that sensitivity and responsive-ness to infant initiatives predict a secureattachment (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters,& Wall, 1978) and that parental affec-tion, clear expectations, reinforcementof appropriate behavior, granting of age-appropriate autonomy, and skill devel-opment all predict positive child out-comes (Baumrind, 1973; Friman, 1990;Larzelere, Klein, Schumm, & Alibrando,1989; Larzelere & Schneider, 1991;Roberts et al., 1978; VanAken & Riksen-Walraven, 1992). Positive parent-childrelations enhance the effectiveness ofdiscipline responses (Maccoby & Martin,1983). Further, parents can use proac-tive discipline strategies to preventmany discipline incidents (Holden,1983). The effectiveness of discipline re-sponses, the focus of this study, shouldnot be separated from the need for posi-tive parenting in nondisciplinary parent-child situations.- go t OAinsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S.(1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study ofthe strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Aronfreed, J. (1968). Aversive control of socialization. In WArnold (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (16, pp. 271-320). Lincoln: University of Nebraska PressAzrin, N. H., & Holz, W. C. (1966). Punishment. In WHonig (Ed.), Operant behavior: Areas of research andplication (pp. 380-447). New York: Appleton-CentuCrofts.Barkley, R. A. (1987). Defiant children: A clinician's manfor parent training. New York: Guilford.Baumrind, D. (1973). The development of instrumental cpetence through socialization. In A. D. Pick (Ed.), Mnesota Symposia on Child Psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 3-Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Chapman, M., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (1982). Young childrecompliance and noncompliance to parental disciplinenatural setting. InternationalJournal of Behaviouralvelopment, 5, 81-94.Cheyne, J. A., Goyeche, J. R. M., & Walters, R. H. (1969).tention, anxiety, and rules in resistance-to-deviationchildren. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,127-139.Cheyne, J. A., & Walters, R. H. (1969). Intensity of punment, timing of punishment, and cognitive structure asterminants of response inhibition. Journal of Experimtal Child Psychology, 7, 231-244.Crockenberg, S., & Litman, C. (1990). Autonomy as comtence in 2-year-olds: Maternal correlates of child defiacompliance, and self-assertion. Developmental Psychgy, 26, 961-971.Davies, G. R., McMahon, R. J., Flessati, E. W., & TiedemaG. L. (1984). Verbal rationales and modeling as adjunca parenting technique for child compliance. Child Deopment, 55, 1290-1298.Dix, T., & Grusec, J. E. (1983). Parental influence techniqAn attributional analysis. Child Development, 54, 645-6Forehand, R. L., & McMahon, R. J. (1981). Helping the ncompliant child: A clinician's guide to parent trainNew York: Guilford.Friman, P. C. (1990). Nonaversive treatment of high-rateruption: Child and provider effects. Exceptional Child57, 64-69.Goodenough, F. L. (1931). Anger in young children.neapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). Impact of parentalcipline methods on the child's internalization of valuereconceptualization of current points of view. Devemental Psychology, 30, 4-19.Hoffman, M. L. (1963). Parent discipline and the child'ssideration for others. Child Development, 34, 573-588.Hoffman, M. L. (1970). Moral development. In P. H. Mu(Ed.), Carmichael's handbook of child psychologyed., Vol. 2, pp. 261-354). New York: Wiley.Hoffman, M. L. (1977). Moral internalization: Current thand research. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in expmental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 85-133). NYork: Academic Press.Hoffman, M. L. (1983). Affective and cognitive processesmoral internalization. In E. T. Higgins, D. N. RubleW. W. Hartup (Eds.), Social cognition and social devement (pp. 236-274). Cambridge: Cambridge UniverPress.Holden, G. W. (1983). Avoiding conflict: Mothers as tacticin the supermarket. Child Development, 54, 233-244.Keppel, G. (1982). Design and analysis: A researchehandbook (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-HKochanska, G. (1991). Socialization and temperament indevelopment of guilt and conscience. Child Developme62,1379-1382.Larzelere, R. E., Amberson, T. G., & Martin, J. A. (199Changes in perceived discipline problems from 9 tomonths of age. Family Relations, 41, 192-199.Larzelere, R. E., Klein, M., Schumm, W. R., & Alibrando, SJr. (1989). The effects of spanking and other parencharacteristics on self-esteem and perceived fairnesparental discipline. Psychological Reports, 64, 1140-11Larzelere, R. E., & Schneider, W. N. (1991, April). The assation of parental discipline responses with delays urecurrences offighting or disobedience in toddlers. Ppresented at the meeting of the Society for ResearcChild Development, Seattle.LaVoie, J. C. (1974). Aversive, cognitive, and parental dminants of punishment generalization in adolescent mJournal of Genetic Psychology, 124, 29-39.Lepper, M. R. (1983). Social control processes and the inalization of social values: An attributional perspectiveE. T. Higgins, D. N. Ruble, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Socognition and social development: A sociocultural spective (pp. 294-330). Cambridge: Cambridge UnivePress.Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization incontext of the family: Parent-child interaction. In EHetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: VoSocialization, personality, and social developmented., pp. 1-101). New York: Wiley.Matson, J. L., & DiLorenzo, T. M. (1984). Punishment andalternatives: A new perspective for behavior modiftion. New York: Springer.

October 1994 FAMILY 4REUAlS

8/8/2019 Exercise #1 Article 3

10/10

Ollendick, T. H., & Cerny, J. A. (1981). Clinical behaviortherapy with children. New York: Plenum.Parke, R. D. (1969). Effectiveness of punishment as an inter-action of intensity, timing, agent nurturance, and cogni-tive structuring. Child Development, 40, 213-235.Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercivefamilyprocess. Eugene, OR:Castalia Press.Roberts, M. W., McMahon, R. J., Forehand, R., & Humphreys,L. (1978). The effect of parental instruction-giving on childcompliance. Behavior Therapy, 9, 793-798.Roberts, M. W., & Powers, S. W. (1990). Adjusting chair timeout enforcement procedures for oppositional children. Be-havior Therapy, 21, 257-271.

Rollins, B. C., & Thomas, D. L. (1979). Parental support,power, and control techniques in the socialization of chil-dren. In W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.),Contemporary theories about the family (Vol. 1, pp. 317-364). New York: Free Press.VanAken, M. A. G., & Riksen-Walraven, I. M. (1992). Parentalsupport and the development of competence in children.International Journal of Behavioural Development, 15,101-123.Van Houten, R. (1983). Punishment: From the animal labora-tory to the applied setting. In S. Axelrod & J. Apsche(Eds.), The effects of punishment on human behavior(pp. 13-44). New York: Academic Press.

Zahn-Waxler, C., & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1982). The devement of prosocial behaviors: Alternative research stgies. In N. Eisenberg-Berg (Ed.), The developmentprosocial behavior (pp. 109-137). New York: AcadePress.Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., Wagner, E., & ChapmM. (1992). Development of concern for others. Devemental Psychology, 28, 126-136.

F a m i l y L i f e Educationl t 1 9 9 4 Telacher's K i t SupplementThe Family Life Education 1994 Teacher's Kit Supplement is now available. ItFAMLYFEEDUCATMON

' ACHERSU"W consists of 30 lesson plansbased upon the ten family life substance areas used asN a a criteria for the Certified Family Life Educator program. The majority of the lessonplans are geared toward high school and undergraduate level students with many

.;.. graduate level lesson plans as well. The Supplement is meant to be added to theoriginal Family Life Education Teacher's Kit; however, it can also stand alone. The Kitand the Supplement provide family life educators with tested lesson plans that are, forthe most part, ready to use. Includes lesson plans, overhead masters, and handouts.List of lessonplans n the 1994 Teacher'sKitSupplement

FAMILIES AND SOCIETY Using Problem Solving as a Method for Enhancing PositiveChanging Family Structure Development in Young ChildrenBenefits & Burdens of Paid & Unpaid Work PatternsRole of Power in Understanding Racial Discrimination & FAMILY LAW & PUBLIC POLICY

Prejudice Sexuality & the LawLegal Issues in Aging Families

INTERNAL DYNAMICS OF FAMILIES Culture of the Cults/OccultsAdjustment to DivorceWhat's a Family? ETHICSRules of the Game Are We Teaching Values or Valuing?

Development of Ethical Thinking & PracticeHUMAN GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT Self-Formation: Values & Valuing in Life Skills Development

The Business of DyingFood for Thought FAMILYLIFE EDUCATION METHODOLOGYRole of Stress & Consequences Developing a Philosophical Rationale for Program

DevelopmentHUMAN SEXUALITY Gender Equitable Family Life Education

Make Mine With Onions (using as a text, the book My Instructional Strategies in Family Life EducationDarling, My Hamburger by Paul Zindel)

Spread of Opinion: Adolescents & Contraceptives CFLE/NCFR member price $21.95Sexual Scripts: Compatibility, Contexts & Changes Across the plus $3.00 shipping & handling.*Lifespan Nonmember price $24.95 plus $3.00 shipping &INTERPERSONALRELATIONSHIPS handling.*Intimacy - Analysis of Personal AccountHelping Couples Resolve Conflict *Orders must include $3.00 per kit shipping & handling U.S. & $6.00Expressing Love to Older People per kit foreign & Canadian. U.S. funds drawn on U.S. banks only.10% discount on 10 or more copies. Please make checks and money

FAMILY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT orders payable to NCFR. Visa and MasterCardaccepted. Canadianresidents add 7% GST (123-830-465). MN residents add 6.5% tax.Evaluating the Cost of Consumer Information FEI41-0762436Families in Poverty lManaging Time Resources r 9 National Council on Family RelationsIa*I Mr.E3989 CentralAvenue N.E., Suite 550PARENT EDUCATION & GUIDANCE Minneapolis, MN 55421Parenting Styles & Possible Outcomes (612) 781-9331 *FAX (612) 781-9348ParentingPositively NCFR E-mail: ncfr3989@aol.com

488 FAMILY October 1994RELA11NS I