Understanding the Link Between Corporal Punishment and Child

Physical Abuse

Sabrina Fréchette, Elisa Romano, & Michael Zoratti

University of Ottawa, Canada

ISSBD 2012, Edmonton, Canada

• Research has linked corporal punishment use with child physical abuse (e.g., Gonzalez et al., 2008).

• Child physical abuse: Deliberate use of force against a child, causing injury or putting the child at risk of injury (Canadian Department of Justice, 2011).

• In an examination of 1,286 substantiated Canada-wide physical abuse cases (Durrant et al., 2009): – Spanking was used as a typical form of discipline in

54.6% of cases. – Spanking was a significant predictor of case

substantiation.

Theoretical Background

• ↑ frequency and severity of corporal punishment has been associated with ↑ likelihood of harsher punishment approaching or meeting definitions of physical abuse (e.g.,

Zolotor et al., 2008).

• Past research has focused on characteristics of the child (e.g., age, sex, behavioural functioning) and parent (e.g., age, sex, SES), but results have been inconclusive (Gonzalez et al.,

2008).

Theoretical Background

• Gershoff (2002a,b) proposed that corporal punishment (frequency, severity) may interact with other disciplinary strategies and directly predicts child physical abuse. This link can be further moderated by factors such as :

– State of the parent when disciplining his child (e.g., level of anger);

– Stable characteristics of the parent (e.g., level of impulsivity, parenting style);

– Family characteristics (e.g., intimate partner violence).

Theoretical Background

• Understand the risk of child physical abuse among individuals who experienced corporal punishment during childhood.

– Examine the link between spanking and child physical abuse;

– Among individuals who experienced spanking during childhood, investigate variables that may explain the escalating risk towards physical abuse:

• Frequency of spanking; • Co-occurring disciplinary strategies (i.e., psychological aggression,

positive discipline); • Parenting style (i.e., consistency, warmth and support); • Characteristics of the parent in disciplinary moments (i.e.,

impulsiveness, anger); • Intimate partner violence (i.e., verbal and physical).

Research Objectives

• 370 undergraduate students completed an on-line questionnaire.

• Questionnaire package previously developed for the International Parenting Study (IPS):

– Focuses on methods used by parents to correct children’s misbehaviours;

– Involves a research consortium of approximately 20 nations representing all major world regions.

(http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/IPS.htm)

Participants and Procedure

Sample Demographics Variable N %

Sex Male Female

90 279

24.4

75.6

Age 18-24 25-29 30-35 40+

339 7 15 6

92.4 1.9 4.1 1.6

Household Income 0-$29 999 $30 000-$59 999 $60 000-$99 999 $100 000+

41 84 103 129

11.5 23.5 28.9 36.1

Ethnicity European/North American African-Canadian/Black Asian/Pacific Islander Middle Eastern Hispanic/Latino Native/Aboriginal Other

217 44 39 26 12 8 17

59.8

12.1

10.7

7.2

3.3

4.7

• Outcome: – Conflict Tactics Scale Parent-Child Version (Straus et al., 1998)

• Childhood experience of physically abusive behaviours (5 items)

• Predictors:

– Dimensions of Discipline Inventory (Straus & Fauchier, 2007)

• Frequency of childhood experience of spanking (1 item) • Perceived level of parental impulsiveness (2 items) • Perceived level of parental anger (1 item) • Perceived consistency of discipline (3 items) • Perceived level of parental warmth and support (3 items) • Frequency of childhood experience of psychological aggression (4 items) • Frequency of childhood experience of positive discipline (7 items)

– Revised Conflict Tactics Scale – Short Form (Straus & Douglas, 2004). • Perceived level of verbal (1 item) and physical (3 items) intimate partner

violence (IPV).

• Items asked about experiences at age 10 and were answered separately for mother and father.

Measures

Description of Study Variables

Variable Cronbach’s α N M (SD) Scale Range

Physical Abuse 0.89 370 1.46 (3.80) 0-60

Spanking 0.65 370 1.87 (2.86) 0-18

Psychological Aggression 0.85 370 13.47 (12.01) 0-72

Positive Discipline 0.87 370 32.95 (19.36) 0-126

Consistency of Discipline 0.80 370 17.24 (4.09) 0-24

Warmth and Support 0.91 370 17.88 (5.39) 0-24

Impulsiveness 0.77 370 6.19 (3.58) 0-16

Anger 0.72 370 4.62 (1.82) 0-8

Verbal Intimate Partner Violence 0.88 370 2.44 (3.36) 0-12

Physical Intimate Partner Violence 0.90 370 0.97 (3.11) 0-36

Link between spanking and child physical abuse

• Significant relationship between spanking and child physical abuse (β=3.303, p˂.001).

• Participants that were spanked at age 10 were 27.20 (11.43-64.73) times at greater risk of experiencing physical abuse behaviours at that same age.

Experiences with Spanking and Child Physical Abuse

Spanking

Yes No

Child Physical Abuse Yes No

20.8% 24.9%

1.6%

52.7%

Predictors of escalation risk

• Only participants who experienced spanking were included in the linear regression.

• Predictors were entered in 5 blocks in the model: 1. Spanking;

2. Psychological aggression + Positive Discipline;

3. Consistency + Warmth/support + Impulsiveness + Anger;

4. Verbal IPV + Physical IPV

5. Interaction of spanking with all other predictors.

• All models significantly predicted child physical abuse, FFinal Model (9, 64)=5.07, p˂.001.

Summary of Regression Analysis

Β SE t

Spanking .048 .015 3.180***

Psychological Aggression -.003 .004 -.768

Positive Discipline .002 .003 .901

Consistency of Discipline .005 .012 .420

Warmth and Support -.003 .010 -.266

Impulsiveness .031 .015 1.979*

Anger -.032 .034 -.950

Verbal Intimate Partner Violence -.021 .011 -1.903

Physical Intimate Partner Violence .032 .008 3.750***

*p˂0.05; **p˂0.01; ***p˂0.001

• Approximately half (i.e., 45.7%) of participants reported having experienced spanking at age 10 by their parents.

• Experience of spanking, often defended as a mild and acceptable form of corporal punishment, was associated with an increased risk of child physical abuse.

Conclusion

• Among individuals who experienced spanking, the escalation risk toward child physical abuse was predicted by the increase in:

1. Spanking frequency

2. Parental impulsiveness

3. Physical IPV

• Co-occurring discipline and parenting style do not seem to influence or counteract the abuse risk in

individuals who experienced spanking.

Conclusion

Thank you! Merci!

References Department of Justice Canada. (2011). Child abuse: a fact sheet from the Department of Justice

Canada. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/fv-vf/facts-info/child-enf.html

Durrant, J. E., Trocmé, N., Fallon, B., Milne, C., & Black, T. (2009). Protection of children from physical maltreatment in Canada: An evaluation of the supreme court's definition of reasonable force. Child and Adolescent Maltreatment, 18, 64-87.

Gershoff, E. T. (2002a). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 539-579.

Gershoff, E.T. (2002b). Corporal punishment, Physical Abuse, and the Burden of proof: Reply to Baumrind, Larzelere, and Cowan (2002), Holden (2002), and Parke (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128, 602-611.

Gonzalez, M., Durrant, J. E., Chabot, M., Trocmé, N., & Brown, J. (2008). What predicts injury from physical punishment? A test of the typologies of violence hypothesis. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 752-765.

Straus, M. A., & Douglas, E. M. (2004). A short form of the revised conflict tactics scales, and typologies for severity and mutuality. Violence and Victims, 19, 507-520.

Straus, M. A., & Fauchier, A. (2007). Manual for the Dimensions of Discipline Inventory (DDI). Durham, NH: Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire. Retrieved from http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/

Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Finkelhor, D., Moore, D. W., & Runyan, D. (1998). Identification of child maltreatment with the parent-child conflict tactics scales: Development and psychometric data for a national sample of American parents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22, 249-270.

Zolotor, A. J., Theodore, A. D., Chang, J. J., Berkoff, M. C., & Runyan, D. K. (2008). Speak softly - and forget the stick. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, 364-369.