 
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association,
27-January-2006, Vol 119 No 1228
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On the receiving end: young adults describe their
parents’ use of physical punishment and other disciplinary measures during
childhood
Jane Millichamp, Judy Martin, John Langley
The topic of child punishment has generated considerable
emotion and debate amongst members of the public, doctors, educators, and
politicians as well as those from different religious, cultural, and ethnic
groups. Even members of the same family may hold opposing views about the use of
punishment with children. The research literature appears to mirror the public
debate with academics differing in their views and interpretations of the
available findings.1–3 A particular issue of contention centres around
whether smacking of children should be legally permitted.4
Prevalence research on the topic of childhood punishment can
be grouped into three broad areas: studies of public attitudes; parental reports
of punishment use; and recipient reports of punishments experienced in
childhood.
Public attitudesSeveral studies have been conducted in New Zealand to
determine public views regarding the physical punishment of children and
adolescents. Such research has indicated that between 80% and 87% of respondents
agree that a parent should be able to smack a child with an open hand.5,6 A
smaller proportion of respondents (15%5; 31%6) endorse the use of more severe
methods, such as hitting a child with a wooden spoon or belt, hitting a
teenager, or thrashing a child. Researchers in the United States have documented
similar community attitudes towards the use of physical punishment.7
Parental reportsNew Zealand research conducted in the 1990s has shown
smacking to be a prevalent disciplinary method, as reported by parents. Ritchie
found that about half of parents surveyed reported hitting their child once a
week or more.8 Maxwell found that 70% of parents reported smacking their
children; 11% had hit them with an object such as a strap, and 2% reported
giving their child a thrashing.6 Maxwell noted that these numbers may be
artificially low due to memory demands, the young age of some respondents’
children, and media coverage of a child murder case at the time, which may have
influenced respondents’ willingness to report the use of physical
punishment.
North American studies have also shown that the vast
majority of parents report spanking or smacking their children, with prevalence
figures ranging from 70% to 95%.7,9–11 The age of the child is an
important factor and smacking is most prevalent during early childhood. Straus
(1990) found that 95% of toddlers were smacked.12 More severe forms of physical
punishment, such as hitting the child with an object, appear to be less common
with one study indicating a prevalence rate of 17%.7
Recipient reportsFergusson and Lynskey (1997) presented their findings
related to young New Zealanders’ reports of physical punishment.13 Of the
1025 18-year-olds in the Christchurch-born sample, 78% reported having received
physical punishment on an infrequent basis, 8% on a regular basis by at least
one parent, and 4% reported parental use of physical punishment that was overly
frequent, harsh, or abusive. Only 11% of the sample reported no physical
punishment by parents.
Consistent with New Zealand rates, North American studies
have shown prevalence figures ranging from 80% to 95% for those reporting being
smacked.14–16 However, these studies provide little information about the
different types of physical and non-physical punishment used, the identity of
the punishers (e.g. mothers, fathers, step-parents), and the respondents’
views or emotional reactions to punishments received.
The role of contextual factors has largely been examined in
relation to broader family and individual characteristics rather than the
immediate circumstances in which the punishment was administered.17 Two research
teams have used large community samples to show correlations between physical
punishment and family characteristics such as single parenting, young maternal
age, and low socioeconomic status.9,13
Woodward and Fergusson (2002) examined data from their
earlier study13 and identified additional factors associated with harsh or
severe treatment in childhood, including child variables (conduct or attention
problems, lower IQ), maternal characteristics (difficulties with own mother,
history of depression, alcohol/drug abuse), and contextual features (high
marital conflict, child witnessing of interparental violence, stressful life
events).18
A criticism of contextual studies has been that they have
generally focused on:
In summary, studies on child
punishment have indicated that physical punishment (particularly smacking) is
widely endorsed and much-used by parents in many Western
countries,8–11,13–16 with a small percentage of children subjected
to severe violence.13,19 However, some gaps in the research literature have been
noted, such as the limited information available on situational factors
associated with childhood punishment.17
The present study provides information about the prevalence,
forms, and context of physical punishment from early childhood to late
adolescence, as well as the recipients’ views regarding the punishments
received. Gender differences are compared for both recipients and punishers in
order to give a clear picture of who is most likely to be responsible for, or
recipient of, the various types of physical punishment.
MethodsParticipants were members of the Dunedin
Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study (DMHDS), a longitudinal
investigation of the health, development, and behaviour of 1037 young New
Zealanders. All children born at Dunedin’s only obstetric hospital between
1 April 1972 and 31 March 1973 and still living in Otago at 3 years of age were
eligible for inclusion in the study.
Study members (SMs) have been assessed at regular
intervals since birth. A wide range of demographic data, physiological measures,
and parent/family variables have been collected at different stages of the
study. A detailed description of the DMHDS is provided by Silva and Stanton
(1996).20 The SMs have been shown to be more frequently of European descent and
higher socioeconomic status than the New Zealand population as a whole. However,
the high retention rate has resulted in a full cross-section of the sample being
represented. Ethical approval was granted for Phase 26 of the study, including
the current assessment.
980 SMs participated in a 1-day DMHDS assessment in
1998/1999. SMs were 26 years old at the time. A 10-minute face-to-face interview
on family violence was completed by 962 SMs (92.8% of the original sample).
Interviewers were female health professionals trained and supervised by the
Principal Investigator (Judy Martin).
Most of the interview was related to parental
disciplinary methods. SMs were given the following introductory statement:
Looking back at your
childhood, I would like to ask about punishment or discipline in your home. By
punishment I mean everything that happened when your parents were angry with
you, not just hitting.
This was the first time since birth that SMs were asked
about physical punishment.
Parental discipline questions covered three main areas:
SMs were
allocated to one of four groups according to the most severe physical punishment
reported at any time during the interview. These groups were:
SMs were assigned to the
No Physical Punishment group if there
were no reports of physical punishment at any stage of the interview.
The Smacking
group consisted of those SMs who reported parental smacking with open hand on
legs, hand, or bottom, as the most severe physical punishment ever received.
The Hit with
Object group involved SM reports of being hit with an object such as a
wooden spoon or strap, being slapped on the face, or being clipped around the
ear, none of which entailed injury or lasting bruises.
Extreme
physical punishment was recorded when
SMs reported more than one instance of the following parental behaviour: hitting
with a strap or a hard object that left cuts, lasting bruises, or welts;
“beating up” (i.e. out-of-control hitting; punching; knocking-out);
choking; sitting on; throwing on floor or against wall etc; sexual violation.
All four categories were derived from reports that SMs
had made at any time during the parental discipline interview (i.e. either
“usual” or “worst” punishment).
For questions about worst punishment, SMs were asked to
describe the worst punishment they had ever received from either of their
parents. If the first answer involved a non-physical form of punishment, the SM
was prompted for any physical punishment. Worst ever punishment responses were
similarly assigned to one of the four groups (non-physical, smacking, hit with
object, and, extreme).
SMs were included in the appropriate category for
worst-ever punishment, even if they had experienced a particular punishment only
once. SMs could nominate more than one worst punishment, but they were assigned
a severity level based on the most severe of the worst punishments mentioned.
All SMs were asked who carried out the worst punishment, how often it occurred,
and how much it upset them.
Details of the extent of injury and the site of
punishment (target area) were gathered for physical punishments more severe than
a smack. In addition, all SMs were asked how old they were when last hit and how
much they were hit compared to other children their age.
Reasons stated by the SMs for the worst punishment
received were compared across the four severity levels of punishment. For every
SM in the extreme physical punishment group (n = 58), equal numbers of
comparison SMs were randomly selected from the three other punishment groups.
This was achieved by using the identification number closest to that of the SM
from the extreme group.
232 SMs were included in this analysis. Content
analysis was used to categorise the reasons for punishment.
Reasons were divided into six categories:
SMs were asked at age 26 to report
retrospectively on family composition, with nuclear families defined as
comprising the two birth (or adoptive) parents and non-nuclear families
comprising a single parent and/or step-parent. The quality of the parental
relationship was assessed by asking SMs at age 26 whether their parents got on
well/had lots of rows. Other variables such as parents’ ages at SM’s
birth were gathered at earlier phases of the study.
Interviewers monitored all SMs for signs of emotional
distress during the interviews and offered the assistance of a clinical
psychologist when appropriate. (A clinical psychologist was available on site
during all interviews.) The interviewer made notes of any signs of distress or
emotion (e.g. tears in eyes, shaking) and recorded details in a separate
section.
Data were analysed using SPSS v11 software. Cross
tabulation was used for categorical variables and comparison of means for
continuous variables.
ResultsTable 1 presents the four severity levels of physical
punishment in relation to a number of demographic and family variables. The
results show that a total of 80% of SMs reported receiving physical punishment
at some time during childhood. One-fifth of the SMs (20%) did not report any
physical punishment, 29% reported smacking as the most severe, 45% said they had
been hit with an object, and 6% reported extreme physical punishment involving
injury or lasting bruises.
Table 1. Levels of physical punishment by demographic
and family variables of study members (SMs)
More women than men reported smacking as the most severe
physical punishment; more men than women reported being hit with an object. Both
genders had similar reported rates of extreme physical punishment. There was a
significant difference in reported levels of physical punishment when nuclear
and non-nuclear families were compared. SMs in nuclear families experienced
lower levels of severe punishment than SMs from non-nuclear families. A positive
association was also found between inter-parental conflict and reports of
extreme physical punishment.
Of the SMs in the extreme punishment group, 17% reported
exposure to frequent parental rows, versus only 2% who reported that parents got
on really well. When parents’ ages were compared across punishment levels,
it was found that SMs with younger mothers (mean age: 23 years) were more likely
to report receiving extreme physical punishment in childhood.
Usual forms of disciplineTable 2 presents the SMs’ responses to the question
What did your parents usually do when they
were mad at you? for both primary and secondary school years. SMs gave
unprompted answers to this question, with more than one response being possible.
The results show that for primary school age, smacking was the most commonly
cited punishment with 55% of SMs reporting this, followed by telling off (47%),
yelling (36%), and being hit with an object (35%).
Both categories of physical punishment showed significant
gender differences at primary school age: females were more likely to report
being smacked than males, and males were more likely to report being hit with an
object.
Table 2. Usual forms of discipline compared by
gender
*Types of
punishment are not mutually exclusive (SMs could name more than one);
†Emotional abuse involved excessive use of sarcasm or criticism, emotional
blackmail, public humiliation, deliberate destruction of property, and ridicule.
For secondary school years, the most commonly reported forms
of punishment were (in order of prevalence) loss of privileges (48%), telling
off (41%), yelling/shouting (28%), and reasoning/discussion (21%). Smacking
ranked fifth in order, with 12% of SMs citing this as a usual form of punishment
in secondary school years.
Four categories of parental discipline showed significant
gender differences for secondary school years. Males more frequently reported a
telling off from parents whereas females more frequently cited incidents of
yelling, loss of privileges and smacking.
Changes from primary to secondary school yearsWith the exception of the more extreme forms of punishment,
there was a general trend for physical punishment to abate in secondary school
years, when compared to primary years. For both smacking and being hit with an
object, there were four times as many SM reports (both male and female) in
primary years versus secondary years.
When SMs were asked for their views about whether they were
hit more, the same, or less than other children, their perceptions accurately
reflected the prevalence data across the four groups. For example, the majority
(80%) of SMs in the no physical punishment group said they were hit less than
others and the majority (72%) of those who received extreme physical punishment
said they were hit more. The vast majority (98%) of those in the smacking group
thought they were hit about the same or less than others.
Study members’ views of worst punishmentTable 3 presents the SMs’
responses regarding the worst ever punishments received. A wide range of
physical and non-physical punishments were described, with many SMs naming more
than one punishment each. Punishments were collapsed into four broad categories.
The category most frequently cited as the worst punishment was non-physical
punishment (50%), which mostly comprised grounding and loss of privileges. The
next most frequently cited worst punishment was being hit with an object (48%),
followed by smacking (24%) and finally, extreme physical punishment with 9% of
SMs naming this as the worst.
Punisher characteristicsThe four categories of worst punishment were compared
according to the person who had carried out the punishment (see Table 3). At the
mild end, non-physical forms of punishment were significantly more likely to be
carried out by mothers (χ2=34.76,
[3], p<0.001). As the severity of punishment increased, there were fewer
reported instances of both parents administering the punishment
(χ2=34.86, [3],
p<0.001). At the extreme end,
fathers were significantly more likely to be cited for administering extreme
punishment (χ2=69.25, [3],
p<0.001).
Only a small proportion of SMs lived with stepfathers (15%).
Within “stepfathered” families, stepfathers were responsible for
extreme punishment at a similar rate to fathers in “fathered”
families (7% stepfathers cf 6.3% fathers).
Table 3 also presents results for how often the worst
punishment was carried out and how upset SMs were about the punishment received.
Reports from all four groups of SMs showed that occurrences of worst punishment
were generally low, with most SMs experiencing their worst-ever punishment on
the rare occasion. In contrast, the degree of distress reported by study members
was high, with the majority stating that they were very upset by the experience.
Of the four groups, the highest proportion of “very upset” SMs was
found in the extreme physical punishment group.
Data relating to the extent of injury were collected for all
SMs reporting punishment more severe than smacking. Of these 351 SMs, 60%
reported no injury, 25% reported bruising, and 13% reported other forms of
injury. Results related to the part of body targeted for physical punishment
showed that SMs who reported punishment in the extreme range were significantly
more likely to be hit on the head (75% vs 24%; OR 9.29; 95% CI:
4.80–17.99) or the torso (54% vs 12%; OR 8.86; 95% CI: 4.69–16.72)
than those reporting lower-level punishment.
When SMs were asked how old they were when they received
their last physical punishment, 47% reported being 12 years or more. Physical
punishment ceased for most SMs at ages 10 and 12 years, with approximately 12%
of SMs citing each of these ages. However, of the SMs who reported physical
punishment, 40% were still being hit between the ages of 13 and 18 years.
Reasons for punishmentContent analysis of reasons for worst punishment (n=232)
revealed there was no appreciable difference in the seriousness of the
misdemeanor in relation to the severity of physical punishment meted out.
Only one difference was found in the reasons SMs gave as the
cause of their punishment. This was attributing the punishment to
characteristics of the parent (e.g. parental bad temper, alcoholism); this
reason was offered by 17% (10/58) of the SMs who reported extreme physical
punishment and 4% (2/58) of those reporting hitting with an object. No SMs in
the other two groups (no physical punishment and smacking) cited parental
characteristics.
Evidence of distress in study membersAnalysis of interviewer notes relating to SM distress during
the interview showed that a higher percentage of SMs in the extreme physical
punishment group (22%) showed signs of emotional distress than those in the hit
with object (2%), smacking (1%) or no
physical punishment (1%) groups.
DiscussionThis study showed that the large majority of SMs (80%) were
exposed to physical punishment during childhood. Reported prevalence was highest
for primary school years, with large reductions in reports of regular physical
punishment for secondary school years. Nonetheless, nearly half of all SMs were
hit as teenagers, if only on an occasional basis. American researchers, Straus
and Donnelly (1993) reported similar figures for the use of physical punishment
with adolescents.21
The present findings are based on retrospective reports of
events that took place in the 1970s and 1980s. This raises questions about the
fallibility of memory and the applicability of findings to the present day.
However, the prevalence figures obtained in this study are very consistent with
those of recent studies both in New Zealand and North
America6–8,11,13–16 suggesting that in some populations at least,
rates of physical punishment have not altered greatly over the past few decades.
Another potential weakness of the present study relates to
the fact that the main focus was placed on physical punishment with questions
about what parents did when angry. Limited information was gathered about
positive disciplinary methods (e.g. rewards and praise) and emotional abuse.
This information was recorded only when SMs volunteered it spontaneously.
Significant gender differences were found for those
reporting physical punishment. In particular, at primary school age, more girls
were reportedly smacked and more boys hit with an object. Other studies have
shown similar results for boys in terms of the greater prevalence and severity
of physical punishment.7,16
This study provided new information regarding punisher
characteristics. No previous studies were found which investigated disciplinary
behaviour of step-parents in a community population (child abuse studies
excepted). The present findings indicated that, when the proportions of parented
versus step-parented families were taken into account, stepmothers and
stepfathers were no more likely than their mother/father counterparts to
administer physical punishment, contradicting a popular negative view of
step-parents.
Of the few studies which have investigated mother/father
punishment ratios, the findings have been mixed with several studies showing
similar rates8,11,22 and several indicating that mothers dispense most of the
punishment6,7 when all forms of physical punishment were considered together.
However, these findings need to be tempered with the fact that many mothers
spend a greater proportion of time with children, increasing the probability of
discipline use.
This study showed differential use of punishment procedures
by parents, with mothers cited more often for the use of non-physical methods
such as loss of privileges, and fathers and stepfathers more frequently
associated with the use of extreme punishment. One reason for the predominance
of males in physical punishment categories might be related to prevailing sex
stereotypes regarding whose duty it is to administer physical punishment. In a
separate strand of the DMHDS which investigated beliefs about parenting, many
SMs at age 15 voiced the opinion that fathers should take responsibility for
punishing children’s bad behaviour.20 Furthermore, the tendency for some
fathers to punish on behalf of their partners (i.e. mothers) has been noted in
one study.22
The identification of male caregivers as more likely to
deliver extreme punishment adds to the research findings and presents a more
complex picture than previous research has indicated. It now appears that
different caregivers are linked to different forms of punishment, with fathers
and stepfathers more commonly associated with extreme punishment. Two
small-scale studies have provided limited evidence to support the present
findings. In the first study, a subset of respondents receiving high levels of
corporal punishment reported that the most severe physical punishment was
delivered by their fathers.16
A second study showed a difference (albeit non-significant)
in parental use of severe physical punishment, with fathers outnumbering
mothers.22 Preventive efforts may be more effective if focused on fathers and
stepfathers specifically, facilitating the use of non-physical methods of
disciplining children, as well as techniques for conflict and anger management.
The fact that there was no relationship found between reason
cited for punishment (i.e. extent of misdemeanor) and severity of punishment
administered, suggests that parents do not apportion punishment to fit the
“crime”. It may be that parents fall back on one or two forms of
discipline regardless of the particular child behaviour. If this is the case,
then educative methods may be beneficial in assisting parents to use
non-physical methods and/or restitution more appropriate and effective for the
specific misdemeanor.
This study adds to the research knowledge regarding
recipients’ views about the punishments received, given that no previous
community-based studies on this topic could be identified. An unexpected finding
was that non-physical punishment was most frequently regarded as the worst
punishment ever received, with 50% of SMs naming at least one non-physical
punishment method such as privilege loss. This figure is in contrast to the much
smaller percentage (20%) of SMs who reported receiving only non-physical
punishment during childhood. This finding could be due to the recency effect in
that SMs interviewed at 26 years might be more likely to recall events occurring
closer in time (i.e. in adolescence) to their current age.
Nonetheless, the fact that many SMs stated explicitly that
methods such as grounding were far worse than any physical punishment received
during childhood, suggests that these methods may have aversive qualities in
their own right which make them memorable. The potent nature and aversive
qualities of privilege loss (as deemed by the SMs) make it a more effective
punisher in behavioural terms.23 This finding has implications for parents in
terms of the choice of punishment methods for use in late childhood and early
adolescence. A further advantage of such methods is that they do not involve
physical intervention or force, with the inherent risks of negative modelling,
escalation, retaliation, and injury.
One negative side effect of physical punishment (i.e.
emotional distress) was clearly evident in this study. Not only did 79% of SMs
in the extreme physical punishment group indicate verbally that they were
“very upset” at the time of punishment, but also, nearly a quarter
showed physical signs of emotional distress, such as tearfulness, during the
interview. This finding suggests that severe physical punishment can result in
strong emotional reactions, even when the punitive events occurred 10 to 15
years earlier.
The present study sheds light on the category of physical
punishment labelled as “extreme” with results indicating that this
form of punishment is quite different from less severe forms (i.e. smacking,
hitting with an object). Whereas lower-level physical punishments are more often
directed at younger children (primary school age) and are gender-specific (with
girls generally receiving milder physical punishment), extreme physical
punishment appears to be administered indiscriminately—on girls and boys,
and both younger and older children.
In addition, the present results suggest that extreme
punishment is more frequently:
Outcome research has indicated unequivocally that
extreme or abusive punishment has harmful negative consequences.13,24,25 For
this reason, it is crucial that research continues to identify the significant
factors associated with its use. A paper examining more closely the relationship
between levels of punishment and outcomes in early adulthood is currently in
preparation.
Parental use of punishment appears to be influenced by many
contextual factors including gender, age, parent/family characteristics, and
environmental conditions. While this study provides additional information on
contextual factors, there is still much to be learned about punishment use and
misuse. For instance, little is known about parents’ concurrent use of
positive disciplinary procedures (e.g. positive feedback, physical affection)
and the effects these techniques might have on measures such as emotional
distress.
In addition, further research is warranted to delineate
clearly between different types of punishment. Two groupings used in the present
study may have contained a wide range of acts with either negative or positive
implications for recipients. Specifically, the
Hit with Object punishment category
included being hit with a slipper through to being hit with a jug cord, and
No physical punishment could have
included a range of experiences from parental reasoning and privilege loss
through to psychological abuse and neglect.
This may have caused ambiguity in a number of SM reports.
The use of punishment with children is a complex issue
involving specific practices ranging from mild (e.g. verbal disapproval,
reasoning) to extreme (e.g. physical assault, emotional abuse) and with the
potential to result in injury, emotional harm, and death. All evidence to date
suggests that it is triggered and maintained by a wide range of factors. It is
hoped that the courage of study members (in New Zealand and world wide) to share
their experiences and divulge personal information from the past will promote
further research and enable the development of effective and positive parenting
strategies for the future.
Author information:
C Jane Millichamp, Lecturer; Judy Martin, Senior Teaching Fellow, Department of
Psychological Medicine; John Langley, Director, Injury Prevention Research Unit;
Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Dunedin School of Medicine,
University of Otago, Dunedin
Acknowledgements:
The Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Research Unit is
funded by the NZ Health Research Council (HRC grant 98/1408). We thank Vinita
Mathew, Dr Judy Trevena, Natasha Pomeroy, the Psychological Medicine Research
Group, Peter Herbison, Anita Admiraal, and Assoc Prof Richie Poulton for their
assistance and helpful comments on this paper. Thanks also to the two anonymous
reviewers for their helpful feedback. We are very grateful to the Dunedin
Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study Members and their families who
have given their time and shared their personal information over many years.
Correspondence: Dr C
Jane Millichamp, Dept of Psychological Medicine, Dunedin School of Medicine, PO
Box 913, Dunedin. Fax: (03) 474 7934; email: jane.millichamp@stonebow.otago.ac.nz
References:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | Current
issue | Search journal |
Archived issues | Classifieds
| Hotline (free ads) Subscribe | Contribute | Advertise | Contact Us | Copyright | Other Journals |
|