|
Abstract
|
This paper presents a theoretical model of the antecedents and consequences of the use of physical punishment by parents and teachers and preliminary tests of that theory using data from a variety of sources, most notably the 3,300 children and 6,000 couples in the National Family Violence Survey. Over 90 percent of American parents use physical punishment to correct misbehavior. The findings support the theory that although physical punishment may produce conformity in the immediate situation, in the longer run it tends to increase the probability of deviance, including delinquency in adolescence and violent crime inside and outside the family as an adult. However, since the findings are based on cross sectional studies, experimental studies are needed to test the causal nature of the relationships. If the results of such experiments support the theory, important implications emerge for both individual parents and national policy. For individual parents, the theory suggests that parents who use no physical punishment will, on the average, have better behaved children. At the national policy level, the theory suggests that one of the steps needed to achieve a society with a minimum of crime and violence is for parents to avoid all use of physical punishment.
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The purpose of this paper by Straus was to present a theoretical model of the antecedents and the consequences of physical punishment of children.
METHODOLOGY:
The author conducted a non-experimental examination of this theory, and drew upon data from several studies to evaluate the plausibility of the theory. The model was based upon the hypothesis, that, whilst physical punishment might produce conformity in the immediate situation, its long-term consequences might include an increase in the probability of deviance such as delinquency, child and wife abuse, and adult criminality. Physical punishment was defined in this paper as a legally permissible attack upon a child, including spanking, slapping, grabbing, roughly shoving and hitting with an object. Violence was defined as an act committed with the intention, real or perceived, of causing physical pain or injury. The author examined data from several cross-sectional studies as a means of partially evaluating the plausibility of the theory, whilst admitting that a full test of the theory would require longitudinal and historical data analysis.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
The author began with an examination of the incidence of physical punishment, and found that almost all parents in the United States use physical punishment with young children, aged 2 to 6 years, and that one-third of children were still experiencing such punishment at age 15. A 1978-1979 survey of schools found an incidence rate of physical punishment of 2.5 per 100 children. Most parents have been found to approve of physical punishment, with studies reporting as many as 90% of parents expressing some degree of approval. The relationship between approval and use of physical punishment has been found to be consistent: parents who approve of such punishment are more likely to use it more often than those who do not. In light of these data, the author proposed a framework with which to stimulate and guide research. Cultural Spillover Theory suggests that violence in one area of life tends to engender violence in others, transcending the boundaries between legitimate and criminal use of violence. On the macro-sociological level, the theory attempts to explain society-to-society differences in violence rates, and testing has found that countries with higher levels of legitimate violence also have higher levels of criminal violence. On an individual level, the theory suggests that children consider teachers and parents and other people responsible for them as role models, and learn that physical punishment is an acceptable way to deal with people who have misbehaved or mistreated them. Crime is therefore not seen as a result of individual pathology or lack of social control, but rather as a result of a social integration into groups whose values and norms support criminal behavior. The processes that lead to criminal activities are thus parallel to those which produce conformity, although the cultural content and context of the two are different. The model that is drawn from this theory suggests that physical punishment affects both the characteristics of the society in which the punishment occurs and its members, which in turn influence the probability of commission of future physical punishment. Antecedents of physical punishment by parents include characteristics of the society, schools, families and individual parents which are thought to influence the use of physical punishment. Societal characteristics include legal norms, crime rate, media violence, war and capital punishment. School characteristics include student violence and teacher skills, and family influences involved include socioeconomic status, household composition, spouse violence, stress and support network. Parent characteristics which increase the risk of use of physical punishment include youthfulness, aggressiveness, poor parenting skills, authoritarianism, and the presence of approval of physical punishment and experiencing such punishment as a child. Child influences include level of activity, handicaps, aggressiveness and how easy or difficult the child is to handle. Physical punishment in schools and by parents are thought to exist in a mutually reinforcing relationship, and conditions under which punishment is administered - whether controlled or impulsive, explained or unexplained, if consistent with family norms and over time - play an important role in the effects of punishment upon the child and upon the development of future violent and criminal behavior. Effects of physical punishment postulated by the model and largely supported by empirical testing include the social effects of a punitive legal system, high levels of violent crime and a degree of militarism; school effects include influences upon motivation to learn, level of violence and presence of vandalism; family effects include less effective socialization, child and spouse abuse and sibling violence; individual consequences include depression and suicide, low self-esteem and alienation, approval of violence, non-family violence and other crime, authoritarianism, and the confounding of sex with violence. Whilst support of physical punishment in schools is not as great as support for such punishment by parents, there still exists a substantial movement of advocates for corporal punishment, including fundamentalist Christians, school boards and teachers' organizations, who believe that teachers have a similar right to discipline as do parents, or order in schools will decline. The Cultural Spillover Theory, however, suggests that the opposite will happen: physical punishment in school engenders, rather than reduces, violence. Both student violence and student homicide have been found to be related to higher levels of physical punishment in schools. Greater teacher approval of physical punishment has also been shown to be related to a higher rate of homicide of infants. The more a society favors the use of physical punishment, the more likely it will be used more often and earlier in life. With infants being extremely vulnerable, the effect of such punishment can be fatal. The author concluded that, although the empirical findings are almost completely consistent with the Cultural Spillover Theory, the theory cannot be absolutely proven because the data do not establish direction of causality. Nonetheless, the analyses could have falsified the model, but did not, which strengthens the basic proposition of the theory - although physical punishment might be an effective tool for producing immediate conformity, in the long-term it most likely also creates or exacerbates deviance.
AUTHOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS:
The author suggested that future research must involve longitudinal and experimental data. Whilst the random assignment of parents to an experimental physical punishment group is unethical, the presence of an almost universal use of physical punishment by parents anyhow suggests that field experiments can revolve around the formation of control groups that involve parents' participation in educational programs that teach alternatives to physical punishment. The development and testing of the Cultural Spillover Theory would be greatly advanced if criminologists and family violence researchers were to collaborate to examine in a more detailed fashion the links between physical punishment and criminal behavior outside the family. Researchers should acknowledge the ideas that all violence has something in common, but that there are significant differences between various kinds of violence.
EVALUATION:
The author presents an interesting and informative examination of the antecedents and the consequences of physical punishment of children. By presenting a theoretical model and examining data to evaluate the theory, the author has provided researchers and prevention planners with important information for future decision making. However, the results of the empirical tests must be viewed with some caution, due to the issue of direction of causality. Whilst a causal model cannot be inferred from data analysis of cross-sectional studies, the existence of a relationship among physical punishment and its various antecedents and consequences is nonetheless of considerable value. Also of importance are the recommendations for future research provided by the author. Whilst a more detailed and thorough discussion of the implications of the findings would have been helpful, overall the paper represents an important addition to the study of violence in society. (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
KW - Physical Punishment
KW - Punishment Effects
KW - Corporal Punishment Effects
KW - Long-Term Effects
KW - Child Victim
KW - Juvenile Victim
KW - Juvenile Delinquency
KW - Delinquency Causes
KW - Juvenile Offender
KW - Adult Offender
KW - Adult Violence
KW - Adult Crime
KW - Crime Causes
KW - Juvenile Crime
KW - Violence Causes
KW - Partner Violence
KW - Domestic Violence Causes
KW - Domestic Violence Offender
KW - Child Abuse Offender
KW - Child Physical Abuse Effects
KW - Child Physical Abuse Offender
KW - Childhood Experience
KW - Childhood Victimization
KW - Victimization Effects |