Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Child Youth Serv Rev. 2013 Jun 7;35(9):1476–1485. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.05.016

Parental Spanking and Subsequent Risk for Child Aggression in Father-Involved Families of Young Children

Shawna J Lee 1, Catherine A Taylor 2, Inna Altschul 3, Janet C Rice 4
PMCID: PMC3765035  NIHMSID: NIHMS490132  PMID: 24019558

Abstract

This study examined separate and combined maternal and paternal use of spanking with children at age 3 and children's subsequent aggressive behavior at age 5. The sample was derived from a birth cohort study and included families (n = 923) in which both parents lived with the child at age 3. In this sample, 44% of 3-year-olds were spanked 2 times or more in the past month by either parent or both parents. In separate analyses, being spanked more than twice in the prior month at age 3, by either mother or father, was associated with increased child aggression at 5 years. In combined analyses, there was a dose-response association; the greatest risk for child aggression was reported when both parents spanked more than twice in the prior month (adjusted odds ratio: 2.01; [confidence interval: 1.03-3.94]). Violence prevention initiatives should target and engage mothers and fathers in anticipatory guidance efforts aimed at increasing the use of effective and non-aggressive child discipline techniques and reducing the use of spanking.

Keywords: corporal punishment, physical aggression, physical discipline, fragile families, Child Behavior Checklist, child maltreatment

1. Introduction

Dozens of studies have linked spanking to increased child aggression, antisocial behavior, and mental health problems (e.g., Gershoff, 2002; Grogan-Kaylor, 2005; Berlin, Ispa, Fine, et al., 2009; Taylor, Manganello, Lee, & Rice, 2010; Maguire-Jack, Gromoske, & Berger, 2012). Other studies, however, have raised questions about the magnitude of spanking's impact on children (e.g., Ferguson, 2012; Morris & Gibson, 2011) as well as distinguish between degree of physical punishment and its impact (Larzelere & Kuhn, 2005). Yet spanking remains among parents' most common disciplinary practices. Earlier studies suggested that about 94% of parents had used some form of spanking to discipline their 4 year old children, and approximately one-third have spanked their infants (Straus & Stewart, 1999). More recently, in a large, urban, population-based study, two-thirds of 3-year-old children had been spanked by one or both parents in the past month (Taylor, Lee, Guterman, Rice, 2010). Reports from both mothers and children indicate that over 80% of children have been spanked by the time they reach 9 or 10 years of age (Vittrup & Holden, 2010).

A notable gap in understanding parental use of spanking and, by extension, changing it, exists because the vast majority of research has focused only on mothers' use of spanking (e.g., Grogan-Kaylor, 2005; Berlin, et al., 2009; Taylor, Manganello, et al., 2010; Lansford, Criss, Dodge, Shaw, Pettit, & Bates, 2009; Campbell, Pierce, Moore, Marakovitz, & Newby, 1996; Grogan-Kaylor, 2004; Kandel & Wu,1995; Singer, Singer, & Rapaczynski, 1984; Scholer, Walkowski, & Bickman, 2008). Parenting education and intervention efforts in social work and primary care settings also tend to recruit mothers (Scholer, Hudnut-Beumler, & Dietrich, 2010). The influence that fathers' use of spanking has on child outcomes is not clear. The information gap regarding fathers' use of spanking is problematic, since children in two-parent households receive discipline from, and thus are influenced by, mothers and fathers. For example, in the previously cited study, 65% of 3-year-old children had been spanked by one or both parents in the previous month: 12.7% by fathers only, 23.5% by mothers only, and 29.1% by both parents (Taylor, Lee, et al., 2010).

Even though, in two-parent households, mothers assume most of the responsibility for day-to-day care for young children, evidence indicates that fathers may engage in relatively more punishment and harsh discipline of children (Straus & Stewart, 1999). The limited evidence that does exist suggests that paternal spanking outcomes may be similar to maternal spanking effects. For example, similar to research among mothers who spank (Maguire-Jack, et al., 2012) paternal spanking was associated with increased child aggression in adolescence (Prinzie, Onghena, & Hellinckx, 2006). However, this study did not examine paternal spanking in early childhood (Prinzie, et al., 2006). A more thorough examination and clearer understanding of the influence of fathers is important, especially in early childhood, since both spanking and levels of child aggression peak during these years (Straus & Stewart, 1999) and consistent reliance on spanking that begins at very early ages may contribute to less optimal outcomes for children (Lansford, Criss, Dodge, Shaw, Pettit, & Bates, 2009).

Furthermore, it is important to assess mothers' and fathers' influences independently and conjointly because, although mothers and fathers use positive and negative parenting behaviors with similar frequencies (Tamis-LeMonda, Shannon, Cabera, & Lamb, 2004; Cabrera, Shannon, & Tamis-LeMonda, 2007), parenting styles do not necessarily overlap within couples (Martin, Ryan, & Brooks-Gunn, 2007; Ryan, Martin, & Brooks-Gunn, 2006; Winsler, Madigan, & Aquilino, 2005). For example, one parent may discipline the child more frequently because the other parent does not. Alternatively, mothers' and fathers' behaviors may reinforce each other, a pattern which compounds the positive or negative effects on children when the influence of mothers' and fathers' behaviors are considered simultaneously (Ryan, et al., 2006). Therefore, analyses that rely solely on reports of maternal spanking may greatly underestimate the child's exposure to discipline. As a result, clinicians must appreciate the separate and concurrent influences of maternal and paternal spanking on young children. This study, which seeks to extend knowledge on how fathers' parenting behaviors influence the development of their young children, will provide clinicians with information allowing them to better design intervention and education programs that reach fathers.

1.1. The Current Study

This study examines the separate and combined influence of maternal and paternal spanking on the children's subsequent aggressive behavior at age 5, using longitudinal data from families where both parents resided in the home when their child was 3 years old. The study families were defined as father-involved, because all fathers were living in the household at the time of the assessment of spanking. Further, all fathers self-identified as the biological parent of the study target child at the child's birth. Our first research goal examined whether fathers' spanking influences the development of child aggressive behavior, while controlling for such important confounds as child's exposure to more serious forms of maltreatment. Our second research goal examined the additive effect of both maternal and paternal spanking and considered whether combined parental spanking influences child aggression in a manner resembling patterns observed when each parent is examined separately.

This study addressed important methodological limitations inherent in prior studies that have examined the influence of maternal spanking on children, as reviewed elsewhere (Taylor, Manganello, et al., 2010). First, many prior studies examining the influence of spanking on child wellbeing relied on clinical or child protective services (CPS) samples, which may introduce selection bias when interpreting study results. Before completing the analyses in this study, we conducted prospective analysis of a community-based sample of diverse urban families. Second, children who are more difficult to parent may elicit harsher parental discipline (Day, Peterson, & McCracken, 1998; Belsky, 1984; Beauchaine, Webster Stratton, & Reid, 2005); therefore it is important to control for the child's level of aggressive behavior (Maguire-Jack, et al., 2012). In this study, we controlled for the child's baseline level of aggression at age 3 and examined whether parental spanking was associated with a subsequent increase in child aggression measured at age 5. We also used longitudinal data to account for the sequencing of the association between spanking, measured at age 3, and children's outcomes, measured at age 5. Fourth, factors such as physical and psychological maltreatment of the child (Smith, 2012); intimate partner aggression and violence; parental stress; and alcohol use have been linked to spanking (Taylor, Manganello, et al., 2010; Taylor, Lee, et al., 2010; Black, Heyman, & Smith, 2001; Lee, Perron, Taylor, & Guterman, 2011; Slep & O'Leary, 2005; Zolotor, Theodore, Chang, Berkoff, & Runyan, 2008) and to childhood aggression. The presence of these factors may confound the association between spanking and aggressive behavior (Brennan, Hall, Bor, Najman, & Williams, 2003; Koblinsky, Kuvalanka, & Randolph, 2006; McFarlane, Groff, O'Brien, & Watson, 2003; Meadows, McLanahan, & Brooks-Gunn, 2007; Owens & Shaw, 2003). In this study, we controlled for both variable factors in our final models and for the child's daily television viewing, given that exposure to media is also associated with increased risk of child aggression (Manganello & Taylor, 2009). Finally, we controlled for each father's self-report of involvement in daily care of the child, because fathers' levels of involvement vary considerably, even among in-residence, biological fathers.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

This sample was obtained from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS), a longitudinal cohort study of families. The original cohort (N = 4898) was obtained between 1998 and 2000 by sampling new births within hospitals from cities with populations over 200,000. Non-marital births were oversampled relative to marital births, because parents in non-marital unions are at greater risk for poverty and relationship instability. (Participants whose relationships are characterized by these dynamics are termed fragile families.). The institutional review boards at Columbia University and Princeton University approved participant recruitment procedures (Reichman, Teitler, Garfinkel, & McLanahan, 2001). Responding fathers were recruited at hospitals and by telephone. Fathers were identified as the biological father of the target child. Verbal and written informed consent was obtained from participants at each interview, and participants were compensated for their involvement in the study. Detailed description of the study design was published previously (Reichman, et al., 2001).

Core interviews with mothers and fathers were conducted across multiple waves: baseline (at index children's birth) and when children were 1, 3, and 5 years of age. The add-on In-Home Longitudinal Study of Pre-School Aged Children was conducted with mothers only when children were 3 and 5 years of age.

The sample for this study was selected based on whether the biological father was residing in the home at the time of the 3-year In-Home interview (n = 1414). Families were excluded from analyses if the father did not provide key demographic information at baseline (n = 120); the father did not provide psychosocial information (e.g., depression, substance use, father involvement) at 3 years (n = 73); the mother did not provide information on measures of child maltreatment at 3 years (n = 30); and the mother did not provide information on child aggression at 5 years (n = 234)— commonly because she did not participate in this wave of data collection. Missing data on other study variables (n = 34) resulted in a final sample of 923 families. Because non-marital births were oversampled at baseline, many fathers were not living in the home when the child was 3 years old. Therefore, when analyzing data from mothers and fathers together, a substantial decline is visible from the original cohort to the year-3 interview (Reichman, et al., 2001).

2.2. Measures

Mothers and fathers reported on their own use of spanking. Maternal reports provided data for instances of both maternal and paternal psychological and physical child maltreatment (besides spanking) and the children's aggressive behavior. Although fathers self-reported their own use of spanking, fathers were not asked questions about other forms of psychological and physical maltreatment and thus we relied on maternal reports of these behaviors. Descriptive statistics for all study variables are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Sample demographic statistics, by level of combined parental spanking, n=923

Variable (M (SD) or %) Total Sample No spanking (32%) Either parent 1-2 times (24%) Both parents 1-2 times (or) one parent >2 times (35%) Both parents >2 times (9%)
Higher child aggressive behavior age 5, % yes 49 40*** 49*** 54*** 63***
Higher child aggressive behavior age 3, % yes 55 44*** 60*** 60*** 63***
Paternal parenting risks
 Paternal psychological maltreatment of child, no. of incidents in prior year (range: 0-83 incidents) 17.2 (17.1) 10.1 (13.3)*** 15.9 (15.7)*** 21.8 (17.8)*** 27.5 (18.8)***
 Paternal physical maltreatment of child, no. of incidents in prior year (range: 0-54 incidents) 4.7 (8.7) 2.0 (5.4)*** 2.7 (4.9)*** 7.0 (9.9)*** 11.2 (14.0)***
 Paternal parenting stress (range: 1-4) 2.08 (0.67) 2.03 (0.69)*** 2.07 (0.65)*** 2.09 (0.65)*** 2.27 (0.64)***
 Paternal major depression, % yes 10 9 7 13 12
 Paternal high alcohol use (4 or more drinks in 1 day in past year), % yes 30 27 28 33 32
 Paternal use of drugs, % yes 10 8 10 10 17
 Father involvement with child (range: 0.54-6.85) 4.5 (1.1) 4.6 (1.1) 4.5 (1.1) 4.5 (1.0) 4.4 (1.0)
Maternal parenting risks
 Maternal psychological maltreatment of child, no. of incidents in prior year (range: 0-102 incidents) 24.4 (18.6) 16.3 (15.7)* 24.3 (18.6)* 29.1 (18.4)* 34.6 (17.5)*
 Maternal physical maltreatment of child, no. of incidents in prior year (range: 0-57 incidents) 7.4 (10.9) 2.7 (6.0)*** 5.5 (7.7)*** 11.1 (12.7)*** 14.5 (14.5)***
 Maternal parenting stress (range: 1-4) 2.23 (0.63) 2.13 (0.65)*** 2.19 (0.62)*** 2.31 (0.61)*** 2.35 (0.59)***
 Maternal major depression, % yes 16 10** 19** 19** 20**
 Maternal high alcohol use (4 or more drinks in 1 day in past year), % yes 10 10 10 10 13
 Maternal use of drugs, % yes 6 3** 5** 10** 7**
 Mother victim of intimate partner aggression and/or violence, % yes 43 35* 48* 46* 48*
Demographic and household characteristics
 Male child, % 50 45* 50* 53* 62*
 Child daily exposure to TV (range: 0-16.86 hours per day) 3.0 (2.1) 2.5 (1.9)*** 3.0 (2.1)*** 3.2 (2.0)*** 3.6 (2.4)***
 Mother's age, median, y (range: 15-44y) 26.7 (6.1) 27.9 (6.0)** 26.6 (6.3)** 25.8 (6.0)** 26.0 (5.9)**
 Mother's education: Less than high school, % 24 26* 24* 23* 18*
  High school 28 22 32 29 31
  Some college 28 24 28 29 32
  College graduate 21 28 17 19 20
 Mother's race/ethnicity: White, % 34 37*** 33*** 29*** 45***
  African American 34 21 35 45 39
  Hispanic 27 37 30 21 11
  Other 5 6 2 5 5
 Mother foreign-born, % 16 26*** 18*** 10*** 4***
 Annual household income (range: 1-1000) 52239 (60514) 59726 (63985)* 53073 (74728)* 45799 (49768)* 48851 (37837)*
 Father's age, median, y (range: 16-61) 29.1 (7.0) 30.6 (7.2)*** 29.5 (7.2)*** 27.9 (6.6)*** 28.2 (6.2)***
 Father's education: Less than high school, % 25 26** 28** 24** 18**
  High school or equivalent 29 24 29 32 29
  Some college 27 22 26 29 35
  College graduate 20 28 18 14 17
 Father's race/ethnicity: White, % 33 37*** 29*** 29*** 42***
  African American 37 22 37 48 48
  Hispanic 26 34 33 20 8
  Other 4 6 2 4 2
 Father foreign-born, % 16 27*** 17*** 9*** 2***
Open in a new tab

Note. Rows and columns may not add to 100% due to rounding. Household income was square-root transformed for all analyses. Untransformed annual household income, based on maternal report (M=$52,311, SD=$60,789, median=$40,000). Chi-square tests were conducted for binary and categorical variables (denoted as %). One-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted for continuous variables. Results are reported for the omnibus test:

***

p < .001.

**

p < .01.

*

p < .05.

2.2.1. Predictor Variable: Spanking of the Child at 3 Years of Age

In separate 3-year core interviews, mothers and fathers indicated whether they had spanked the child in the past month when he or she was misbehaving or acting up. If so, they indicated the frequency of spanking: never (coded 0), 1–2 times (coded 1), or >2 times (coded 2). Mother and father spanking variables were coded into separate variables. A third variable indicated the child's combined exposure to spanking by both mother and father at 3 years of age. Approximately one third of children (32%) were spanked by neither parent in the past month (coded 0); almost one quarter (24%) were spanked 1–2 times by either their mother or father, but not both (coded 1); 35% were spanked >2 times by one parent or spanked 1–2 times by both parents (coded 2); and in 9% of cases the child was spanked >2 times by both parents (coded 3).

2.2.2. Dependent Variable: Child Aggression at Age 5

Twelve items from the aggression subscale of the Child Behavior Checklist for age 5 (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000) measured whether (0 = not true, 1 = somewhat or sometimes true, 2 = very true or often true) the child argues a lot; is cruel; bullies and shows meanness to others; destroys (his or her) own things; destroys things belonging to family or others; is disobedient at home; is disobedient at school or in childcare; gets in many fights; physically attacks people; screams a lot; teases a lot; threatens people; or is unusually loud (α = 0.71; mean = 0.36, median = 0.25, standard deviation = 0.30). Because the variable was highly skewed, we followed the precedent set forth in prior research (e.g., Taylor, Manganello, et al., 2010) and dichotomized at the median value and analyzed as lower aggression (scores of 0–0.25) versus higher aggression (scores of 0.26–1.58). The FFCWS did not use all items from the CBCL aggression subscale; therefore it is not possible to calculate meaningful clinical cut-points using the current dataset.

2.2.3. Child Aggression at Age 3

Nineteen items from the aggression subscale of the Child Behavior Checklist for age 3 (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000) measured whether (0 = not true, 1 = somewhat or sometimes true, 2 = very true or often true) the child is defiant; has demands that must be met immediately; is disobedient; does not seem to feel guilty after misbehaving; is easily frustrated; gets in many fights; hits others; has angry moods; punishment does not change behavior; screams a lot; is selfish or will not share; is stubborn, sullen, or irritable; has temper tantrums or hot temper; is uncooperative; wants a lot of attention; cannot stand waiting and wants everything now; destroys things belonging to family members or other children; hurts animals or people without meaning to; or physically attacks people (a = 0.87; mean = 0.58, median = 0.526, standard deviation = 0.33). This variable was also dichotomized at the median value and analyzed as lower aggression (scores of 0–0.525) versus higher aggression (scores of 0.526–1.95).

2.3. Possible Confounds

We assessed numerous self-reported parenting risk factors that might confound the relationship between spanking and child aggression. All parenting risk factors were assessed as control variables where children were 3 years of age. Such factors include physical and psychological maltreatment of the child, intimate partner aggression and violence, parental stress, and alcohol use, all of which have been linked with spanking (Taylor, Manganello, et al., 2010; Taylor, Lee, et al., 2010; Black, et al., 2001; Lee, et al., 2011; Zolotor, Theodore, Chang, Berkoff, & Runyan, 2008; Slep & O'Leary, 2005) as well as with childhood aggression (Brennan, et al., 2003; Koblinsky, Kuvalanka, & Randolph, 2006; McFarlane, Groff, O'Brien, & Watson, 2003; Meadows, McLanahan, & Brooks-Gunn, 2007; Owens & Shaw, 2003). Child's daily television viewing also was included, given its relationship to child aggression (Manganello & Taylor, 2009).

2.3.1. Child Maltreatment

Seven items from the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scales (CTSPC) assessed frequency of father-to-child and mother-to-child psychological and physical maltreatment at age 3 (Straus, Hamby, Finkelhor, Moore, & Runyan, 1998). An item measuring spanking was excluded from the physical aggression subscale to avoid overlap with the key independent variable in this study. Though the CTSPC subscales are often referred to as measuring parental aggression, we use the term maltreatment so that we do not confuse parent-to-child aggression with the outcome variable of child aggressive behavior. We also use it because parental behaviors such as shaking a child are considered maltreatment. The CTSPC asks parents to recall and report both the incidence and frequency of a range of physical aggression (e.g., shook child; slapped child) and psychological aggression (e.g., shouted, yelled, or screamed at; threatened to spank or hit but did not actually do it) (Straus, Hamby, Finkelhor, Moore, & Runyan, 1998). Behaviors such as shaking and, hitting, or slapping a child with an object (and leaving bruises) would meet the criteria of child maltreatment.

2.3.2. Father-to-Mother Intimate Partner Aggression and Violence

Mothers reported physical or psychological aggression from her spouse or current partner. Three items (e.g., “He slaps or kicks you”) from the Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) assessed physical aggression, and four items adapted from the Spouse Observation Checklist (Lloyd, 1996; Weiss & Margolin, 1977) assessed psychological aggression (e.g., “He tries to keep you from seeing or talking with your friends or family”). This variable was dichotomized for analysis (none versus any).

2.3.3. Parenting Risks

Parents self-reported their level of parenting stress using the Personal Distress subscale of the Parenting Stress Index Short Form by indicating their agreement (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree) with four items including, “Being a parent is harder than I thought it would be” and “I feel trapped by my responsibilities as a parent” (αmother= 0.60; αfather = 0.63).

Mothers and fathers self-reported depression using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview-Short Form (CIDI-SF), Section A (Kessler, Andrews, Mroczek, Ustun, & Wittchen, 1998). The CIDI-SF is a standardized instrument that uses the criteria set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) to determine the probability that the respondent would be diagnosed with major depression if given the full CIDI interview. Major depression is indicated by self-report of feelings of depression or anhedonia experienced for most of the day, every day, for at least 2 weeks. In the current study, participants were classified as likely to have major depression if they endorsed the screening items and 3 or more depressive symptoms (e.g., losing interest, feeling tired, change in weight) (0 = no, 1 = yes).

Mothers and fathers also self-reported alcohol use. A dichotomous variable was created to indicate high alcohol use by assessing whether the father or mother had consumed ≥ 4 drinks in 1 day in the past 12 months (0 = consumed 0-3 drinks in 1 day in the past year or 1 = consumed ≥ 4 drinks in 1 day in the past year). The FFCWS alcohol use questions are based on the CIDI-SF alcohol-dependence questions, which are intended to indicate the probability or likelihood that the respondent would receive a diagnosis of alcohol dependent had they received the full CIDI. However, few men or women met the CIDI-SF criteria indicating probability of alcohol dependence. Therefore, we created a variable to indicate “high alcohol use.” Though less stringent than the CIDI-SF, our operationalization of high alcohol use approximates the National Institute on Alcohol and Alcoholism's definition of a “heavy drinking day,” as indicated by ≥5 drinks in a single day for men and ≥4 drinks in a single day for women (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2005). We also assessed parental self-report of any drug use in the past year (0 = no, 1 = yes).

Fathers self-reported their daily involvement with the child, measured with a mean score of the number of days in a week the father provided 13 different types of care to the child, among them: sings songs or nursery rhymes with child, hugs or shows physical affection to child, tells child that he loves him or her, reads stories to child, assists child with eating, and puts child to bed (α =.86). Parenting stress and father involvement with the child were analyzed as continuous variables. The other parenting risk variables were dichotomized (no versus yes).

2.3.4. Demographic and Household Characteristics

Household and demographic characteristics include parental age, race/ethnicity, education level, and household income. We assessed foreign birth or nativity status because prior studies show that immigrant mothers and fathers may less frequently engage in harsh punishment of young children when compared to native-born American parents (Taylor, Guterman, Lee, & Rathouz, 2009; Altschul & Lee, 2011; Lee, Altschul, Shair, & Taylor, 2011). We also assessed child characteristics, including the child's sex (Gershoff, 2002), and the child's exposure to television (Manganello & Taylor, 2009)—which we measured with two questions asking mothers to estimate how many hours the child spent watching TV or videos at home or elsewhere on weekdays and weekend days.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

First, we examined descriptive statistics and carried out bivariate analyses (ANOVA and X2) to assess differences in all study variables as a function of combined parental spanking; results are presented in Table 1. Second, we used logistic regression to examine relationships between maternal and paternal spanking when the child was 3 years old and child aggression at age 5. Three models were examined for maternal spanking, paternal spanking, and combined maternal and paternal spanking. Model 1 examined the association of spanking the child at age 3 and child aggression at age 5; Model 2 controlled for the child's initial level of aggression at age 3; and Model 3 added psychosocial parenting risk factors and demographic characteristics. Model 3 for the combined effects of maternal and paternal spanking included only maternal education and race/ethnicity. For example, 88% of parents were of the same race/ethnicity. Therefore including both maternal and paternal reports was unnecessary and increased the risk of multicollinearity in the models. Furthermore, these variables were not central to the primary research questions examined in this study and were used only as controls. Annual household income was log transformed in all analyses, and logistic regression models were adjusted for city of the 3-year interview and parental marital status at birth—two important aspects of the FFCWS sampling design.

To be thorough and as a check for the robustness of our results, we compared the logistic regression models reported below to ordinary least squares regression models, with child aggression at age 5 analyzed as a continuous variable and transformed to minimize skew. The pattern of associations between spanking and child aggression were the same as those observed in the logistic regression models. Therefore, for ease of interpretation and to maintain consistency with prior work (Taylor, Manganello, et al., 2010), we report the logistic regression results herein.

3. Results

Table 1 presents overall study descriptive statistics as well as bivariate results for parenting risks and demographic and household features as a function of combined parental spanking. Many of these variables were significantly associated with greater parental spanking, in the expected direction. For example, consistent with a study examining maternal spanking and child aggression (Taylor, Manganello, et al., 2010), factors such as maternal and paternal major depression and child maltreatment were associated with higher levels of parental spanking.

Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for logistic regression analyses examining maternal and paternal spanking are presented in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively. Parents who did not spank are the comparison group in each case. As Table 2, Model 1 illustrates, mothers' use of spanking (more than 2 times in the preceding month) when the child was age 3 is associated with more than double the odds of increased child aggressive behavior at age 5 when compared to the reference group (no maternal spanking in the preceding month). In Model 2, after controlling for child's level of aggression at age 3, the odds of increased child aggression were lower than in Model 1, as anticipated. However, frequent spanking was still associated with nearly double the odds of increased aggression by age 5. As shown in Model 3, adding maternal parenting risk and demographic features did not greatly change this relationship. When compared to the no-spanking group, mothers' use of spanking more than 2 times in the preceding month was still associated with nearly double the odds of increased subsequent aggression (AOR: 1.67 [CI: 1.10-2.55]).

Table 2.

AORs of Maternal Factors at Age 3 Predicting Higher Levels of Child Aggression at Age 5, n=923

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
AOR (95% CI) P Value AOR (95% CI) P Value AOR (95% CI) P Value
Maternal spanking a
 >2 times in past month 2.11 (1.46-3.04) <.001 1.79 (1.22-2.62) <.01 1.67 (1.10-2.55) <.01
 1-2 times in past month 1.22 (0.95-1.57) .12 1.10 (0.83-1.44) .52 1.12 (0.86-1.45) .39
Child aggressive behavior, age 3 3.61 (2.94-4.44) <.001 3.33 (2.59-4.29) <.001
Maternal parenting risks
Maternal psychological maltreatment of child 1.01 (0.99-1.02) .30
Maternal physical maltreatment of child (spanking not included) 1.00 (0.99-1.01) .99
Maternal parenting stress 1.25 (1.07-1.47) <.01
Maternal major depression 0.82 (0.54-1.24) .35
Maternal high alcohol use (4 or more drinks in one day in past year) 1.25 (0.69-2.29) .46
Maternal use of drugs 1.08 (0.65-1.77) .77
Mother victim of intimate partner aggression and/or violence 1.12 (0.88-1.43) .34
Demographic and household characteristics
Male child 1.35 (0.94-1.95) .11
Child daily exposure to TV 1.01 (0.96-1.05) .78
Mother's age 1.02 (0.99-1.05) .19
Mother's education level
 Less than high school degree 1 [Reference]
 High school or equivalent 1.43 (0.92-2.22) .11
 Some college 0.99 (0.98-1.44) .96
 College graduate 0.86 (0.49-1.51) .61
Mother's race/ethnicity
 White 1 [Reference]
 African American 0.65 (0.45-0.93) <.05
 Hispanic 1.00 (0.65-1.55) .99
 Other 1.18 (0.70-1.99) .55
Mother foreign-born (yes) 1.15 (0.72-1.84) .56
Annual household income 1.00 (1.00-1.00) .13
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: AOR indicates adjusted odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.

Note:

a

Reference group is no spanking. All models were adjusted for two key selection variables in the FFCWS: marital birth and city.

Table 3.

AORs of Paternal Factors at Age 3 Predicting Higher Levels of Child Aggression at Age 5, n=923

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
OR (95% CI) P Value OR (95% CI) P Value OR (95% CI) P Value
Paternal spanking at age 3 a
 >2 times in past month 1.71 (1.27-2.31) <.001 1.62 (1.11-2.37) <.05 1.59 (1.09-2.32) <.05
 1-2 times in past month 1.32 (1.06-1.64) <.05 1.15 (0.91-1.45) .41 1.16 (0.89-1.51) .28
Child aggressive behavior, age 3 3.73 (3.06-4.55) <.001 3.44 (2.85-4.14) <.001
Paternal parenting risks
Paternal psychological maltreatment of child 1.01 (1.00-1.02) .08
Paternal physical maltreatment of child (spanking not included) 1.00 (0.98-1.03) .69
Paternal parenting stress 1.03 (0.73-1.45) .88
Paternal major depression 1.24 (0.61-2.54) .55
Paternal high alcohol use (4 or more drinks in one day in past year) 1.30 (0.90-1.90) .17
Paternal use of drugs 0.79 (0.44-1.41) .42
Father involvement with child 0.98 (0.85-1.12) .76
Demographic and household characteristics
Male child 1.32 (0.95-1.85) .10
Child daily exposure to TV 1.00 (0.95-1.06) .87
Father's age 1.01 (0.99-1.03) .35
Father's education
 Less than high school degree 1 [Reference]
 High school or equivalent 0.75 (0.54-1.04) .08
 Some college 0.86 (0.38-0.82) <.01
 College graduate 0.40 (0.23-0.69) <.01
Father's race/ethnicity
 White 1 [Reference]
 African American 0.63 (0.42-0.93) <.05
 Hispanic 0.84 (0.62-1.13) .25
 Other 1.94 (0.78-4.82) .15
Father foreign-born 1.25 (0.82-1.91) .30
Annual household income 1.00 (1.00-1.00) .27
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: AOR indicates adjusted odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.

Note:

a

Reference group is no spanking. All models were adjusted for two key selection variables in the FFCWS: marital birth and city.

Similarly, as seen in Table 3, Model 1, when compared to the reference group of no paternal spanking in the past month, fathers' use of frequent spanking (more than 2 times in the past month) with the child at age 3 was also associated with nearly double the odds of high child aggression at age 5. Model 2, after controlling for the child's level of aggression at age 3, demonstrated only a small decrease from Model 1 in the AOR for fathers' use of spanking more than 2 times. In Model 3, after adding paternal demographic and parenting risks, the association changed little from the two prior models; paternal spanking >2 times was associated with increased child aggression at age 5 (AOR: 1.59 [CI: 1.09-2.32]).

Table 4 presents results examining the combined influence of paternal and maternal spanking on 3-year-olds as a predictor of children's aggression at age 5. Similar to Table 2 and Table 3, the reference group for all statistical models is no parental spanking (by either mother or father) in the preceding month. The AORs presented in Model 1 demonstrate that, as frequency of parental spanking increased, so did the odds of high child aggression at age 5. In Model 2, after controlling for child's level of aggressive behavior at age 3, AORs were reduced as anticipated; however, the same dose-response pattern exhibited in Model 1 remained. Model 3, compared to Model 2, evidenced only minor changes in the associated AORs. This final model indicated that, compared to children who were not spanked at all, children who were spanked more than 2 times by one parent (or 1–2 times by both parents) in the prior month had higher odds of increased aggression (AOR: 1.40 (CI: 1.05-1.86), as did children spanked more than 2 times by both parents (AOR: 2.01 [CI: 1.03-3.94]).

Table 4.

AORs of Paternal and Maternal Factors at Age 3 Predicting Higher Levels of Child Aggression at Age 5, n=923

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
AOR (95% CI) P Value AOR (95% CI) P Value AOR (95% CI) P Value
Parental spanking at age 3 a
 Both parents, >2/x b 2.60 (1.59-4.23) < .001 2.19 (1.20-4.00) < .01 2.01 (1.03-3.94) < .05
 Both parents 1-2/x or one parent >2/x c 1.72 (1.37-2.16) < .001 1.49 (1.12-1.98) < .01 1.40 (1.05-1.86) < .05
 One parent, 1-2/x d 1.37 (1.01-1.88) < .05 1.16 (0.84-1.60) .38 1.15 (0.81-1.64) .42
Child aggressive behavior, age 3 3.64 (2.94-4.49) <.001 3.33 (2.60-4.27) < .001
Maternal parenting risks
Maternal psychological maltreatment of child 1.00 (0.99-1.01) .71
Maternal physical maltreatment of child (spanking not included) 1.00 (0.99-1.02) .81
Maternal parenting stress 1.28 (1.07-1.52) <.01
Maternal major depression 0.79 (0.51-1.24) .31
Maternal high alcohol use (4 or more drinks in one day in past year) 1.21 (0.66-2.24) .54
Maternal use of drugs 1.11 (0.71-1.74) .65
Mother victim of intimate partner aggression and/or violence 1.10 (0.85-1.42) .46
Paternal parenting risks
Paternal psychological maltreatment of child 1.01 (0.99-1.02) .34
Paternal physical maltreatment of child (spanking not included) 1.00 (0.98-1.02) .98
Paternal parenting stress 1.01 (0.72-1.43) .94
Paternal major depression 1.35 (0.67-2.71) .40
Paternal high alcohol use (4 or more drinks in one day in 1.21 (0.86-1.71) .27
past year)
Paternal use of drugs 0.85 (0.47-1.54) .59
Father involvement with child 1.00 (0.86-1.14) .94
Demographic and household characteristics
Male child 1.32 (0.92-1.89) .13
Child daily exposure to TV 1.00 (0.95-1.05) .95
Mother's age 1.04 (1.00-1.09) .07
Father's age 0.98 (0.95-1.00) .11
Mother's education
 Less than high school degree 1 [Reference]
 High school or equivalent 1.40 (0.92-2.13) .12
 Some college 0.97 (0.69-1.37) .87
 College graduate 0.83 (0.51-1.35) .46
Mother's race/ethnicity
 White 1 [Reference]
 African American 0.67 (0.47-0.95) < .05
 Hispanic 1.00 (0.63-1.58) .99
 Other 1.14 (0.69-1.89) .61
Mother foreign-born 1.14 (0.61-2.12) .69
Father foreign-born 1.17 (0.76-1.81) .47
Annual household income 1.00 (1.00-1.01) .15
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: AOR indicates adjusted odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.

Note:

a

Reference group is no spanking from either parent in the past month (coded 0).

b

Both parents spanked >2 times (coded 3).

c

Both parents spanked 1-2 times (or) spanked >2 times by one parent (coded 2).

d

One parent spanked 1-2 times and other parent spanked 0 times (coded 1). All models were adjusted for two key selection variables in the FFCWS: marital birth and city.

4. Discussion

In the current study, the more frequently young children were spanked—regardless of whether mother, father, or both administered the punishment—the higher their odds of increased aggressive behavior two years later. The importance of these associations is underscored by the fact that selection of fathers living in the same household as their children biased the sample toward more advantaged families (Guzzo & Lee, 2008; Carlson & McLanahan, 2010). In general, we would expect lower levels of aggression among children in two-parent families (Sourander & Helstela, 2005). Indeed this is the case when we compare the mean and range of aggressive behavior of the subgroup of children used for this study (mean = 0.36, median = 0.25, standard deviation = 0.30) to the subgroup of children used in a prior study of maternal spanking that included both single- and two-parent families (mean: 0.40; median: 0.33; SD: 0.33) (Taylor, Manganello, et al., 2010). Yet, even in the current sample of children with comparatively lower levels of aggressive behavior, 3-year-olds who were spanked more than 2 times by at least one parent, or 1–2 times by both parents—as 44% of the children in this study had experienced in the month prior to data collection—were more likely to display increased child aggression two years later.

One major limitation of prior research is its failure to examine fathers' parenting behaviors. Results of this study indicate that fathers have an important influence on the development of child aggression. Results also point to spanking by fathers being as harmful to children as spanking by mothers. Meaningful quantitative or qualitative differences in the associations of maternal versus paternal spanking and child aggression do not appear to exist (Prinzie, et al., 2006; Martin, et al., 2007). The pattern of findings and the associated AORs for fathers as observed in this study were similar to analyses reported previously with a larger sample of mothers (Taylor, Manganello, et al., 2010). The similarity in patterns of odds ratios that linked maternal and paternal spanking to child aggression may suggest that young children do not attribute different meaning to spanking when the mother or the father spanks (Prinzie, et al., 2006).

Consistent with social learning theory (Bandura, 1973), results of this study suggest that parental spanking reinforces the child's use of aggression. Regardless of whether the mother, the father, or both parents used physical discipline, spanking may increase the negative child behaviors that parents initially sought to extinguish with discipline. A common critique of studies of spanking is that most fail to control for the child's exposure to other forms of more serious punishment and/or physical maltreatment. The current study included comprehensive variables assessing parenting risk factors, including the child's exposure to more serious forms of harsh punishment assessed using the CTSPC, a valid and reliable proxy measure for child maltreatment. Neither controlling for exposure to punishment indicative of maltreatment nor accounting for aggressive child behavior at age 3 fundamentally changed the relationship between spanking and child aggression. The dose-response association means that children are at risk of being negatively affected by exposure to high levels of physical discipline even if one caregiver never spanks.

4.1. Implications for Intervention

Although controversy remains as to the magnitude and extent of negative effects of spanking on children, many professional organizations concerned with children's wellbeing, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, recommend that parents avoid spanking their children and instead use alternative forms of discipline. Such policies appear grounded in the precautionary principle, citing that the bulk of the evidence links spanking with risk of harm to children, the lack of evidence indicating that spanking is necessary or beneficial in order to attain positive and desired results in children, and the existence of many non-physical forms of punishment available to parents to promote positive behavior and manage difficult behavior in children (e.g., Durrant, 2007).

This present study contributes to a growing body of research regarding the negative consequences of spanking and highlights the need to ensure that parent education programs address the important topic of parental spanking with specific prohibitions against its use. The estimates linking spanking to child aggression demonstrate a substantively small effect overall. Yet, in the context of a behavior that is frequently practiced by many parents (e.g., in this study based on parental self-report, 44% of the 3-year-olds were spanked at least 2 times in the past month by either or both parents), even a relatively small change in behavior, such as reducing or eliminating spanking, potentially affects a large number of children and thus may have an important impact.

A recent overview suggests that the majority of universal parenting programs explicitly discourage the use of corporal punishment and recommend alternatives, albeit some of these programs only mention or address spanking in passing (Voisine & Baker, 2012). Even so, empirical data would suggest that this message is not effectively reaching American parents. In one study, 25% of respondents indicated support for the belief that spanking improves child behavior and 22% indicated that other forms of discipline are not as effective as spanking (Taylor, Al-Hiyari, Lee, Priebe, & Wiggleton, 2013). Although spanking is a controversial and difficult topic to address, practitioners must provide parents with alternatives to spanking when seeking to correct their children's misbehavior.

In addition, this study underscores the importance of targeting parent education to fathers and men in roles (i.e., social fathers) where they are caring for young children. In general, very few parenting programs or interventions for families directly consider fathers. For example, a recent meta-analysis of 77 parent training programs indicated that only four focused on fathers (Kaminski, Valle, Filene, & Boyle, 2008). Some of the most commonly used parent intervention models, such as home visitation, are designed exclusively for mothers; this gap in services to fathers persists despite studies showing that effectiveness of such programs may be compromised when fathers are not included or when there is domestic violence in the home (Eckenrode, et al., 2000). Fathers also seem less likely than mothers to participate actively in parenting programs. Only 17% of fathers participated in at least one parent education program, and fewer than 10% participated in father-only events (as opposed to events that involved mothers and fathers) offered through Early Head Start (Raikes, Summers, & Roggman, 2005) and may benefit less from services, perhaps in part because parenting services are not targeted to their parenting needs (Lundahl, Tollefson, Risser, & Lovejoy, 2008).

Another implication is the importance of early intervention with parents of young children, given numerous recent studies demonstrating that spanking negatively influences child wellbeing during the first five years of life (e.g., Berlin, et al., 2009; Maguire-Jack, et al., 2012; Taylor, Manganello, et al., 2010), even after taking into account potential moderators such as maternal warmth (Lee, Altschul, & Gershoff, 2013; Berlin, et al., 2009) and cultural norms in parenting practices (Gershoff, Grogan-Kaylor, Lansford, Chang, Zelli, Deater-Deckard, & Dodge, 2010). Perinatal clinical visits may be an important opportunity to screen for child aggression and frequent use of parental physical discipline. Prior research indicates that approximately 60% of pediatricians regularly screen parents for their use of aggression, and that most pediatricians are more likely to provide parents with alternative strategies (such as use of time out) rather than explicitly tell parents about the potential consequences associated with spanking young children (Scholer, Nix, & Patterson, 2006). The prevalence of such behavior points to the importance of educating pediatricians and residents regarding research showing that spanking has the potential to harm children (Scholer, et al., 2006; Scholer, Brokish, Mukherjee, & Gigante, 2008).

4.2. Study Limitations and Considerations for Future Research

In the current study, mothers and fathers provided self-report of spanking toward their three-year old child. Parents were not given a definition of spanking, so it is possible that for some parents this was self-defined as a more extreme action than for others. Another limitation of the current study is that we did not attempt to assess the context in which spanking took place. For example, some researchers have suggested that maternal warmth (Deater-Deckard, Ivy, & Petrill, 2006) or cultural context (Baumrind, Larzelere, & Cowan, 2002; Benjet & Kazdin, 2003) moderate the association between parental spanking and child aggression, while other researchers have failed to find such links (Gershoff, et al., 2010; Lee, et al., 2013).

Although fathers self-reported their own use of spanking, fathers were not asked questions about other forms of psychological and physical maltreatment toward their child. Thus, we used maternal reports of these behaviors. Reliance on mothers' report of both children's aggressive behavior and fathers' physical and psychological child maltreatment may introduce some measurement bias. Prior research with the child maltreatment measures used in this study indicates that, in two-parent families, mothers are reliable and accurate reporters of the fathers' behavior toward their children (Lee, Lansford, Pettit, Bates, & Dodge, 2012). There was a high correlation between maternal report of fathers' behavior and fathers' self-report. Mothers tended to slightly underreport fathers' physical and psychological maltreatment of the child (Lee, et al., 2012). Despite these assurances regarding the reliability and generalizability of the child maltreatment measure used in this study it, as with all self-reported measures, should be viewed as a proxy for actual maltreatment. It is important to consider that all measures of parent-to-child aggression are likely to have some source of bias. For example, administrative records underestimate maltreatment and are plagued by bias and misclassification (Runyan, Cox, Dubowitz, et al., 2005). Furthermore, some have argued that measures of maltreatment that assess parental behaviors across multiple domains, such as the one used in this study, provide more reliable estimates of the number of children who are actually at risk for child maltreatment than are indicated by CPS substantiation rates (Straus, et al., 1998).

The current study is further limited in that we lack the ability to compare the parenting practices of residential and nonresidential fathers, because comparable data on nonresidential fathers was not available for some measures. Future research should examine the role of nonresidential fathers in child discipline.

Finally, it may be useful in future research to capture greater variability in parental spanking. Parents who spank regularly may actually spank more than 2 times a month. It is also notable that the reliability coefficients for the parenting stress measure were quite low, probably because the scale included only 4 items. Although it would be useful to scrutinize spanking frequency in more detail, we were unable to do so in this study.

5. Conclusions

These findings suggest that educational efforts should continue to promote non-aggressive child discipline techniques and reinforce the negative consequences of spanking. Importantly, both mothers and fathers are in need of this information. Innovative efforts to educate and engage fathers are warranted. Father involvement may increase the effectiveness of education and intervention (Bagner & Eyberg, 2003). Materials may be most effective when they focus on the unique motivations and barriers to parenting faced by fathers (Dubowitz, Lane, Greif, Jensen, & Lamb, 2006). Outreach may be improved by targeting fathers early in their children's lives, for example, in hospitals at the child's birth and during the first year, a time when resident and nonresident fathers alike are highly engaged with their children.

Highlights.

  • 44% of 3-year-olds were spanked 2 times or more in the past month.

  • Spanking by fathers is as harmful to children as spanking by mothers.

  • There is a dose-response association between spanking and child aggression.

  • Parent education for fathers is critical to promote child well-being.

Acknowledgments

Funding: The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study is funded by NICHD grant numbers R01HD36916, R01HD39135, and R01HD40421, as well as a consortium of private foundations and other government agencies. The research reported in this study was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (5K01 HD058733-02) to Taylor.

Abbreviations

FFCWS

Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study

CTSPC

Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale

CIDI-SF

Composite International Diagnostic Interview-Short Form

US

United States

AOR

adjusted odds ratios

CI

95% confidence interval

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Contributor Information

Shawna J. Lee, Email: shawnal@umich.edu, University of Michigan, School of Social Work & Research Center for Group Dynamics, 1080 South University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1106, Office: 734-763-6565, Fax: 734-763-3372.

Catherine A. Taylor, Email: ctaylor5@tulane.edu, Tulane University, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Office: 504-988-0292, Fax: 504-988-3540.

Inna Altschul, Email: inna@du.edu, University of Denver Graduate School of Social Work Office: 303-871-4243 Fax: 303-871-2845.

Janet C. Rice, Email: jrice@tulane.edu, Tulane University, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Department of Biostatistics.

References

  1. Achenbach TM, Rescorla LA. Manual for the ASEBA preschool forms and profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont; 2000. Research Center for Children, Youth & Families. [Google Scholar]
  2. Altschul I, Lee SJ. Direct and mediated effects of nativity and other indicators of acculturation on Hispanic mothers' use of physical aggression. Child Maltreatment. 2011;16(4):262–274. doi: 10.1177/1077559511421523. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bagner DM, Eyberg SM. Father involvement in parent training: When does it matter? Journal of Clinical Adolescent Psychology. 2003;32(4):599–605. doi: 10.1207/S15374424JCCP3204_13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bandura A. Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1973. [Google Scholar]
  5. Baumrind D, Larzelere RE, Cowan PA. Ordinary physical punishment: Is It harmful? Comment on Gershoff (2002) Psychological Bulletin. 2002;128(4):580–589. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.580. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Beauchaine TP, Webster Stratton C, Reid MJ. Mediators, moderators, and predictors of 1-year outcomes among children treated for early-onset conduct problems: A latent growth curve analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2005;73(3):371–388. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.73.3.371. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Belsky J. The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development. 1984;55(1):83–96. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1984.tb00275.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Benjet C, Kazdin AE. Spanking children: The controveries, findings, and new directions. Clinical Psychology Review. 2003;23:191–224. doi: 10.1016/s0272-7358(02)00206-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Berlin LJ, Ispa JM, Fine MA, et al. Correlates and consequences of spanking and verbal punishment for low-income White, African American, and Mexican American toddlers. Child Development. 2009;80(5):1403–1420. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01341.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Black DA, Heyman RE, Smith AM. Risk factors for child physical abuse. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2001;6:121–188. [Google Scholar]
  11. Brennan PA, Hall J, Bor W, Najman JM, Williams G. Integrating biological and social processes in relation to early-onset persistent aggression in boys and girls. Developmental Psychology. 2003;39(2):309–323. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cabrera NJ, Shannon JD, Tamis-LeMonda C. Fathers' influence on their children's cognitive and emotional development: From toddlers to pre-k. Applied Developmental Science. 2007;11:208–213. [Google Scholar]
  13. Campbell SB, Pierce EE, Moore G, Marakovitz S, Newby K. Boys' externalizing problems at elementary school age: Pathways from early behavior problems, maternal control, and family stress. Developmental Psychopathology. 1996;8(4):701–719. [Google Scholar]
  14. Carlson MJ, McLanahan SS. Fathers in fragile families. In: Lamb ME, editor. The role of the father in child development. 5th. New Jersey: Wiley & Sons; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  15. Day RD, Peterson GW, McCracken C. Predicting spanking of younger and older children by mothers and fathers. Journal of Marriage and Family. 1998;60(1):79–94. [Google Scholar]
  16. Deater-Deckard K, Ivy L, Petrill SA. Maternal warmth moderates the link between physical punishment and child externalizing problems: a parent-offspring behavior genetic analysis. Parenting: Science & Practice. 2006;6(1):59–78. [Google Scholar]
  17. Donnelly M, Straus MA. Corporal punishment of children in theoretical perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  18. Dubowitz H, Lane W, Greif G, Jensen T, Lamb M. Low-income African American fathers' involvement in children's lives: Implications for practitioners. Journal of Family Social Work. 2006;10(1):25–41. [Google Scholar]
  19. Durrant JE. Positive discipline: What it is and how to do it. Bangkok, Thailand: Save the Children Sweden Southeast Asia and the Pacific; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  20. Eckenrode J, Ganzel B, Henderson CR, Smith E, Olds D, Powers J, Cole R, Kitzman H, Sidora K. Preventing child abuse and neglect with a program of nurse home visitation: The limiting effects of domestic violence. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2000;284:1385–1391. doi: 10.1001/jama.284.11.1385. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Ferguson CJ. Spanking, corporal punishment and negative long-term outcomes: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Clinical Psychology Review. 2012;33(1):196–208. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2012.11.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gershoff ET. Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin. 2002;128(4):539–579. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.539. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Gershoff ET, Grogan-Kaylor A, Lansford JE, Chang L, Zelli A, Deater-Deckard K, Dodge KA. Parent discipline practices in an international sample: Associations with child behaviors and moderation by perceived normativeness. Child Development. 2010;81(2):487–502. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01409.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Grogan-Kaylor A. Corporal punishment and the growth trajectory of children's antisocial behavior. Child Maltreatment. 2005;10(3):283–292. doi: 10.1177/1077559505277803. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Grogan-Kaylor A. The effect of corporal punishment on antisocial behavior in children. Social Work Research. 2004;28(3):153–162. [Google Scholar]
  26. Guzzo KB, Lee H. Couple relationship status and patterns in early parenting practices. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2008;70(1):44–61. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kaminski JW, Valle LA, Filene JH, Boyle CL. A meta-analytic review Of components associated with parent training program effectiveness. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2008;36:567–589. doi: 10.1007/s10802-007-9201-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Kandel DB, Wu P. Disentangling mother-child effects in the development of antisocial behavior. In: McCord J, editor. Coercion and punishment in long-term perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1995. pp. 106–123. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kessler RC, Andrews G, Mroczek D, Ustun B, Wittchen HU. The World Health Organization composite international diagnostic interview short-form (CIDI-SF) International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research. 1998;7(4):171–185. [Google Scholar]
  30. Koblinsky SA, Kuvalanka KA, Randolph SM. Social skills and behavior problems of urban, African American preschoolers: Role of parenting practices, family conflict, and maternal depression. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2006;76(4):554–563. doi: 10.1037/0002-9432.76.4.554. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Lansford JE, Criss MM, Dodge KA, Shaw DS, Pettit GS, Bates JE. Trajectories of physical discipline: Early childhood antecedents and developmental outcomes. Child Development. 2009;80(5):1385–1402. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01340.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Larzelere RE, Kuhn BR. Comparing child outcomes of physical punishment and alternative disciplinary tactics: A meta-analysis. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. 2005;8:1–37. doi: 10.1007/s10567-005-2340-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Lee SJ, Altschul I, Gershoff ET. Does warmth moderate longitudinal associations between maternal spanking and child aggression in early childhood? Developmental Psychology. 2013 doi: 10.1037/a0031630. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Lee SJ, Altschul I, Shair SR, Taylor CA. Hispanic fathers and risk for maltreatment in father-involved families of young children. Journal of the Society for Social Work Research. 2011;2(2):125–142. doi: 10.5243/jsswr.2011.7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Lee SJ, Lansford JE, Pettit GS, Bates JE, Dodge KA. Parental agreement of reporting parent to child aggression using the Conflict Tactics Scales. Child Abuse and Neglect. 2012;36:510–518. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.04.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Lee SJ, Perron BE, Taylor CA, Guterman NB. Paternal psychosocial characteristics and corporal punishment of their 3-year-old children. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2011;26(1):71–87. doi: 10.1177/0886260510362888. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Lloyd S. Physical aggression, distress, and everyday marital interaction. In: Cahn DD, Lloyd SA, editors. Family violence from a communication perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1996. pp. 177–198. [Google Scholar]
  38. Lundahl B, Tollefson D, Risser H, Lovejoy MC. A meta-analysis of father involvement in parent training. Research on Social Work Practice. 2008;18(2):97–106. [Google Scholar]
  39. Maguire-Jack K, Gromoske AN, Berger LM. Spanking and child development during the first five years of life. Child Development. 2012;83(6):1960–1977. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01820.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Manganello JA, Taylor CA. Television exposure as a risk factor for aggressive behavior among 3-year-old children. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. 2009;163(11):1037–1045. doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Martin A, Ryan RM, Brooks-Gunn J. The joint influence of mother and father parenting on child cognitive outcomes at age 5. Early Child Research Quarterly. 2007;22:423–439. [Google Scholar]
  42. McFarlane JM, Groff JY, O'Brien JA, Watson K. Behaviors of children who are exposed and not exposed to intimate partneer violence: An analysis of 330 Black, White, and Hispanic children. Pediatrics. 2003;112(3):e202–e207. doi: 10.1542/peds.112.3.e202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Meadows SO, McLanahan SS, Brooks-Gunn J. Parental depression and anxiety and early childhood behavior problems across family types. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2007;69(5):1162–1177. [Google Scholar]
  44. Morris SZ, Gibson CL. Corporal punishment's influence on children's aggressive and delinquent behavior. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 2011;38(8):818–839. [Google Scholar]
  45. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Helping patients who drink too much: A clinician's guide, updated 2005 edition. [Last accessed: October 17, 2012];2005 http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/Practitioner/CliniciansGuide2005/clinicians_guide.htm.
  46. Owens EB, Shaw DS. Predicting growth curves of externalizing behavior across the preschool years. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2003;31(6):575–590. doi: 10.1023/a:1026254005632. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Prinzie P, Onghena P, Hellinckx W. A cohort-sequential multivariate latent growth curve analysis of normative CBCL aggressive and delinquent problem behavior: Associations with harsh discipline and gender. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2006;30(5):444–459. [Google Scholar]
  48. Raikes HH, Summers JA, Roggman LA. Father involvement in Early Head Start programs. Fathering. 2005;3(1):29–58. [Google Scholar]
  49. Reichman NE, Teitler JO, Garfinkel I, McLanahan SS. Fragile families: Sample and design. Child and Youth Services Review. 2001;32:303–326. [Google Scholar]
  50. Runyan DK, Cox CE, Dubowitz H, et al. Describing maltreatment: Do child protective service reports and research definitions agree? Child Abuse & Neglect. 2005;29(5):461–477. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.06.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Ryan RM, Martin A, Brooks-Gunn J. Is one good parent good enough? Patterns of mother and father parenting and child cognitive outcomes at 24 and 6 months. Parenting: Science and Practice. 2006;6(2):211–228. [Google Scholar]
  52. Scholer SJ, Brokish PA, Mukherjee AB, Gigante J. A violence-prevention program helps teach medical students and pediatric residents about childhood aggression. Clinical Pediatrics. 2008;47(9):891–900. doi: 10.1177/0009922808319965. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Scholer SJ, Hudnut-Beumler J, Dietrich MS. A brief primary care intervention helps parents develop plans to discipline. Pediatrics. 2010;125(2):e242–e249. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-0874. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Scholer SJ, Nix RL, Patterson B. Gaps in pediatricians' advice to parents regarding early childhood aggression. Clinical Pediatrics. 2006;45:23–28. doi: 10.1177/000992280604500104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Scholer SJ, Walkowski CA, Bickman L. Voluntary or required viewing of a violence prevention program in pediatric primary care. Clinical Pediatrics. 2008;47(5):461–468. doi: 10.1177/0009922807311731. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Singer JL, Singer DG, Rapaczynski WS. Family patterns and television viewing as predictors of children's beliefs and aggression. Journal of Communication. 1984;34(2):73–89. [Google Scholar]
  57. Slep AMS, O'Leary SG. Parent and partner violence in families with young children: Rates, patterns, and connections. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2005;73(3):435–444. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.73.3.435. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Smith BL. The case against spanking: Physical discipline is slowly declining as some studies reveal lasting harms for children. Monitor on Psychology. 2012;43(4):60–63. [Google Scholar]
  59. Sourander A, Helstela L. Childhood predictors of externalizing and internalizing problems in adolescence. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2005;14(8):415. doi: 10.1007/s00787-005-0475-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Straus MA. New evidence for the benefits of never spanking. Society. 2001;38(6):52–60. [Google Scholar]
  61. Straus MA, Hamby SL, Finkelhor DW, Moore DW, Runyan D. Identification of child maltreatment with the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scales: Development and psychometric data for a national sample of American parents. Child Abuse and Neglect. 1998;22:249–270. doi: 10.1016/s0145-2134(97)00174-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Straus MA, Stewart JH. Corporal punishment by American parents: National data on prevalence, chronicity, severity, and duration, in relation to child and family characteristics. Clinical Child and Family Psychology. 1999;2:55–70. doi: 10.1023/a:1021891529770. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Straus MA, Hamby SL, Boney-McCoy S, Sugarman DB. The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues. 1996;17:283–316. [Google Scholar]
  64. Tamis-LeMonda CS, Shannon JD, Cabera NJ, Lamb ME. Fathers and mothers at play with their 2-and-3-year-olds: Contributions to language and cognitive development. Child Development. 2004;75(6):1806–1820. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00818.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Taylor CA, Al-Hiyari R, Lee SJ, Priebe AE, Wiggleton L. Attitudes and ideologies linked with approval of corporal punishment in the U S: An online comment content analysis. 2013. Manuscript Submitted for Review. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Taylor CA, Guterman NB, Lee SJ, Rathouz P. Intimate partner violence, maternal stress, nativity, and risk for maternal maltreatment of young children. American Journal of Public Health. 2009;99(1):175–183. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.126722. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Taylor CA, Lee SJ, Guterman NB, Rice J. Use of spanking for 3-year-old children and associated intimate partner aggression or violence. Pediatrics. 2010;126(3):415–424. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-0314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Taylor CA, Manganello JA, Lee SJ, Rice J. Mothers' spanking of 3-year-old children and subsequent risk of children's aggressive behavior. Pediatrics. 2010;125(5):el057–el065. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-2678. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Vittrup B, Holden GW. Children's assessments of corporal punishment and other disciplinary practices: The role of age, race, SES, and exposure to spanking. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 2010;31:211–220. [Google Scholar]
  70. Voisine S, Baker AJL. Do universal parenting programs discourage parents from using corporal punishment: A program review. Families in Society. 2012;93(3):212–218. [Google Scholar]
  71. Weiss RL, Margolin G. Assessment of marital conflict and accord. In: Ciminero AR, Calhoun KD, Adams HE, editors. Handbook of behavioral assessment. New York: John Wiley; 1977. pp. 555–602. [Google Scholar]
  72. Winsler A, Madigan AL, Aquilino SA. Correspondence between maternal and paternal parenting styles in early childhood. Early Child Research Quarterly. 2005;20:1–12. [Google Scholar]
  73. Zolotor AJ, Theodore AD, Chang JJ, Berkoff MC, Runyan DK. Speak softly-and forget the stick: Corporal punishment and child physical abuse. American Journal of Preventative Medicine. 2008;35(4):364–369. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.06.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES