Harsh Discipline and Child Problem Behaviors: The Roles of Positive Parenting and Gender

Transcription

1 J Fam Viol (2007) 22: DOI /s ORIGINAL ARTICLE Harsh and Child Problem Behaviors: The Roles of Positive Parenting and Gender Laura McKee & Erin Roland & Nicole Coffelt & Ardis L. Olson & Rex Forehand & Christina Massari & Deborah Jones & Cecelia A. Gaffney & Michael S. Zens Published online: 20 April 2007 # Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007 Abstract This study examined harsh verbal and physical discipline and child problem behaviors in a community sample of 2,582 parents and their fifth and sixth grade children. Participants were recruited from pediatric practices, and both parents and children completed questionnaire packets. The findings indicated that boys received more harsh verbal and physical discipline than girls, with fathers utilizing more harsh physical discipline with boys than did mothers. Both types of harsh discipline were associated with child behavior problems uniquely after positive parenting was taken into account. Child gender did not moderate the findings, but one dimension of positive parenting (i.e., parental warmth) served to buffer children from the detrimental influences of harsh physical discipline. The implications of the findings for intervention programs are discussed. Keywords Physical and verbal discipline. Child problem behaviors. Positive parenting This research was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. L. McKee : E. Roland : N. Coffelt : R. Forehand (*) : C. Massari Department of Psychology, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, USA Forehand@uga.edu A. L. Olson : C. A. Gaffney : M. S. Zens Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Department of Community and Family Medicine, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, USA D. Jones Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA Despite the controversy surrounding corporal punishment and its long-term sequelae, harsh physical and verbal discipline of children is an almost universal parenting practice in the United States (Straus and Field 2003). According to a nationally-representative survey conducted in 1995, 35% of infants, 94% of toddlers and over 50% of 12-year-old children had experienced some form of parental physical discipline during the previous year (Strauss and Stewart 1999). Furthermore, almost 90% of parents surveyed reported one or more instances of harsh verbal discipline (i.e., screaming, cursing, threatening or name calling) directed at their children in the past twelve months (Strauss and Field 2003). The prevalence of harsh parenting in this country and the continuing debate on the negative consequences of such parenting practices necessitate research to determine the association of harsh physical and verbal discipline with child behavior problems, the conditions under which the associations are most pronounced, and the factors which may protect children s psychological adjustment. Historically, research on harsh discipline has focused either on harsh physical discipline alone (Simons et al. 1994) or harsh physical and verbal discipline combined (Deater-Deckard et al. 1996), which makes comparison across studies and generalization of findings difficult. Nevertheless, in the majority of studies, both types of harsh discipline (physical alone or verbal plus physical) have been associated with higher levels of child externalizing disorders (Criss et al. 2002; Kim et al. 2003; Strassberg et al. 1994; Weiss et al. 1992). In contrast to externalizing problems, the association of harsh physical discipline alone to internalizing problems has not been examined; however, one study has demonstrated a relation between a construct that included both harsh physical and verbal discipline and internalizing problems (Kim et al. 2003).

2 188 J Fam Viol (2007) 22: Although it appears that both harsh physical discipline alone and harsh physical plus verbal discipline combined are associated with child externalizing problems, a more important comparison may be between harsh verbal discipline and harsh physical discipline. Harsh physical discipline is viewed as more aggressive and intrusive than harsh verbal discipline; however, harsh verbal discipline is more likely to occur (Straus and Field 2003). Unfortunately, direct comparisons of the two types of discipline do not exist except in the child abuse literature. For example, in a study of adolescents, the majority (94%) of whom had experienced multiple forms of maltreatment, McGee et al. (1997) found that psychological maltreatment, the definition of which included being criticized, yelled at, or treated unfairly (p. 136), was associated with internalizing and externalizing problems when all other forms of maltreatment were statistically controlled. Physical abuse alone, however, was associated only with externalizing problems. These findings suggest that harsh verbal discipline and harsh physical discipline may have differential associations with child problem behaviors. Beyond the type of harsh discipline, the context within which harsh discipline occurs may be associated with the level of behavior problems manifested by children. In particular, harsh discipline may occur within the context of varying degrees of positive parenting by either the parent using harsh discipline or the parent s partner. As an extensive literature indicates that positive parenting (i.e., warmth and appropriate discipline) is associated with fewer child behavior problems (Kotchick and Forehand 2002), the level of one or both dimensions of positive parenting may influence the association between harsh discipline and child behavior problems. For example, Simons et al. (1994) found that the relationship between harsh discipline and child psychological well-being was not significant once parental involvement (parental warmth, acceptance, monitoring, consistency, inductive reasoning) was controlled. Thus, it is important to control for positive aspects of parenting when examining the relationship between harsh discipline and child behavior problems. In addition to controlling for positive parenting, its potential role as a buffer for the adverse effects of harsh discipline merits attention. Specifically, relative to low levels of positive parenting, high levels of such parenting from either parent (i.e. the parent using harsh discipline or the spouse) may reduce or moderate the association between harsh discipline and child behavior problems (Deater-Deckard and Dodge 1997; Dodge et al. 1990). In recent years, the role of parent gender and child gender has begun to receive attention in both theoretical models and the empirical literature (e.g., Crick and Zahn-Waxler 2003; Phares 1996). Some evidence suggests that the gender of parent and child are important in terms of the frequency with which harsh discipline is used. For example, boys at all ages are more likely to receive harsh physical discipline (Mahoney et al. 2000; Straus and Stewart 1999), and harsh discipline is more likely to be used by mothers than by fathers (Straus and Stewart 1999). However, in a recent study conducted in China, fathers were more likely to use harsh discipline with sons than with daughters (Chang et al. 2003). The latter study suggests that both parent and child gender are important to consider when examining the frequency of use of harsh discipline practices. The association between harsh discipline and child behavior problems also appears to vary by parent and child gender. Deater-Deckard and Dodge (1997) found that harsh discipline in the context of same gender dyads (i.e., mothers & daughters, fathers & sons) was more strongly correlated with externalizing problems than in mixed sex dyads (i.e., mothers & sons, fathers & daughters). In a second study, paternal harsh discipline was more strongly related to sons aggression than to daughters aggression, but maternal harsh discipline was not related to either daughters or sons aggression (Chang et al. 2003). As with the frequency of use of harsh discipline, these findings suggest that the gender of both parent and child should be considered when examining the association between harsh discipline and child problem behavior. The current study was undertaken to replicate and extend the extant literature. We examine the following questions in a community sample: (1) Do rates of harsh verbal and physical discipline differ by gender of parent and child? (2) Is harsh verbal and physical discipline associated with child internalizing and externalizing problems beyond the contribution of two aspects of positive parenting (warmth and appropriate discipline) for mothers and for fathers? (3) Do parent and child gender qualify the relation between harsh discipline and child behavior problems? (4) Is harsh discipline of each parent significant in the context of the other parent s harsh discipline? (5) Does positive parenting buffer a child from the detrimental influences of harsh verbal and physical discipline delivered by the same parent or by the other parent? We offer the following hypotheses. First, with regard to frequency of use of harsh discipline, we propose that boys will receive more harsh discipline than girls, particularly from fathers. Second, for each parent considered separately, we hypothesize that both harsh verbal and physical discipline will be associated with both internalizing and externalizing problems in children beyond the contributions of positive parenting. Third, we expect fathers harsh discipline to be more strongly related to sons than daughters internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors and mothers harsh discipline to be more strongly related to daughters than sons problem behaviors. Fourth, we hypothesize that, when considered within the context of

3 J Fam Viol (2007) 22: both parents harsh discipline, both mother and father harsh discipline will be associated with child behavior problems. Finally, we expect that positive parenting, particularly warmth (Masten and Coatsworth 1998), will serve to protect children from the detrimental influences of harsh discipline practices. It is important to note that our sample extends the existing literature by examining a community-based sample that was not living under adverse conditions (i.e., two parent families, upper middle class) and children who were older than in most, but not all (Kim et al. 2003; Simons et al. 1994), prior studies. Both of these factors lead to relatively conservative tests of our hypotheses as both higher SES and, after infancy, having an older aged child are associated with less frequent use of harsh discipline (Straus and Stewart 1999). Finally, it is important to note that harsh verbal and physical discipline is different from child physical abuse where non-accidental injury of a child occurs. Harsh physical discipline could involve injury of a child; however, in the great majority of cases injury will not occur. Materials and Methods Participants The participants in the current study were a subsample of those who participated in the baseline assessment of the Dartmouth Prevention Project, a National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism-funded randomized control trial designed to prevent child and adolescent substance use (see Stevens et al for further information). Participants were recruited from twelve pediatric primary care practices in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont. The practices ranged in size from two practitioners in a small, rural town to thirteen practitioners in a city with a population of 90,000. Pediatric clinicians from the 12 primary care practices attempted to recruit all families with fifth- or sixthgrade children who visited their clinics during a 21-month period. Of the 4,096 families approached, 86% agreed to participate, 85% met eligibility criteria, and 77% (3,145) completed both the child and parent baseline surveys, and were thus enrolled in the study. Of the 3,145 child/parent dyads from the DPP baseline assessment, 491 were excluded because they were not married, and this study was interested in resident maternal and paternal parenting practices. Further, 72 were excluded because of missing data on one or more variables of interest. Thus, 2,582 child/parent dyads from the DPP were examined in this study. At baseline, all children were in the fifth or sixth grade. One parent from each family (91% mothers) completed the assessment. Demographic data for the sample are presented in Table 1. Table 1 Demographic characteristics of child/parent dyads (n=2,582) Variable Mean SD Percent Adolescent Age (years) Female (%) 48 Male (%) 52 Education a Mother Father Parent Age Family ethnicity Caucasian 98 African-American 1 Latin-American 1 Family income b a Mean years of education b Mean annual family income (14=$40,000 $44,999; 15=$45,000 $49,000) Measures The measures that were analyzed for this study were part of a larger questionnaire battery. Demographic and background variables Data on parents ethnicity, age, gender, highest education level, annual family income and age/gender of the child were collected. Positive parenting Two dimensions of positive parenting were assessed: warmth and appropriate discipline. All items were completed by the child for each parent. Warmth Five items were used to assess warmth for the mother and for the father, from a measure developed by Barnes and Farrell (1992). Each item was completed on a 1 (always) to 5 (never) scale, with lower scores indicating more warmth. However, all items were reverse scored so that higher scores indicated greater warmth. A sample item from this measure is, when you do something well, how often does your father (mother) praise you? The alpha coefficients for these five items were 0.69 and 0.76 for mothers and fathers, respectively. Appropriate discipline Appropriate discipline utilized by the mother and father was assessed with four items from the measure developed by Barnes and Farrell (1992). Each item was completed on a 1 (always) to 5 (never) scale, with lower scores indicating more positive disciplinary strategies. However, these items were reverse scored so that higher scores indicated more appropriate discipline. A sample item from this measure is how often does your father (mother)

4 190 J Fam Viol (2007) 22: take away your privileges (TV, movies, dates) when you disobey or do something he (she) does not approve of? The alpha coefficients were 0.69 and 0.73 for mothers and fathers, respectively. Harsh verbal discipline The harsh verbal discipline construct was assessed by a single item completed by the child on each parent: After you have disobeyed your father (mother) or do something he (she) doesn t approve of, how often does he (she) yell, shout, or scream at you? This item was scored on a 1 (always) to 5 (never) point scale, which was reverse scored. Harsh physical discipline The harsh physical discipline construct was similarly assessed using one item completed by the child on each parent: After you have disobeyed your father (mother) or done something he (she) doesn t approve of, how often does he (she) slap or hit you? This item was scored on a 1 (always) to 5 (never) point scale, which was reverse scored. Youth externalizing symptomatology The child s level of symptomatology was assessed using the Brief Pediatric Symptom Checklist-17 (PSC-17; Gardner et al. 1999), a brief version of the Pediatric Symptom Checklist (PSC; Jellinek et al. 1979; Jellinek et al. 1986). The PSC has demonstrated strong internal consistency, test-retest reliability and validity (Murphy et al. 1992a, b), including good concordance (Jellinek et al. 1986) with the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach 1991). Moreover, the PSC has been demonstrated to be a reliable and valid measure for minority and disadvantaged youth (Murphy et al. 1992a, b; 1996). The PSC-17 was completed by the participating parent as part of the assessment battery, and included 17 items that loaded onto one of three subscales, as determined from a prior factor analysis (Gardner et al. 1999): externalizing symptoms, internalizing symptoms and attention problems. The first two subscales were of interest in this study. For externalizing symptoms, parents reported on seven items (e.g., fights with other children, steals things ) that are similar to those included in the Aggressive behavior subscale of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (Achenbach 1991). Each item was scored as never (0), sometimes (1), or often (2) occurring. This externalizing subscale of the PSC-17 has been demonstrated to be both reliable and valid (Gardner et al. 1999). The alpha coefficient for the current sample was Youth internalizing symptomatology The child s level of internalizing problems was also assessed using the parentcompleted PSC-17. For internalizing symptoms, parents reported on five items (e.g., feels hopeless, worries a lot ) that loaded onto the Internalizing factor. These items were similar to those included in the Withdrawn and Anxious-Depressed subscales of the CBCL (Achenbach 1991), with higher scores indicating more problems. The internalizing subscale from the PSC-17 has been demonstrated to be both reliable and valid (Gardner et al. 1999). The alpha coefficient was 0.73 for the current sample. Procedure Participating parents and their children signed informed consent and assent forms prior to their participation. Selfadministered questionnaires were distributed to children and parents by mail. Parents and children were instructed to complete the surveys independent of one another, and return them separately by mail in prepaid postage envelopes. The child was compensated $5 upon receipt of both parent and child questionnaires. If surveys were not returned within 4 weeks, the child and parent received a reminder card in the mail. If packets were not returned within 6 weeks, the family received a reminder telephone call. Results Preliminary Analyses Means for and correlations of each independent variable with each dependent variable are presented in Table 2. Of interest, the level of harsh physical discipline was low for each parent but father s level was significantly higher than mother s level (t (2,581) =4.90, p<0.01). The level of harsh verbal discipline was higher for each parent than the level of harsh physical discipline (mothers: t (2,581) =51.00, p< 0.01; fathers: t (2,581) =46.80, p<0.01) but did not differ between parents (t (2,581) =0.75, n.s.). Also of interest, significant correlations emerged between harsh verbal and physical discipline of each parent and both child internalizing and externalizing problems (see Table 2). Correlations between demographic variables and dependent variables were also computed. From the demographic variables presented in Table 1, the following were significantly related to the dependent variables: mother s education (r= 0.04, p<0.05), family income (r= 0.07, p<0.01), and child age (r=0.04, p<0.05) were related to internalizing problems; and mother seducation(r= 0.09, p<0.01), family income (r= 0.10, p<0.01), and father s education(r=0.16, p<0.01) were related to externalizing problems. These variables were entered into the first block of the regression analyses in order to control for their associations with the

5 J Fam Viol (2007) 22: Table 2 Means for and correlation of each independent variable with each dependent variable Variable M SD Internalizing problems a Externalizing problems b 1. Mother warmth c ** 0.15** 2. Mother appropriate discipline d * 3. Mother harsh verbal discipline e ** 0.14** 4. Mother harsh physical discipline e ** 0.19** 5. Father warmth c ** 0.14** 6. Father appropriate discipline d * 7. Father harsh verbal discipline e ** 0.18** 8. Father harsh physical discipline e ** 0.20** *p<0.05, **p<0.01 a M=2.02, S.D.=1.77; possible range=0 10 b M=2.55, S.D.=1.99; possible range=0 14 c Possible range=5 25 d Possible range=4 20 e Possible range=1 5 dependent variables. The child s gender was also entered in the first block, as it later served as part of an interaction term. Plan of Analyses To examine the questions proposed, both analyses of variance and multiple regression analyses were conducted. For harsh verbal discipline and harsh physical discipline, a 2 (gender of child) by 2 (mother versus father) analysis of variance, with the second factor being a within family variable, was conducted to examine if the level of harsh discipline differed by gender of child, gender of parent, or the interaction between these two variables. Multiple regression analyses were utilized to examine the following questions: is either verbal or physical harsh discipline by mother or by father uniquely associated with child behavior problems after accounting for the two components of positive parenting (warmth and appropriate discipline); does child gender moderate the relationship between harsh discipline and child behavior problems; and does positive parenting serve as a protective factor for harsh parenting? Variables were entered in the following blocks to address these questions: Block 1 demographic variables correlated with the outcome measure (in order to control for these demographic variables) and child gender; Block 2 positive parenting (warmth and appropriate discipline) and harsh discipline (harsh verbal discipline and harsh physical discipline); Block 3 two-way interactions between child gender and each of the two indicators of harsh discipline (harsh verbal discipline, harsh physical discipline); and Block 4 two-way interactions between each component of positive parenting (warmth and appropriate discipline) and harsh discipline (harsh verbal discipline by warmth, harsh physical discipline by warmth, harsh verbal discipline by appropriate discipline, and harsh physical discipline by appropriate discipline). Regression analyses were conducted separately for each parent and for child internalizing problems and child externalizing problems, resulting in four regression analyses. Subsequent analyses were conducted in which both mothers and fathers parenting were entered into a regression analysis for internalizing problems and for externalizing problems. These analyses were conducted for two purposes: (1) to determine if harsh discipline by each parent was significantly related to child behavior in the context of harsh discipline of the other parent; and (2) to determine if positive parenting of one parent could buffer harsh discipline used by the other parent. Prior to conducting analyses, continuous variables were centered in order to reduce multicollinearity and facilitate interpretation of potential interactions (Aiken and West 1991). Primary Analyses In order to conserve space, relevant F-values from the analyses of variance and standardized beta weights from regression analyses are presented in the text. Tables detailing the analyses are not presented. These are available upon request. Does harsh discipline differ based on child and/or parent gender? The 2 2 analyses of variance resulted in a significant main effect for child gender when both harsh verbal discipline and harsh physical discipline served as the dependent variable, in both cases, F (1,2580) >29.61, p< In contrast, the main effect for parent gender was not significant for either internalizing or externalizing problems, in both cases, F (1,2580)=0.02, n.s.. The main effect for gender of child resulted from boys, relative to girls,

6 192 J Fam Viol (2007) 22: receiving more harsh verbal discipline (boys=2.59 and girls=2.35 on a 1 to 5 point scale) and more harsh physical discipline (boys=1.43 and girls=1.29 on a 1 to 5 point scale). A significant interaction between child gender and parent gender emerged for harsh physical discipline, F (1,2580) =11.78, p<0.01, but not for harsh verbal discipline, F (1,2580)= 0.59, n.s. As depicted in Fig. 1, the interaction between child gender and parent gender for harsh physical discipline resulted from fathers using more harsh physical discipline than mothers with boys but similar levels with girls Harsh Physical Mothers Fathers Mothers Fathers Boys Girls Fig. 1 Harsh physical discipline used by mothers and fathers with boys and girls Is harsh discipline uniquely associated with child behavior problems beyond positive parenting? As noted in the Plan of Analyses, four separate regression analyses were performed to address this question: Mothers harsh verbal and physical discipline with (1) child internalizing problems and (2) child externalizing problems serving as the dependent variable; and fathers harsh verbal and physical discipline with (3) child internalizing problems and (4) child externalizing problems serving as the dependent variable. The variables entered in Block 2 of the regression analyses address the unique contribution of harsh verbal and physical discipline beyond that accounted for by the two positive parenting constructs. Mothers harsh physical discipline, b=0.07, p<0.01, was uniquely associated with child internalizing problems, whereas both mothers harsh verbal, b =0.05, p<0.05, and physical, b =0.14, p<0.01, discipline were uniquely associated with child externalizing problems beyond positive parenting. Fathers harsh verbal, b =0.06, p<0.05, and physical, b =0.06, p<0.01, discipline each were uniquely associated with internalizing problems. Similarly, fathers harsh verbal, b =0.09, p<0.01, and physical, b =0.12, p< 0.01, discipline each were uniquely associated with externalizing problems beyond the fathers positive parenting. For all significant relationships, higher levels of childreported harsh discipline were associated with higher levels of parent-reported child behavior problems. Do parent and child gender qualify the relationship between harsh discipline and child behavior problems? The two-way interactions between child gender and harsh verbal and physical discipline entered in Block 3 of the regression analysis for mothers and for fathers address this question. Child gender did not qualify the relation between either mothers or fathers harsh discipline and either child internalizing or externalizing problems (i.e., all standardized beta weights for the interaction terms were nonsignificant). Does positive parenting buffer against harsh verbal and physical discipline? The four interactions between each positive parenting construct (warmth and appropriate discipline) and harsh verbal and physical discipline were entered in Block 3 to address this question. Although significant effects did not emerge for externalizing problems, mothers harsh physical discipline interacted with mothers warmth for internalizing problems, b =0.08, p< Similarly for fathers, harsh physical discipline interacted with fathers warmth, b = 0.05, p<0.05 for child internalizing problems. In order to further explicate these interactions, median splits were conducted on both warmth and harsh physical discipline for each parent, and the four means were plotted (see Fig. 2, top graph for mothers and bottom graph for fathers). The results of primary interest are low and high warmth when harsh physical discipline is high. Internalizing problems were substantially lower when mothers warmth was high as compared to low under high levels of harsh physical discipline. The same finding emerged for fathers. These findings suggest that the warmth dimension of positive parenting is a buffer for harsh physical discipline. Is harsh discipline of each parent significant in the context of the other parent s harsh discipline? In order to address this question and the next question, we conducted another set of regression analyses where we included both maternal and paternal harsh verbal and physical discipline, as well as the positive parenting of each parent, in the same regression analysis. For internalizing problems, only fathers harsh verbal discipline was significant, b =0.06, p<0.05. For externalizing problems, mothers harsh physical discipline, b =0.09, p<0.01, father s harsh verbal discipline, b =0.08, p<0.01, and fathers harsh physical discipline, b =0.07, p< 0.01 were significant. Does positive parenting of one parent serve as a buffer for the detrimental influences of harsh discipline of the other parent? In order to address this question, warmth and

7 J Fam Viol (2007) 22: appropriate discipline for each parent were individually entered in an interaction term with the other parent s harsh verbal and physical discipline. A significant interaction emerged for internalizing problems and for externalizing problems: for both dependent measures, mothers warmth interacted with fathers harsh physical discipline, in both cases, b >0.05, p<0.05. The interactions were explicated by conducting median splits on both independent variables and plotting the interaction. The results of primary interest are low and high levels of maternal warmth when father s harsh discipline is high. The results for both measures (presented in Fig. 3) indicate that, relative to low levels of maternal warmth, high levels are associated with fewer child problem behaviors when paternal harsh physical discipline was high. Thus, the warmth dimension of positive parenting for mothers serves as a buffer for harsh physical discipline of fathers. Internalizing Problems Internalizing Problems Mother Low Harsh Physical Father Low Harsh Physical Low Warmth High Warmth High Harsh Physical Low Warmth High Warmth High Harsh Physical Fig. 2 Internalizing problems of children associated with harsh physical discipline and warmth of mothers (top graph) and fathers (bottom graph) Internalizing Problems Externalizing Problems Discussion Father Low Harsh Physical Low Maternal Warmth High Maternal Warmth Father High Harsh Physical 2.1 Father Low Father High Harsh Physical Harsh Physical Fig. 3 Internalizing (top graph) and externalizing (bottom graph) problems of children associated with father s harsh physical discipline and mother s warmth This study explored the association of harsh physical and verbal discipline with child behavior problems in a community sample. It further examined the conditions under which these associations are most pronounced, as well as those parenting qualities that may protect children s psychological adjustment. Five research questions were examined: (1) Do rates of harsh verbal and physical discipline differ by the gender of parent and child?; (2) Is harsh verbal and physical discipline related to child internalizing and externalizing problems beyond the contribution of positive parenting (warmth and appropriate discipline) for mothers and fathers?; (3) Does parent and child gender qualify the relationship between harsh parental discipline and child internalizing and externalizing problems?; (4) Is the harsh discipline of one parent significant in the context of the other parent s harsh discipline? and (5) Can positive parenting buffer a child from detrimental influences of harsh verbal and physical discipline? When examining the rates of harsh verbal and physical discipline by gender of parent and child, we predicted that boys would receive more harsh discipline than girls, particularly from fathers. Our findings supported this hypothesis as, overall, boys received more harsh verbal and harsh

8 194 J Fam Viol (2007) 22: physical discipline than girls. In addition, fathers used more harsh physical discipline than mothers with their sons, but used similar levels with daughters, which is congruent with the findings of Chang et al (2003). In contrast, fathers and mothers used similar levels of harsh verbal discipline with their sons and daughters. Our findings replicate previous research demonstrating that parents are more likely to use harsh physical discipline with their sons than their daughters (e.g. Mahoney et al. 2000; Straus and Stewart 1999), yet parental use of harsh verbal discipline does not vary by gender of their child. One possible explanation for this finding is that, based on gender role stereotypes, parents (particularly fathers) may still believe that boys require physical discipline more so than girls to change their behavior. This study further explored the extent to which harsh verbal and physical discipline are associated with child internalizing and externalizing problems beyond positive parenting (warmth and appropriate discipline). For each parent considered separately, we hypothesized that both verbal and physical harsh discipline would be associated with child internalizing and externalizing problems beyond positive parenting practices. With the exception of the lack of an association between mothers harsh verbal discipline and child internalizing problems, our findings provided support for this hypothesis. These findings are counter to those of Simons et al. (1994) and suggest that it is not sufficient for parenting programs to focus solely on increasing positive parenting: harsh discipline needs to be addressed and eliminated or, at least, decreased. Of particular interest is that even children s reports of low levels of harsh physical discipline are associated with their parents report of child internalizing and externalizing problems. Our third research question explored parent and child gender as qualifiers in the relationship between harsh parental discipline and child internalizing and externalizing problems. We anticipated that fathers harsh discipline would be more strongly related to sons than to daughters problem behaviors. Similarly, we expected that mothers harsh discipline would contribute more to daughters than to sons problem behaviors. Contrary to both our hypothesis and to earlier research (Chang et al. 2003; Deater-Deckard and Dodge 1997), neither parent nor child gender qualified the relationship between mothers or fathers use of harsh discipline and child behavior problems. Our findings suggest that the association between harsh parental discipline and child problem behavior is not more pronounced in same gender dyads (mothers and daughters, fathers and sons). In contrast it appears that harsh discipline used by either parent is associated equally with problem behaviors of boys and girls. As these findings are inconsistent with the two existing studies in the literature, (Deater-Deckard and Dodge 1997; Chang et al. 2003), further research is needed to clarify why differences emerged across studies. One potential explanation is our use of an older sample of children than in the two earlier studies. In order to explore each parent s harsh discipline in the context of the other parent, our fourth hypothesis stated that both mothers and fathers harsh disciplinary practices would be associated with child behavior problems when considered together. Interestingly, our results revealed different findings for internalizing and externalizing problems. Only fathers harsh verbal discipline was associated with child internalizing problems. In contrast, mothers harsh physical discipline and fathers harsh physical and verbal discipline were significantly related to child externalizing problems. Thus, our hypothesis that both mothers and fathers harsh discipline would be associated with child behavior problems was supported for externalizing problems but not for internalizing problems. The finding that both types of harsh discipline are more often associated with externalizing than with internalizing problems is not surprising considering that, with one exception (Kim et al. 2003), the existing literature only provides support for the link between harsh discipline and externalizing problems. Our findings have several important implications. First, in support of Phares (1996) conclusions, paternal parenting practices, which have often been ignored, are critical for the development of children. Second, both parents use of harsh verbal and physical discipline is associated with higher levels of child externalizing problems. Thus, not only should parenting programs focus on the roles of both positive parenting and harsh discipline, but, in two-parent families, our findings suggest that both parents should be involved in the treatment. Third, child internalizing problems should not be overlooked in the treatment setting when parents, particularly fathers, are using harsh discipline. Finally, even harsh discipline that occurs at low rates in an upper middle class Caucasian sample is associated with internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors of children and, therefore, deserves attention in prevention and intervention programs. Lastly, we examined the extent to which positive parenting buffers a child from the detrimental influences of harsh verbal and physical discipline, either delivered by the same parent or by the other parent. We expected that positive parenting, particularly warmth (Masten and Coatsworth 1998), would protect children from the detrimental outcomes of harsh discipline practices. We first examined the protective role of positive parenting practices by the parent who employs harsh discipline. Our findings indicated that, when parental harsh physical discipline was high, child internalizing problems were substantially lower when each parent s warmth was high compared to low. We further examined whether positive parenting by one parent serves to buffer the child from the detrimental effects of harsh discipline of the other parent. For both child internalizing

9 J Fam Viol (2007) 22: and externalizing problems, high (versus low) levels of maternal warmth were associated with fewer child problem behaviors when paternal harsh physical discipline was high. This is consistent with Deater-Decker and Dodge (1997), who also found that high levels of positive parenting from either parent moderated the association between harsh physical discipline and child externalizing problems. These findings, which are similar to those reported by Masten and Coatsworth (1998) for promotion of resilience in children, point to the importance of parental warmth in moderating the negative influences of harsh discipline both within and across parents. In essence, a parent can, at least partially, compensate for harsh discipline used by herself or himself and, in the case of mothers, by her spouse by displaying high levels of warmth. It is important to note that these findings do not by any means condone parents use of harsh verbal and physical discipline with their children, nor do they provide support for the utility of using such techniques. A large body of research (see Straus and Field 2003; Straus and Stewart 1999) has demonstrated that harsh punishment is not an appropriate way to discipline children. The findings for harsh verbal versus physical discipline across our hypotheses deserve further mention. First, both types of discipline are uniquely related to child problem behaviors. Second, neither type was qualified by child gender. Third, only harsh physical discipline was moderated by the warmth dimension of positive parenting. These findings suggest that both types of harsh discipline are associated with problem behavior of children, regardless of gender, and need to be addressed in parenting programs. In addition, the differential role of parental warmth as a moderator suggests that the outcome of the two types of discipline may differ in their responsiveness to positive parenting interventions. Increasing parental warmth may protect children from the detrimental influences of harsh physical, but not verbal, discipline, possibly because of the lower rates of the former than the latter (see Table 2). Similarly, the findings for externalizing problems versus internalizing problems across our hypotheses deserve further mention. First, when examined separately for mothers and fathers, harsh discipline by each parent was related to both types of problem behaviors. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the unique association of these two types of harsh discipline with internalizing problems. Second, child gender did not qualify the relationship between harsh discipline and either type of problem behavior. Third, when maternal and paternal harsh discipline are included in the same analysis, only fathers harsh verbal discipline was associated with internalizing problems whereas both mothers and fathers harsh physical discipline and fathers harsh verbal discipline were associated with externalizing problems. Fourth, the warmth dimension of positive parenting was more often a buffer against harsh discipline for internalizing than externalizing problems. These findings have three important implications: internalizing problems should not be ignored when studying or treating harsh discipline by parents; within the context of both parents, harsh verbal and physical discipline by mothers and fathers have differential consequences for internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors; and internalizing problems may be particularly responsive to positive parenting in the context of harsh discipline. Four limitations of our study merit discussion. First, our ethnically and socioeconomically homogenous sample, as well as using only families where both parents resided in the home, limits the generalizability of our findings. Previous research (e.g. Sedlak, Broadhurst, and Thomas, 1997; Straus and Stewart 1999) highlights ethnicity and socioeconomic status as important risk factors for harsh discipline. Deter-Decker and Dodge (1997) have also indicated that ethnicity may moderate the relationship between harsh physical discipline and child externalizing problems and is therefore an important variable to consider. Second, our use of self-report measures introduces participant bias; however, this study did incorporate different reporters of parenting and child behavior problems. Third, the use of single items to measure both verbal and physical harsh discipline may not have captured the multiple dimensions of these constructs. Fourth, the cross-sectional design restricts our conclusions about harsh discipline and child problem behaviors to associations. Although we have considered our findings from the perspective of parental harsh discipline being detrimental for child problem behaviors, it is equally plausible that child problem behaviors lead parents to use increasingly harsh discipline practices. In reality, the relationship between harsh discipline and child problem behavior is likely transactional. There are also several strengths of the study that are important to note. First, our results contribute knowledge to the parenting literature, which has not typically compared the association of both harsh verbal discipline and harsh physical discipline on both child externalizing and internalizing problems. Second, as noted above, this study employed different reporters of parent and child behavior and, in addition, used a large community-based sample. Weiss et al. (1992) have highlighted the shortcomings of using biased samples (e.g. clinical cases of children who have been identified by authorities as having been abused through a continuum of harsh parenting practices). Importantly, significant associations in our study suggest that even low rates of harsh discipline in an upper middle class sample are related to child problem behaviors. In addition, as we have noted throughout our discussion of the findings, the findings provide insight into recommendations for developing parenting interventions. Harsh physical and verbal discipline are common parenting practices in the United States (Strauss and Field 2003;

10 196 J Fam Viol (2007) 22: Strauss and Stewart 1999); as a consequence, more research should be devoted to this area of study. Future research should address the limitations of the current study by including ethnically and socioeconomically heterogenous samples, multi-item measures of verbal and physical harsh discipline, and longitudinal research designs. Straus and Field (2003) aptly state that decreasing parental physical and verbal harsh discipline may be a crucial step in the primary prevention of child, adolescent and adult mental illness. Intervening with parent training programs (e.g. McMahon and Forehand 2003) to arrest harsh physical and verbal discipline could potentially offset future-related delinquent acts and psychological problems (e.g. Patterson et al. 1989). References Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior checklist 4 18 and 1991 profile. Burlington: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Barnes, G. M., & Farrell, M. P. (1992). Parental support and control as predictors of adolescent drinking, delinquency, and related problem behaviors. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, Chang, L., Dodge, K. A., Schwartz, D., & McBride-Chang, C. (2003). Harsh parenting in relation to child emotion regulation and aggression. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, Crick, N. R., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (2003). The development of psychopathology in females and males: Current progress and future challenges. Development and Psychopathology, 15, Criss, M. M., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Lapp, A. L. (2002). Family adversity, positive peer relationships, and children s externalizing behavior: A longitudinal perspective on risk and resilience. Child Development, 73, Deater-Deckard, K., & Dodge, K. A. (1997). Externalizing behavior problems and discipline revisited: Nonlinear effects and variation by culture, context, and gender. Psychological Inquiry, 8, Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1996). Physical discipline among African American and European American mothers: Links to children s externalizing behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32, Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Petit, G. S. (1990). Mechanisms in the cycle of violence. Science, 250, Gardner, W., Murphy, M., Childs, G., Kelleher, K., Pagano, M., Jellinek, M., et al. (1999). The PSC 17: A brief pediatric symptom checklist with psychosocial problem subscales. A report from PROS and ASPN. Ambulatory Child Health, 5, Jellinek, M. S., Evans, N., & Knight, R. B. (1979). Use of a behavior checklist on a pediatric in-patient unit. Journal of Pediatrics, 94, Jellinek, M.S., Murphy, J.M., & Burns, B. (1986). Brief psychosocial screening in outpatient pediatric practice. Journal of Pediatrics, 109, Kim, I. J., Ge, X., Brody, G. H., Conger, R. D., Gibbons, F. X., Simons, R. L. (2003). Parenting behaviors and the occurrence and co-occurrence of depressive symptoms and conduct problems among African American children. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, Kotchick, B. A., & Forehand, R. (2002). Putting parenting in perspective: A discussion of the contextual factors that shape parenting practices. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11, Mahoney, A., Donnelly, W. O., Lewis, T., & Maynard, C. (2000). Mother and father self-reports of corporal punishment and severe physical aggression toward clinic-referred youth. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable environments: Lessons from research on successful children. American Psychologist, 53, McGee, R. A., Wolfe, D. A., & Wilson, K. A. (1997). Multiple maltreatment experiences and adolescent behavior problems: Adolescents perspectives. Development and Psychopathology, 9, McMahon, R. J., & Forehand, R. L. (2003). Helping the noncompliant child. (2nd edn.). New York: Guilford Press. Murphy, J. M. (1996). Incidence of mental disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry, 169, Murphy, J. M., Arnett, H. L., Bishop, S. J., Jellinek, M. S., & Reade, J. Y. (1992a). Screening for psychosocial dysfunction in pediatric practice: A naturalistic study of the Pediatric Symptom Checklist. Clinical Pediatrics, 31, Murphy, J. M., Reade, J., Jellinek, M. S., & Bishop, S. J. (1992b). Screening for psychosocial dysfunction in inner-city children: Further validation of the Pediatric Symptom Checklist. Journal of American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry, 31, Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental perspective on antisocial behavior. American Psychologist, 44, Phares, V. (1996). Fathers and developmental psychopathology. New York: Wiley. Sedlak, A. J., Broadhurst, D., & Thomas, C. (1997). Third National Incidence Study of child abuse and neglect (Data Collection Report No. NIS-3). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Simons, R. L., Johnson, C., & Conger, R. D. (1994). Harsh corporal punishment versus quality of parental involvement as an explanation of adolescent maladjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 56, Stevens, M. M., Olson, A. L., Gaffney, C. A., Tosteson, T. D., Mott, L. A., & Starr, P. (2002). A pediatric, practice-based, randomized trial of drinking and smoking prevention and bicycle helmet, gun, and seatbelt safety promotion. Pediatrics, 109, Strassberg, Z., Dodge, K. A., Petit, G. S., Bates, J. E. (1994). Spanking in the home and children s subsequent aggression toward kindergarten peers. Development and Psychopathology, 6, Straus, M. A., & Field, C. J. (2003). Psychological aggression by American parents: National data on prevalence, chronicity, and severity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, Straus, M. A., & Stewart, J. H. (1999). 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 Review, 2, Weis, B., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Petit, G. S. (1992). Some consequences of early harsh discipline: Child aggression and a maladaptive social information processing style. Child Development, 63,

11