Content uploaded by Marie-Eve Clément
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marie-Eve Clément on Mar 14, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL PAPER
The Role of Parental Stress, Mother’s Childhood Abuse
and Perceived Consequences of Violence in Predicting Attitudes
and Attribution in Favor of Corporal Punishment
Marie-E
`
ve Cle
´
ment Æ Claire Chamberland
Published online: 29 July 2008
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008
Abstract We investigate maternal attitudes toward cor-
poral punishment and the attribution of blame to the child
on the basis of data gathered from a population survey of a
representative sample of mothers and mother figures. A
total of 3,148 women living at least half of the time with a
child participated in a telephone survey. The independent
variables included in the multivariate model predicting
maternal attitudes and attributions include the child’s, the
mother’s and the family’s characteristics and social sup-
port. Results of the multiple regression analysis
demonstrate the unique contribution of variables according
to the mother’s characteristics (mother’s sensitivity to the
consequences of violence, mother’s experience of child-
hood violence and parental stress related to child’s
temperament). These results partially support the impor-
tance of prevention programs that would reduce stress and
increase the level of parental empathy through the means of
parental training.
Keywords Corporal punishment Parental attitudes
Childhood abuse Parental stress
Introduction
In general, the scientific literature that addresses the
question of violence in the raising of children includes
behavior of both a physical and a psychological nature in a
continuum of severity. At one end of this continuum, we
find acts of severe violence or physical abuse, which are
defined as acts committed by an adult that go beyond the
level of severity permitted by law and increase the child’s
risk of being injured (i.e., hitting the bottom with a hard
object, beating the child up, throwing or knocking the child
down). At the other end, we find corporal punishment,
which is commonly referred to as a minor form of physical
violence and is defined according to two factors: (1) its
legal and social acceptance, at least in Canada and the
United States (Gershoff 2002; Straus 2001; Trocme
´
and
Durrant 2003), and (2) the nature of the acts used to control
undesirable behavior by inflicting pain on the child without
causing physical injury, as opposed to acts of child physical
abuse (Straus 2001). Psychological violence also fits into
this continuum and ranges from the minor forms (i.e.,
shouting or yelling at the child, cursing at the child) to the
more severe forms (i.e., verbally abusing or belittling the
child, exposing the child to domestic violence) that are now
legislated by Youth Protection Acts in Canada (Trocme
´
et al. 2005).
Resorting to corporal punishment as a childrearing
practice is a controversial subject. In fact, the past few
decades have been punctuated by numerous scientific
debates about the merits of spanking and other disciplinary
forms of corporal punishment (i.e., giving a slap on the
buttocks, arm or leg, pinching the child) (Baumrind et al.
2002; Gershoff 2002; Larzelere and Kuhn 2005). These
debates usually relate to the consequences and efficacy of
these practices mainly because of the correlational nature
M.-E
`
. Cle
´
ment (&)
De
´
partement de psychoe
´
ducation et de psychologie, Universite
´
du Que
´
bec en Outaouais, C.P. 1250, Succursale Hull, Gatineau,
QC, Canada J8X 3X7
e-mail: marie-eve.clement@uqo.ca
C. Chamberland
E
´
cole de travail social, Universite
´
de Montre
´
al, Montreal, QC,
Canada
123
J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:163–171
DOI 10.1007/s10826-008-9216-z
of the studies and the problems controlling for the impact
of contextual variables and parental styles. For example,
corporal punishment used within the context of commu-
nication from a parent who is both firm and kind, but not
controlling, would produce more beneficial effects than
corporal punishment administered within a context of
control and the lack of parental warmth (Baumrind et al.
2002; Larzelere 2000; McKee et al. 2007). However, these
conclusions are not unanimously supported. Several
researchers condemn these methods for their lack of sci-
entifically proven positive results, their potentially negative
consequences for the child, and their links to other forms of
more severe physical and psychological violence (Straus
2001). In fact, more and more longitudinal research dem-
onstrates the harmful effects of corporal punishment on the
child’s social development and on his or her behavioral
problems (Grogan-Kaylor and Otis 2007; Mulvaney and
Mebert 2007). The research also shows that there is
sometimes a thin line between corporal punishment and the
more severe forms violence and that there is often a risk of
escalation from one to the other (Cle
´
ment et al. 2000;
Straus 2001).
To date, the research has demonstrated the importance
of the etiological role of parental attitudes and attributions
in the use of corporal punishment. Indeed we now know
that approval of corporal punishment (Ateah and Durrant
2005; Cle
´
ment et al. 2000; Fortin et al. 2000; Jackson et al.
1999) and the belief in its effectiveness on child compli-
ance (Holden et al. 1999) are both linked to a higher risk of
resorting to its use in disciplining children. Attributing the
causes of the violence to the child and to his/her behavior is
also associated with higher use of this practice (Fortin and
Lachance 1996; Paz Montes et al. 2001; Pinderhughes
et al. 1999; Rodriguez and Price 2004). Similarly, parents
who blame the child, attribute the child’s transgressions to
his/her lack of internal control, or exonerate the parents are
more likely to resort to either corporal punishment or
severe physical violence (Fortin et al. 2000; Rodriguez and
Sutherland 1999).
Several observations can be made on the basis of studies
that attempt to identify the factors associated with parental
approval of corporal punishment. First, much of the
research shows that parents who were themselves subjected
to harsh disciplinary practices during their childhood are
more likely to favor corporal punishment than those who
were not (Muller et al. 1995; Rodriguez and Sutherland
1999). Regardless of whether they were conducted on
representative samples of parents (Buntain-Ricklefs et al.
1994; Cle
´
ment and Bouchard 2003; Jackson et al. 1999),
on adults within the population (Bensley et al. 2004; Gagne
´
et al. 2007) or on college students (Bower-Russa et al.
2001; Graziano et al. 1992), the studies generally reach the
same conclusions: respondents who state that they
experienced coercive discipline during their childhood are
more likely to accept and legitimize these practices towards
children than those who were not.
Some studies more specifically suggest that the form and
severity of the violent disciplinary tactic experienced dur-
ing childhood might influence the subsequent development
of particular attitudes. Studies found that physical violence
experienced as corporal punishment appears more closely
related to attitudes in favor of this particular form of dis-
cipline and that the experience of psychological aggression
or severe physical violence during childhood seem to be
more closely related to attitudes that oppose corporal
punishment (Cle
´
ment and Bouchard 2003; Gagne
´
et al.
2007). For others, the severity of the violence experienced
during childhood may be more closely related to sub-
sequent approval of practices involving parental violence
(Bower and Knutson 1996; Ringwalt et al. 1989).
The perceived consequences of using coercive discipline
with children is also associated with attitudes favoring
corporal punishment: parents who are less sensitive to the
potential consequences of violent disciplinary practices are
more disposed toward corporal punishment than those
more sensitive to its impact (Cle
´
ment et al. in press; Gagne
´
et al. 2007). Some researchers have also found that older
adults may approve more of corporal punishment than
younger ones (Gagne
´
et al. 2007; Markowitz 2001). Fur-
thermore, parents who attest to a lower level of education
may adopt attitudes in favor of physical discipline (i.e.
‘‘Parents who spare the rod will spoil the child’’) or atti-
tudes that devalue children (i.e., ‘‘As a general rule,
children should be seen and not heard’’) more often than
those who have a higher level of education (Jackson et al.
1999). Parental stress has also been linked to approval of
corporal punishment. In fact some research has shown that
parents who report higher levels of stress related either to
their child’s temperament or to a change in social status
due to employment or income level, more often exhibit
attitudes in favor of physical punishment (Cle
´
ment et al. in
press; McCurdy 2005). Some familial and social factors
have also been linked to approval of corporal punishment,
such as an elevated number of individuals in the household
or the absence of social support on the part of the male
partner (Cle
´
ment et al. in press; McCurdy 2005). Finally,
cultural factors such as laws regulating physical punish-
ment have also been associated with lower approbation of
this disciplinary strategy (Durrant et al. 2003).
Although it is often difficult to pinpoint the time that
elapses between the adoption of attitudes and the applica-
tion of practices, the literature indicates that a change in
attitude might subsequently cause a change in a parent’s
disciplinary practices (Bower-Russa 2005; Cle
´
ment and
Chamberland 2007). Studying the factors related to atti-
tudes in favor of corporal punishment could therefore help
164 J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:163–171
123
target methods of preventive intervention. Therefore, we
first present the mothers’ attitudes regarding corporal
punishment based on the results obtained from a large
population survey conducted with a representative sample.
Through the means of a multiple linear regression analysis,
we then identify the personal, familial and social factors
associated with attitudes and attributions in favor of cor-
poral punishment.
Method
The data for this study was taken from a large population
survey conducted by the Quebec Statistic Institute in 2004.
The purpose of this survey, the second of its kind in
Quebec, was to measure the prevalence and the five-year
evolution of attitudes toward and parental use of psycho-
logical aggression, corporal punishment and severe
physical violence against children (Cle
´
ment and Cham-
berland 2007). The sample was composed entirely of
children between 0 and 17 years old who live in private
households in Quebec and live at least 50% of the time
with a woman (i.e., biological or adoptive mother, step-
mother, father’s new partner, or female legal guardian).
The sample frame was selected using the Random Digit
Dial procedure (RDD) and covered 95% of the target
population.
A survey company collected the data by means of
Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews (CATI). A single
child was randomly selected from each household so that
the questions regarding parenting behavior (questions not
used in the present study) and the child’s characteristics
were asked with respect to this child only. The responding
mothers chose the language in which the interview was
conducted: the majority answered in French (92%) and the
rest in English (8%). The Quebec Statistics Institute
Research Ethics Board approved the survey, and measures
were taken to ensure the respondents’ confidentiality. Free
and informed consent was obtained from each woman
before starting the telephone interview. Information about
relevant local services was provided to respondents who
reported that as children, they had been victims of severe
violence, to those who reported severe violent discipline
toward the target child as well as those who expressed
distress during the interview. The telephone interviews
were carried out between January and July 2004 and lasted
in average of 15 min.
Description of Participants
A total of 3,148 mothers completed the telephone inter-
view. In the majority of cases, the mothers were members
of two-parent families (75%); the others were members of
blended families (11%) or single-parent families (14%).
Half of them were married (50%), and 35% were living in
non-marital relationships. Only 3% stated they were single
while 12% were separated, divorced or widowed. In one
household out of three, the mothers considered their
financial situation to be comfortable (34%) or sufficient
(57%); in 9% of the households surveyed, mothers con-
sidered themselves poor or very poor. However, in the
majority of cases (75%), the mothers said they held wage-
earning employment at the time of the interview (including
full- and part-time jobs). At the time of the interview, the
mothers’ ages varied from 18 to 77 years, the average age
being 38.6 years (SD = 7.4). More than half of them
(68%) had completed a college- or university-level edu-
cation while 32% said they had completed an education
equal to or below high-school level. Finally, there were
between one and seven children per family, with an aver-
age of 1.8 children per family (SD = 0.84). The average
age of the children was 8.9 years (SD = 5.3), and there
were approximately the same percentage of girls (49%) and
boys (51%). These characteristics are comparable to those
of Quebec’s families according to information found in the
census data (Duchesne 2005), and the sample is represen-
tative of Quebec households in which children live with a
mother figure at least 50% of the time (Cle
´
ment et al.
2005).
Dependent Variable: Mother’s Attitudes and
Attributions
The dependent variable was created from the items selected
from the first section of the interview questionnaire. These
questions concern the various cognitive perceptions
regarding the use of physical violence in raising children.
The first five questions deal with the mother’s general
attitudes concerning corporal punishment (e.g., ‘‘Some
children need to be slapped so that they will learn a les-
son.’’). The next three questions concern the mother’s
justification of violence (or maternal attributions). These
questions help determine the extent to which the mother
cites the child and his/her behavior as justification for the
recourse to physical violence (e.g., ‘‘It would be acceptable
for a parent to slap his/her child if he/she is being dis-
obedient.’’). These questions were drawn from the Mesure
de la Justification de la violence envers l’enfant, a tool
whose psychometric properties have already been proven
within a Quebec population (Fortin and Lachance 1996).
For each question, the choice of answers ranges from 1
(strongly disagree)to4(strongly agree).
The eight questions selected were the subject of factor
and internal consistency analyses. The analyses confirm the
presence of a single component that explains 45% of the
variance in parental attitudes and attributions. However,
J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:163–171 165
123
one question was withdrawn because it had the weakest
correlation (.28) to the final component (‘‘In general,
Quebec parents are too soft on their children.’’). The
withdrawal of this question also increased the internal
coherence of the final additive score. All of the other
questions were kept because of their relative contribution
to the internal consistency of the final score (M = 22.19,
SD = 3.37, range 7–51) (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.77).
Independent Variables
Perceived Consequences of Minor Violent Discipline
Strategy
Two questions were adapted from Daro and Gelles’ study
(1992) and then used in an earlier study (Cle
´
ment et al.
2000). These questions measured the mother’s ability to
recognize the consequences of the continual infliction of
psychological aggression and corporal punishment on the
child (i.e., ‘‘How often do you think children develop
psychological problems that can last a long time because
their parents repeatedly yell or swear at them?’’ and ‘‘How
often do you think children can be physically injured as a
result of corporal punishment?’’). The choice of answers
ranged from 1 (very often) to 5 (never). Taking into
account the significant correlation between these two
questions in the present study (0.35) and the high correla-
tion Cle
´
ment and Bouchard (2005) found in an earlier
study using the same questions, an average score was
calculated. This score was then used as an indicator of
maternal sensitivity or empathy with regard to the effects
of violence on the child. This was not used as an objective
measure of the consequences of corporal punishment and
psychological aggression, but as an indicator of the rec-
ognition of the potential repercussions of using these
disciplinary strategies on a child.
Parental Stress
Five questions evaluated the parental stress caused by the
demands that a difficult child may make on a parent. These
questions were taken from the ‘‘Child Demandingness’’
scale found in the short version of the Parenting Stress
Index, which Abidin developed and validated (1995) (e.g.,
‘‘Your child seems to cry or fuss more often than most
children’’, ‘‘There are some things your child does that
really bother you’’). This tool has been used in Quebec to
assess parents who were reported for abuse or evaluated as
being high-risk for abuse (Lacharite
´
et al. 1999), and its
translated form was subjected to validation in a study of
Quebec mothers (Lacharite
´
et al. 1992). In the present
study, the factor analysis conducted on the basis of
these five questions confirmed the presence of a single
component that explained 49% of the variance in parental
stress. Moreover, the mean scale derived from these items
revealed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha =
0.74).
Maternal Grandparents’ Disciplinary Style
This variable was evaluated on the basis of two questions
that the mother answered regarding her own parents’ dis-
ciplinary style (i.e., ‘‘Which of the following words would
best describe the discipline style of your mother/father?’’).
The choice of answers offered (1—tolerant, 2—a little
strict, 3—very strict, or 4—violent) led to the establish-
ment of a dichotomous final score (both parents are
considered tolerant versus at least one parent is considered
strict). This choice takes into account the categorical nature
of the responses offered to the mother and the existence of
a strong correlation between these two items both in the
present study and in Cle
´
ment and Bouchard’s earlier study
(2005). It also takes into account the substantially asym-
metrical distribution of the variable (negative skewness).
History of Violent Discipline Experienced by Mother
During Childhood
Five questions assessed the presence of different forms of
violent discipline the mother experienced as a child. These
questions concerned psychological aggression, corporal
punishment, severe physical violence and witnessing
physical and psychological domestic violence between
parents (e.g., ‘‘Would you say that you were threatened,
humiliated or ridiculed by your parents when you were a
child?’’, ‘‘Were you spanked by your parents when you
were a child?’’). These questions were developed for the
first Quebec study on family violence (Cle
´
ment et al. 2000)
and were used in similar studies (Gagne
´
et al. 2007
). For
each question, the mother rated the frequency of violent
discipline she experienced as a child on a four-point scale
ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (very often). As was the case
with regard to the grandparents’ disciplinary style, the
presence of a strong correlation between the variables as
well as their asymmetrical distribution led to the creation
of a dichotomous global score for the prevalence of vio-
lence during childhood. This dichotomous score was
calculated when the mother reported the presence of at
least one form of violence during her childhood.
Social Support
Social support was evaluated on the basis of five questions
taken from the Scale of Social Provisions (Cutrona 1984).
This tool measures support as perceived by the mother
(e.g., ‘‘There is no one with whom I feel comfortable
166 J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:163–171
123
talking about my problems’’, ‘‘I do not feel close to any-
one’’). Caron (1996) validated the French version in
Quebec. The response scale ranges from 1 (strongly dis-
agree)to4(strongly agree). The average score obtained
from responses to the five questions used in the study
indicated good internal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha =
0.77).
Socio-demographic Variables
Finally, other individual, familial and social variables were
documented: the child’s age and gender, the highest level
of education the mother completed, the mother’s age at the
time of her child’s birth, her marital status, the number of
individuals living in the household, the mother’s employ-
ment status at the time of the survey, and her perception of
the level of poverty (financially comfortable or sufficient
income versus poor or very poor). Table 1 summarizes the
descriptive properties of these independent variables.
Data Analysis
A multiple linear regression analysis was conducted with
the final score (additive) of maternal attitudes and attribu-
tions in favor of corporal punishment (a higher score
indicating attitudes more in favor of corporal punishment)
and the independent variables of a personal, familial and
social nature. These analyses were conducted using the SAS
program so that Quebec’s socio-demographic population’s
characteristics with regard to the number of minor children
living in the household, the child’s age and gender and the
Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) would be taken into
consideration and reflected in the sample weight. Since no
differences were found between weighted and unweighted
data in the regression analysis, results are presented with
unweighted data.
Results
The results show that mothers generally agree (80%) with
the statement, ‘‘Quebec parents are too soft with their
children’’. A little over half (55%) believe that it is not
wrong for parents to slap their children. On the other hand,
the great majority of mothers (84%) do not approve of a
law allowing parents to use force to correct children.
Furthermore, 88% of the mothers are not convinced that
spanking is an efficient childrearing practice. Other results
concerning attributive attitudes indicate that in general,
mothers do not justify recourse to corporal punishment
(slap) by blaming the child’s behavior. In fact, only one
mother in four believes that it is acceptable to slap a child
when he/she is aggressive (23%), disobedient (20%) or
violent (25%).
The predictors were all introduced into the multiple
regression analysis using the enter method. Results indicate
that five of the 13 predictors contribute significantly to
maternal attitudes and attributions at level p B .05, thereby
explaining 12% of the variance of parental attitudes and
attributions F (24,89) = 11.42, p B .0001. However, when
adjusting significance level for Type 1 error, only three
variables remain significant at p B .001 (perceived conse-
quences of violence, childhood violence and parental
stress) (see Table 2). More specifically, results show that
the less the mothers demonstrate sensitivity to the potential
consequences for the child of resorting to minor violent
disciplinary strategies (psychological aggression and cor-
poral punishment), the more they approve of corporal
punishment. There are also a significantly greater number
of mothers who approve of corporal punishment and use
the child’s behavior as justification for this approval among
those who attest to the presence of violence during their
own childhood and report stress caused by the child’s
Table 1 Descriptive statistics for the independent variables and
correlation with maternal attitudes and attributions
N%MSD r
Children’s gender 3,148
Female 49.0 -.002
Male 51.0
Mother’s childhood violence 3,098 .127***
Absence 23.5
Presence 76.5
Grand-parent’s disciplinary
style
2,992 .008
Tolerant 13.5
Strict, very strict, violent 86.5
Employment status 3,113 .017
Working 74.5
Not working 25.5
Marital status 3,140 .003
Married, common-law
spouse
85.0
Single, divorced, separated 15.0
Children’s age 3,148 8.90 5.30 .008
Mother’s age at time of child
birth
3,063 29.70 5.40 .051
Perceived consequences
of violence
3,045 2.30 0.53 .255***
Highest level of education
achieved
3,114 7.17 2.41 .073***
Parental stress (inversed) 3,148 3.04 0.64 .132***
Perceived level of income 3,123 1.75 0.34 .089***
Number of persons in the
household
3,058 4.0 1.02 -.040
Social support index 3,137 1.29 0.44 .100***
*** p B .001
J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:163–171 167
123
temperament. As for the mothers’ level of education, their
evaluation of the family financial status as poor or very
poor and the social support, they are associated with their
attitudes and attributions in favor of corporal punishment
(Table 1), although it does not reach the adjusted level of
significance in the regression model. The other variables
(children’s age and gender, mother’s age at time of child
birth, grand-parents’ disciplinary style, employment status
and number of people living in the household) explain less
than 0.1% of the variance of maternal attitudes and attri-
butions, a rate that is insufficient for their contribution to be
statistically significant at a threshold of p B .001.
Discussion
We based the present study on a large representative
sample of families and documented maternal attitudes and
attributions with respect to corporal punishment. From a
descriptive point of view, the results indicate that the
mothers’ attitudes and attributions regarding corporal
punishment can be viewed as a continuum with some
components being more favorable than others. For
instance, the majority of mothers seem to believe that it is
important to set limits for children (80%) and that parents
who slap their children have the right to do so (55%).
However, we found that a large majority does not approve
of a law that would permit parents to use force to correct a
child (84%). Furthermore, mothers disagree more often
than not with the statement that spanking is an effective
childrearing practice (88%). These results support the
hypothesis that different social norms regarding childrear-
ing may coexist within the population. This observation
also reflects the guidelines recently introduced into sec-
tion 43 of the Canadian Criminal Code that stipulate that
‘‘every schoolteacher, parent or a person standing in place
of the parent is justified in using force by way of correction
toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under
his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable
under the circumstances.’’ Well documented by the media,
recent guidelines surrounding this law henceforth support
the parent’s or teacher’s use of reasonable force in rearing
or educating a child, providing this ‘‘reasonable’’ force
remains trifling, minor and transitory (Trocme
´
et al. 2004).
Since changes to the legislation were made at the beginning
of our survey in January 2004, it is possible that the public
debate and mediatization surrounding the issue of corporal
punishment have had a certain impact on maternal atti-
tudes. This effect was also found in Durrant et al.’s study
(2003).
Results of the regression analysis point to the unique
contribution of personal factors to the explanation—how-
ever partial—of maternal attitudes and attributions in favor
of corporal punishment. From an ecological perspective
that would take into account the accumulation of risks at
multiple levels (Belsky 1993; Tolan et al. 2006), this result
is rather surprising. Such is the case for individual variables
specific to the child for whom the study found no signifi-
cant relation to maternal attitudes and attributions. In fact,
the results show that from the mothers’ point of view,
neither the child’s age nor his/her gender seems to have an
impact on their attitudes and attributions in favor of cor-
poral punishment. This observation is rather surprising
given that the use of corporal punishment is often shown to
depend on these two variables: boys and younger children
are more likely to be subjected to violent disciplinary
strategy than girls and adolescents (Cle
´
ment et al. 2000;
Jackson et al. 1999; Straus and Stewart 1999). Accord-
ingly, it seems more likely that the child’s temperament
and the stress that the parent feels because of the child are
affecting the attitudes rather than the child’s age or gender.
We know that young boys are more difficult and can be a
source of added stress. We also know that parental stress is
associated with a heightened risk of violence (Lacharite
´
et al. 1999; McCurdy 2005), particularly when parents
approve of corporal punishment (Crouch and Behl 2001).
Several researchers have shown that the cognitions of
abusive parents take root not only in their personal char-
acteristics but also in the context of stress related to the
child (Schellenbach et al. 1991; Milner 2003).
Besides the role of parental stress, the present study
sheds light on the importance of other personal variables in
the prediction of maternal attitudes and attributions, such
as the perceptions pertaining to the potential consequences
Table 2 Multiple regression analysis predicting approval and attri-
bution of corporal punishment (N = 2,687
a
)
Predictors B SE B b
Children’s age .003 .015 .004
Children’s gender -.025 .155 -.003
Mother’s age at time of child birth .025 .015 .031
Perceived consequences of violence 1.44 .105 .253***
Grand-parent’s disciplinary style .129 .240 .010
Childhood violence 1.195 .189 .119***
Highest level of education achieved -.100 .036 .057
Employment status -.097 .188 .010
Parental stress -.700 .127 .103***
Marital status .113 .250 .009
Perceived level of income .342 .137 .050
Number of persons in the household -.121 .083 -.029
Social support .334 .188 .034
a
Missing data range from n = 8ton = 156 (grand-parent’s disci-
plinary style)
*** p B .001
168 J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:163–171
123
of violence and the violence the mother experienced during
her own childhood. In fact, the study demonstrates the
relative importance of the mother’s sensitivity (or lack
thereof) to the consequences of violence on the child. This
result supports the Cle
´
ment et al. (in press) and Gagne
´
et al. (2007) studies, both of which were conducted using
representative samples of parents or adults within the
general population. This result also concurs with the results
of the Gagne
´
and Bouchard (2001) study, which demon-
strated that the perceived consequences of violent
discipline for the child’s psychological and physical well-
being are central to the representation and identification of
its use as a disciplinary strategy. It also corroborates other
studies that illustrate the role of empathy in recognizing the
risks of violence toward children (Milner 2003; Perez-
Albeniz and De Paul 2003). It is therefore possible that
mothers more prone to recognizing the potential conse-
quences of minor violence in childrearing also show
greater empathy toward the child and that as a result, these
mothers more often state that they do not approve of cor-
poral punishment.
Similarly, Lopez et al. (2001) established links between
violence experienced during childhood and the develop-
ment of empathic attitudes toward the child, thus
supporting the result of the present study with regard to the
role of ‘‘empathic’’ cognitions and violence experienced
during childhood in the prediction of mother’s attitudes and
attributions. Moreover, our data shows that mothers who
were victims of violence during their childhood are more
likely to adopt attitudes and attributions in favor of cor-
poral punishment than those who were not victims of such
violence. This echoes a great deal of research that discusses
the role played by violence experienced during childhood
in the future adoption of attitudes approving of these
practices, particularly in the role of corporal punishment.
Parents having experienced such violence are more prone
to approve of this type of practice, given its normative and
legitimized character (Bower-Russa et al. 2001; Cle
´
ment
and Bouchard 2003; Jackson et al. 1999). Furthermore,
there are certain indications in the literature to the effect
that experiences of violence and mistreatment during
childhood act in a distinct manner on parental attitudes,
depending on their form and severity. More severe expe-
riences are associated with attitudes that oppose violence
because of the pain that such experiences evoke and
because of the context of the absence of parental warmth in
which they were endured (Cle
´
ment and Bouchard 2003;
Deater-Deckard et al. 2003; Gagne
´
et al. 2007). However,
we cannot respond to these hypotheses because we used a
dichotomous score and did not take the type or frequency
of the violence experienced during childhood into account.
Finally, with regard to socio-economic characteristics,
correlation indicate that mothers who have a lower level of
education and those who consider themselves to be poor or
very poor appear to be somewhat more in favor of corporal
punishment. Although this result does not reach the
adjusted level of significance in the regression, it echoes
the findings of the study conducted by McCurdy (2005),
who found that an increase in stress, measured by a change
in the mother’s employment status and a reduction of
income, is associated with attitudes more favorable towards
corporal punishment. Similar data was also reported by
Cle
´
ment et al. (in press), who found that fathers who attest
to being more in favor of corporal punishment consider
themselves to be poor or very poor. Although not signifi-
cant in the final model (p = .06), correlation results also
indicate that mothers receiving more support have a greater
tendency to adopt attitudes less in favor of corporal pun-
ishment. Several comparable studies have found that a
level of social support considered to be more satisfying
diminishes the risk of physical abuse of the child, regard-
less of the family’s ethnic origin (Rodriguez 2008). This is
important since it appears that intervention intending to
increase support from the partner and the social network
has an impact on the mother’s attitudes during the first year
of the child’s life (McCurdy
2005).
Although we found a very strong external validity with
respect to the possibility of generalizing the result to the
Quebec population, there are certain methodological limi-
tations that should be mentioned. Firstly, we obtained the
data from a cross-sectional survey, which limits the causal
interpretation of the links we observed. Secondly, although
the regression model documents the contribution of several
variables, on the whole, it only explains a small part of the
variance of maternal attitudes and attributions. This indi-
cates the absence of several factors such as the father’s
point of view (Flynn 1998), the form and severity of the
violence the mothers experienced as children (Cle
´
ment and
Bouchard 2003; Deater-Deckard et al. 2003), religious
affiliation (Gershoff et al. 1999; Jackson et al. 1999) and
ethnic origin (Deater-Deckard et al. 2003; Flynn 1998;
Straus and Stewart 1999). We might also consider the
factors of empathy, personality traits, and the parents’
psychological characteristics (i.e., symptoms of depres-
sion) (Leung and Smith-Slep 2006; Perez-Albeniz and De
Paul 2003; Rodriguez 2008). Lastly, the mothers’ respon-
ses in this kind of survey are inevitably subject to the bias
of social desirability in spite of the precautions we took
during the study in order to diminish its impact.
This study opens up avenues of thought regarding
intervention. First, the results suggest that the attenuation of
attitudes favoring corporal punishment may depend upon a
sensitization to its consequences. Therefore, cognitive and
behavioral programs centered on the development of
parental empathy (Wiehe 1997) as well as on the diminution
of erroneous beliefs regarding the efficacy of corporal
J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:163–171 169
123
punishment (Ateah and Durrant 2005; Robinson et al. 2005)
would be particularly promising. Other approaches are
recommended, such as parent-education programs offered
on an individual basis (Lundahl et al. 2006). These
approaches have been proven effective in the reduction of
parental stress, the increase of social support for vulnerable
families, and even in the diminishment of parental attitudes
favorable to corporal punishment (McCurdy 2005).
Although no evaluative longitudinal research has yet to
definitively establish the long-term effects of these
approaches, they are certainly promising avenues in the
field of parental attitudes and practices.
References
Abidin, R. R. (1995). Parenting stress index (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Ateah, C. A., & Durrant, J. E. (2005). Maternal use of physical
punishment in response to child misbehavior: Implications for
child abuse prevention. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 169–185.
doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.10.010.
Baumrind, D., Larzelere, R. E., & Cowan, P. A. (2002). Ordinary
physical punishment: Is it harmful? Comment on Gershoff
(2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128, 580–589. doi:10.1037/
0033-2909.128.4.580.
Belsky, J. (1993). Etiology of child maltreatment: A developmental-
ecological analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 413–434. doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.413.
Bensley, L., Ruggles, D., Wynkoop Simmons, K., Harris, C.,
Williams, K., Putvin, T., & Allen, M. (2004). General population
norms about child abuse and neglect and associations with
childhood experiences. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 1321–1337.
doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.07.004.
Bower, M. E., & Knutson, J. F. (1996). Attitudes toward physical
discipline as a function of disciplinary history and self-labeling
as physically abused. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20(8), 689–699.
Bower-Russa, M. E. (2005). Attitudes mediate the association
between childhood disciplinary history and disciplinary
responses. Child Maltreatment, 10, 272–282. doi:10.1177/1077
559505277531.
Bower-Russa, M. E., Knutson, J. F., & Winebarger, A. (2001).
Disciplinary history, adult disciplinary attitudes, and risk for
abusive parenting. Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 219–
240. doi:10.1002/jcop.1015.
Buntain-Ricklefs, J. J., Kemper, K. J., Bell, M., & Babonis, T. (1994).
Punishment: What predicts adult approval? Child Abuse &
Neglect, 18, 945–955. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(05)80005-5.
Caron, J. (1996). L’e
´
chelle de provisions sociales: Une validation
que
´
be
´
coise. Sante Mentale au Quebec, 11, 181–199.
Cle
´
ment, M.-E
`
., & Bouchard, C. (2003). Liens interge
´
ne
´
rationnels
des conduites parentales a
`
caracte
`
re violent: recension et
re
´
sultats empiriques. Revue de Psychoe
´
ducation, 32, 49–77.
Cle
´
ment, M.-E
`
., & Bouchard, C. (2005). Predicting the use of single
versus multiple types of violence towards children in a
representative sample. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29
(10), 1121–
1139. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.04.006.
Cle
´
ment, M.-E
`
., Bouchard, C., Jette
´
, M., & Laferrie
`
re, S. (2000). La
violence familiale dans la vie des enfants du Que
´
bec, 1999.
Que
´
bec, QC: Institut de la statistique du Que
´
bec. Available
online at http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/publications/conditions/
violence.htm. Retrieved 2 May 2008.
Cle
´
ment, M.-E
`
., & Chamberland, C. (2007). Physical violence and
psychological aggression towards children: Five-year trends in
practices and attitudes from two population surveys. Child Abuse
& Neglect, 31, 1001–1011. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.04.005.
Cle
´
ment, M.-E
`
., Chamberland, C., Dubeau, D., Co
ˆ
te
´
, L., & Beauvais,
B. (2005). La violence familiale dans la vie des enfants du
Que
´
bec, 2004. Que
´
bec, QC: Institut de la statistique du Que
´
bec.
Available online at http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/publications/
conditions/violence_fam2004.htm. Retrieved 2 May 2008.
Cle
´
ment, M.-E
`
., Dufour, S., Chamberland, C., & Dubeau, D. (in
press). Description et analyse des attitudes et attributions
paternelles favorables a
`
la punition corporelle. Canadian Journal
of Behavioral Sciences.
Crouch, J. L., & Behl, L. E. (2001). Relationships among parental
beliefs in corporal punishment, reported stress, and physical
child abuse potential. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25, 413–419. doi:
10.1016/S0145-2134(00)00256-8.
Cutrona, C. E. (1984). Social support and stress in the transition to
parenthood. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, 378–390. doi:
10.1037/0021-843X.93.4.378.
Daro, D., & Gelles, R. J. (1992). Public attitudes and behaviors with
respect to child abuse prevention. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 7, 517–531.
Deater-Deckard, K., Lansford, J. E., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., &
Bates, J. E. (2003). The development of attitudes about physical
punishment: An 8-year longitudinal study. Journal of Family
Psychology, 17, 351–360. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.17.3.351.
Duchesne, L. (2005). Donne
´
es sociales du Que
´
bec. Montre
´
al: Institut
de la Statistique du Que
´
bec.
Durrant, J. E., Rose-Krasnor, L., & Broberg, A. G. (2003). Physical
punishment and maternal beliefs in Sweden and Canada. Journal
of Comparative Family Studies, 34(4), 585–604.
Flynn, C. P. (1998). To spank or not to spank: The effect of situation
and age of child on support for corporal punishment. Journal of
Family Violence, 13, 21–37. doi:10.1023/A:1022808716048.
Fortin, A., Chamberland, C., & Lachance, L. (2000). La justification
de la violence envers l’enfant: un facteur de risque de violence.
La Revue Internationale de l’E
´
ducation Familiale, 4, 5–34.
Fortin, A., & Lachance, L. (1996). Mesure de la justification de la
violence envers l’enfant: E
´
tude de validation aupre
`
s d’une
population que
´
be
´
coise. Cahiers Internationaux de Psychologie
Sociale, 31, 91–103.
Gagne
´
, M.-H., & Bouchard, C. (2001). Les repre
´
sentations sociales de
la violence psychologique faite aux enfants en milieu familial.
Cahiers Internationaux de Psychologie Sociale, 49, 61–77.
Gagne
´
, M.-H., Tourigny, M., Joly, J., & Pouliot-Lapointe, J. (2007).
Predictors of adult attitudes toward corporal punishment of
children. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 1285–1304. doi:
10.1177/0886260507304550.
Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and
associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic
and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 539–579.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.539.
Gershoff, E. T., Miller, P. C., & Holden, G. W. (1999). Parenting
influences from the pulpit: Religious affiliation as a determinant
of parental corporal punishment. Journal of Family Psychology,
13, 307–320. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.13.3.307.
Graziano, A. M., Lindquist, C. M., Kunce, L. J., & Munjal, K. (1992).
Physical punishment in childhood and current attitudes: An
exploratory comparison of college students in the United States
and India. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 147–155.
Grogan-Kaylor, A., & Otis, M. D. (2007). The predictors of parental
use of Corporal punishment. Family Relations, 56, 80–91. doi:
10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00441.x.
Holden, G. W., Miller, P. C., & Harris, S. D. (1999). The instrumental
side of corporal punishment: Parents’ reported practices and
170 J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:163–171
123
outcome expectancies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61,
908–919. doi:10.2307/354012.
Jackson, S., Thompson, R. A., Christiansen, E. H., Colman, R. A.,
Wyatt, J., Buckendahl, C. W., Wilcox, B. L., & Peterson, R.
(1999). Predicting abuse-prone parental attitudes and discipline
practices in a nationally representative sample. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 23, 15–29. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(98)00108-2.
Lacharite
´
, C., E
´
thier, L. S., & Couture, G. (1999). Sensibilite
´
et
spe
´
cificite
´
de l’Indice de stress parental face a
`
des situations de
mauvais traitements. Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Com-
portements, 31, 217–220. doi:10.1037/h0087090.
Lacharite
´
, C., E
´
thier, L. S., & Piche
´
, C. (1992). Le stress parental chez
les me
`
res d’enfants d’a
ˆ
ge pre
´
scolaire: Validation et normes
que
´
be
´
coises pour l’Inventaire de Stress Parental. Sante Mentale
au Quebec, 17, 183–204.
Larzelere, R. E. (2000). Child outcomes of nonabusive and customary
physical punishment by parents: An updated literature review.
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 3, 199–221. doi:
10.1023/A:1026473020315.
Larzelere, R. E., & Kuhn, B. R. (2005). Comparing child outcomes of
physical punishment and alternative disciplinary tactics: A meta-
analysis. Clinical Child and Family Psychology, 8, 1–37. doi:
10.1007/s10567-005-2340-z.
Leung, D. W., & Smith-Slep, A. M. (2006). Predicting inept
discipline: The role of parental depressive symptoms, anger,
and attributions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
74, 524–534. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.74.3.524.
Lopez, N. L., Bonenberger, J. L., & Schneider, H. G. (2001). Parental
disciplinary history, current levels of empathy, and moral
reasoning in young adults. North American Journal of Psychol-
ogy, 3(2), 193–204.
Lundahl, B., Nimer, J., & Parsons, B. (2006). Preventing child abuse:
A meta-analysis of parent training programs. Research on Social
Work Practice, 16, 251–262. doi:10.1177/1049731505284391.
Markowitz, F. E. (2001). Attitudes and family violence: Linking
intergenerational and cultural theories. Journal of Family
Violence, 16, 205–218. doi:10.1023/A:1011115104282.
McCurdy, K. (2005). The influence of support and stress on maternal
attitudes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 251–268. doi:10.1016/
j.chiabu.2004.12.007
.
McKee, L., Roland, E., Coffelt, N., Olson, A., Forehand, R., Massari,
C., et al. (2007). Harsh discipline and child problem behaviors:
The roles of positive parenting and gender. Journal of Family
Violence, 22, 187–196. doi:10.1007/s10896-007-9070-6.
Milner, J. S. (2003). Social information processing in high-risk and
physically abusive parents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 7–20.
doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(02)00506-9.
Muller, R. T., Hunter, J. E., & Stollak, G. (1995). The intergener-
ational transmission of corporal punishment: A comparison of
social learning and temperament models. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 19, 1323–1335. doi:10.1016/0145-2134(95)00103-F.
Mulvaney, M., & Mebert, C. (2007). Parental corporal punishment
predicts behavior problems in early childhood. Journal of Family
Psychology, 21, 389–397. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.21.3.389.
Paz Montes, M., De Paul, J., & Milner, J. S. (2001). Evaluations,
attributions, affect, and disciplinary choices in mothers at high
and low risk for child physical abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25,
1015–1036. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(01)00254-X.
Perez-Albeniz, A., & De Paul, J. (2003). Dispositional empathy in
high- and low-risk parents for child physical abuse. Child Abuse
& Neglect, 27, 769–780. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(03)00111-X.
Pinderhughes, E. E., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., &
McFadyen-Ketchum, S. A. (1999). The relation between mothers’
hostile attribution tendencies and children’s externalizing behav-
ior problems: The mediating role of mothers’ harsh discipline
practices. Child Development, 70, 896–909. doi:10.1111/
1467-8624.00065.
Ringwalt, C. L., Browne, D. C., Rosenbloom, L. B., Evans, G. A., &
Kotch, J. B. (1989). Predicting adult approval of corporal
punishment from childhood parenting experiences. Journal of
Family Violence, 4, 339–351. doi:10.1007/BF00978575.
Robinson, D. H., Funk, D. C., Beth, A., & Bush, A. M. (2005).
Changing beliefs about corporal punishment: Increasing knowl-
edge about ineffectiveness to build more consistent moral and
informational beliefs. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14, 117–
139. doi:10.1007/s10864-005-2706-9.
Rodriguez, C. (2008). Ecological predictors of disciplinary style and
child abuse potential in a Hispanic and Anglo-American sample.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 17(3), 336–352. doi:
10.1007/s10826-007-9145-2.
Rodriguez, C. M., & Price, B. L. (2004). Attributions and discipline
history as predictors of child abuse potential and future
discipline practices. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 845–861. doi:
10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.02.003.
Rodriguez, C. M., & Sutherland, D. (1999). Predictors of parents’
physical disciplinary practices. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 651–
657. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(99)00043-5.
Schellenbach, C. J., Monroe, L. D., & Merluzzi, T. V. (1991). The
impact of stress on cognitive components of child abuse potential.
Journal of Family Violence, 6, 61–80. doi:10.1007/BF00978526.
Straus, M. A. (2001). Beating the devil out of them. Corporal
punishment in American families (2nd ed.). New-York: Lexing-
ton Books.
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 character-
istics. Clinical Child and Family Psychology, 2, 55–70. doi:
10.1023/A:1021891529770.
Tolan, P., Gorman-Smith, D., & Henrynd, D. (2006). Family
violence. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 557–583. doi:
10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190110.
Trocme
´
, N., & Durrant, J. E. (2003). Physical punishment and the
response of the Canadian child welfare system: Implications for
legislative reform. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law,
25, 39–56. doi:10.1080/0964906032000086241.
Trocme
´
, N., Durrant, J., Marwah, I., & Ensom, R. (2004). Physical
abuse of children in the context of punishment. CECW
Information Sheet #8E. Toronto, ON, Canada: Faculty of Social
Work, University of Toronto.
Trocme
´
, N., Fallon, B., MacLaurin, B., Daciuk, J., Felstiner, C.,
Black, T., et al. (2005). Canadian incidence study of reported
child abuse and neglect – 2003: Major findings. Ottawa:
Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.
Wiehe, V. R. (1997). Approaching child abuse treatment from the
perspective of empathy. Child Abuse & Neglect, 21, 1191–1204.
doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(97)00094-X.
J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:163–171 171
123
