Family Relations, 56 (January 2007), 80–91. Blackwell Publishing.

Copyright 2007 by the National Council on Family Relations.

The Predictors of Parental Use of Corporal Punishment

Andrew Grogan-Kaylor Melanie D. Otis*

Abstract: Corporal punishment has been the focus of considerable study over the past decade. Some recent research
suggesting that the use of corporal punishment may have significant long-term negative effects on children has
prompted increasing exploration and interest in the issue. We used tobit regression analysis and data from the 2000
National Longitudinal Survey of Youth to examine both the prevalence and the chronicity of spanking in a nation-
ally representative sample of parents. Mother’s characteristics (e.g., age, education) and neighborhood context did
not show a relationship with parental use of corporal punishment. Among parents who used corporal punishment,
being Protestant had a relatively large relationship with its use. Although children’s externalizing behaviors had some
association with parent’s propensity to spank, findings suggest that use of corporal punishment may be better under-
stood as part of a constellation of behaviors relating to a parenting style. Further, findings indicate that it is easier
to predict the incidence of corporal punishment than to predict its frequency of use.

Key Words: corporal punishment, discipline, parent-child relationships, tobit regression.

Debate over appropriate and effective parental disci-
plinary tactics frequently focuses on questions about
corporal punishment. Research suggests that many
parents have spanked their children at some point
(Gershoff, 2002; Grogan-Kaylor, 2004). It is likely
that many parents who use corporal punishment
consider it to be an elicited response to a child’s
problematic behavior. Over the past two decades,
however, an increasingly rigorous body of research
has suggested that corporal punishment contributes
to increases in a broad spectrum of child behavior
problems (Gershoff; Grogan-Kaylor). Indeed, some
important research suggests that measurable out-
comes of parental use of corporal punishment may
persist well into adulthood (MacMillan et al., 1999;
Straus, 2000). This emerging picture of the use of
corporal punishment as a potential contributor to
the continuation of behavior problems suggests the
need for better understanding of the individual
and contextual factors that may relate to corporal
punishment use.
The purpose of the current study was twofold.
Guided by an ecological framework, we first sought
to identify those contextual and individual factors
that predict parents’ propensity to use corporal pun-
ishment. A second goal of the analysis was to exam-
ine more closely the characteristics of those parents
who indicated the use of corporal punishment to
address the question of whether there exist individ-
ual and community differences related to the fre-
quency of use.
Ecological Theory and Corporal
Punishment Utilization
As previously noted, research examining predictors
of corporal punishment has focused primarily on
individual characteristics of parents and children,
and parental expectations about the effectiveness of
the tactic in achieving disciplinary goals. Little atten-
tion, however, has been given to ways that social
context and cultural norms may influence both the
prevalence and the chronicity of corporal punish-
ment. An ecological framework provides both the
tools and the impetus for considering the influence
of environment on parental and child behavior
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1986). Ecological theory

*Andrew Grogan-Kaylor is an Assistant Professor in the University of Michigan School of Social Work, 1080 S University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 (agrogan@
umich.edu). Melanie D. Otis is an Associate Professor in the College of Social Work, University of Kentucky, 651 Patterson Office Tower, Lexington, Kentucky
40506-0027 (melanie.otis@uky.edu).
 The Predictors of Parental Use of Corporal Punishment
Grogan-Kaylor and Otis
suggests tenets that guided our decision to consider
both individual and community factors in our
efforts to understand the nature of corporal punish-
ment utilization. The model underscores the interre-
latedness of people and their social and physical
worlds. Parenting does not occur in a vacuum.
Instead, parents’ actions are often viewed and judged
by others around them—neighbors, friends, and
community members. Reactions in these settings, as
well as the parents’ own observations of others’
actions, provide information that may or may not
support the use of corporal punishment. Through
these reciprocal relationships, parents may come to
view corporal punishment as the preferred method
of discipline, as inappropriate only under certain cir-
cumstances, or as inappropriate regardless of the cir-
cumstances of the child’s actions.
The current study used an ecological framework
to develop a fuller picture of the nature of corporal
punishment with the inclusion of factors that under-
score the dynamic relationship between people and
their environment. Specifically, parent and child
characteristics, parental expectations, and child behav-
ior, as well as community factors such as region of
the country and neighborhood quality, were consid-
ered collectively.
Literature Review
Parents’ Characteristics
Past research has suggested that mothers are likely
to spank their children more often than fathers
(Nobes, Smith, Upton, & Heverin, 1999; Wolfner
& Gelles, 1993). Frequently, studies have focused
specifically on mothers’ decisions to use corporal
punishment, arguing that mothers are more likely
to be the family disciplinarian by virtue of their
increased level of contact with the child(ren)
(Dietz, 2000; Straus & Donnelly, 1993). How-
ever, with the growing number of working
mothers, the likelihood that mother, rather than
father, may have greater contact with the child has
changed somewhat. Thus, a contemporary explana-
tion for the predominance of female disciplinarians
may be the large number of female-headed house-
holds, which increases the likelihood that mother
may be the disciplinarian, independent of her
attachment to the workforce. In addition to the
increased contact between mothers and children,
81
the growing number of female households has
further significance because of the relationship
between stressful economic conditions and fre-
quency of use of corporal punishment (Giles-Sims,
Straus, & Sugarman, 1995; McLoyd, 1990; Sariola
& Uutela, 1992).
The relationship between socioeconomic status
(SES) and the use of corporal punishment has been
less consistent. Although some studies have linked
low SES to physical abuse of children (Garbarino,
1977; Straus & Gelles, 1986), others have failed to
find a significant relationship between SES and the
use of corporal punishment (Hashima & Amato,
1994; Straus, 2000; Straus & Donnelly, 1993). A
more fruitful approach to understanding the rela-
tionship between individual economic conditions
and the use of corporal punishment may be found
in considering the relationship between economic
factors and stress. To that end, studies have found
significant links between poverty status (i.e., use of
Aid to Families with Dependent Children [AFDC],
unemployment, percent of poverty level) and the
likelihood of using corporal punishment (Giles-Sims
et al., 1995). For example, in their study examining
factors potentially related to the use of corporal pun-
ishment among mothers of 3- to 5-year-olds, Giles-
Sims et al. found that being an AFDC recipient
alone had a significant impact on the frequency of
spanking; however, these authors suggested that
their findings supported a stress theory explanation
of the use of corporal punishment by mothers,
rather than a specific socioeconomic explanation
(Dietz, 2000; Giles-Sims et al.).
Past research has also supported a link between
certain religious affiliations and the likelihood that
a parent will use corporal punishment. In general,
these studies have suggested that Conservative Prot-
estants are more likely to use corporal punishment
as a disciplinary tactic than parents with other reli-
gious affiliations (Ellison, Bartkowski, & Segal,
1996). Ellison (1996) asserted that these findings
may be related to ‘‘religious differences in the
response decision stage’’ where parents assess poten-
tial actions that might be taken to address their
child’s behavior problem. At this stage, it was
argued that individuals from more conservative
fundamentalist religious backgrounds will be more
likely to view corporal punishment not only as a via-
ble option but also potentially as the most appropri-
ate response to the infraction—the ‘‘spare the rod’’
philosophy of childrearing.
82 Family Relations
Volume 56, Number 1
January 2007
Parental Expectations
Parents who view positive parenting as an effective
tool for influencing child behavior may consider
corporal punishment as inappropriate and even anti-
thetical to achieving the desired results. In contrast,
parents who feel their positive efforts will do little to
affect the wanted outcome may be more likely to
use punitive childrearing practices (Luster & Kain,
1987). Further, some parents who support the use
of corporal punishment in specific situations are
aware of the limited effectiveness of the method, yet
feel that some instances justify its use (Graziano,
Hamblen, & Plante, 1996; Holden, Miller, &
Harris, 1999).
Parenting Style
The use of corporal punishment should also be
examined in the larger context of differences in par-
enting styles. To this end, it has been suggested that
spanking may be one part of an overall approach to
parenting that is devoid of positive input from the
parent. This approach is further characterized by
lack of affection and a general climate of aggression,
regardless of whether physical punishment occurs
(Simons, Johnson, & Conger, 1994; Socolar &
Stein, 1995).
Child Characteristics
Research has shown that parents continue to spank
children into their early adolescent years. Although
most parents of preschool-age children (0 – 4 years)
indicate that they have spanked their children, this
rate declines substantially as children age (Frick,
Christian, & Wootton, 1999; Giles-Sims et al.,
1995; Wauchope & Straus, 1990).
Gender has also been shown to relate to the like-
lihood that a child will be spanked (Day, Peterson, &
McCracken, 1998; Lytton & Romney, 1991; Wolfner
& Gelles, 1993). Studies have consistently indicated
that male children are more likely to be spanked.
Additionally, Giles-Sims et al. (1995) found that
regardless of the age of the child, boys are more
likely to be spanked than girls.
Neighborhood Context
Although several studies have examined the relation-
ship between specific parental and child characteris-
tics and the likelihood and frequency of the use of
corporal punishment, contextual factors have been
examined less thoroughly. When they are addressed,
community size and region of the country are
among the most frequently examined contextual fac-
tors. In general, the presumption associated with the
inclusion of these variables has related to cultural
aspects of community that are believed to influence
disciplinary norms. Past research suggests that par-
ents in rural areas and in the South are more likely
to use corporal punishment than those in urban
areas and other regions of the country (Giles-Sims et
al., 1995). In addition to cultural factors, these stud-
ies suggest that mothers in rural areas may have
fewer support resources and less access to/awareness
of information on alternatives to spanking than
mothers in urban areas.
Incidence and Frequency of Spanking:
Where Are the Differences?
As previously noted in some of the extant literature,
whether a parent spanks and how often he or she
spanks may be explained by a variety of factors.
First, use of corporal punishment continues to be
common in the United States, with over 90% of
parents of toddlers indicating that they have spanked
their child at least once (Straus, 2000; Straus &
Stewart, 1999). For instance, Giles-Sims et al.’s
(1995) examination of data from the 1990 National
Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) on maternal
spanking found that approximately 61% of mothers
of 3- to 5-year-olds had spanked their child in the
past week. In fact, the majority of parents in many
studies indicated that they have spanked their child
at some point in time (Giles-Sims et al.; Straus,
1983); however, this does not necessarily mean that
parents are motivated to spank in response to all dis-
ciplinary concerns.
In addition to differences in whether or not
parents engaged in corporal punishment at all,
there may be important differences in the fre-
quency with which parents employ corporal pun-
ishment. For instance, in Giles-Sims et al.’s (1995)
study, the frequency of spanking ranged from once
(33.1%) to 15 or more times (1.5%), with an
average of three spankings occurring during the
previous week. The wide variation in whether
a parent has spanked their child, and the fre-
quency with which such disciplinary actions are
taken, suggests that a variety of factors may be at
work in predicting the likelihood that a parent will
use corporal punishment.
 The Predictors of Parental Use of Corporal Punishment
Grogan-Kaylor and Otis
Summary and Hypotheses
On the basis of our review of the literature, we
examined the following research questions:
1) What are the effects of individual and contextual
factors on the latent propensity to use corporal
punishment?
2) How can such an analysis be extended to under-
stand the effects of individual and contextual fac-
tors on the decision of whether or not to use
corporal punishment?
3) How can such an analysis be extended to under-
stand the effects of individual and contextual
factors on the frequency of use of corporal punish-
ment for those who engage in this practice?
Methods
Analytic Strategy
Unfortunately, standard analytic techniques are not
well suited to the simultaneous examination of the
incidence and frequency of parental use of corporal
punishment. For example, ordinary least squares
regression can be used to treat the number of spank-
ings in the past week as a continuous variable rang-
ing from zero upward. However, a well-known
property of ordinary least squares regression is that
within the linear regression framework, every incre-
ment of a continuous dependent variable is treated
as an equivalent step. Thus, modeling parental use
of corporal punishment in this fashion means that
the transition from no spankings to one spanking is
treated exactly the same as the transition from one
spanking to each additional spanking, thus conflat-
ing the incidence of corporal punishment with the
frequency of corporal punishment.
Additionally, the distribution of corporal punish-
ment in a large sample such as the NLSY raises some
concerns about whether corporal punishment as
a dependent variable may be appropriately modeled
using standard ordinary least squares regression.
Because there are many parents who do not spank
their children on a regular basis, or at all, the value
of corporal punishment in the NLSY data has many
zeroes. Econometricians have long pointed out that
the use of ordinary least squares regression techni-
ques to analyze variables with many zeroes may
83
result in biased and inconsistent parameter estimates
(Greene, 1997).
Indeed, the measurement strategy employed by
the NLSY gives further weight to these concerns.
The NLSY asks parents about the number of times
they have spanked their children in the past week.
Therefore, parents who have spanked their children
in the past month or year, but not in the past week,
are recorded as nonspankers. Arguably, the measures
of corporal punishment in the NLSY may result in a
variable that is left censored by the data collection
process. As discussed in the original formulation by
Tobin (1958) and in an important expository piece
by Roncek (1992), tobit models are admirably suited
to modeling such a left-censored dependent variable.
The analytic strategy, which has come to be
known as the tobit regression, was originally devel-
oped by Tobin (1958) in a study of the yearly
amount of money that households spent on large
purchases. Recognizing that many households do
not spend any money on large purchases in a particu-
lar year, Tobin developed a regression method that
was appropriate for modeling continuous variables
with a large number of zeroes. Over time, Tobin’s
model, which is in some ways statistically a general-
ization of the technique known as probit regression,
has come to be known as Tobin’s probit or, more
simply and more frequently, as the tobit (Greene,
1997).
Tobit analyses have been used in previous empir-
ical work to model contributors to violent or antiso-
cial behavior because of concerns about large
numbers of zero values in the dependent variable, as
well as concerns about censoring mechanisms. For
example, Grogan-Kaylor and Otis (2003) used tobit
regression to examine the contribution of child
abuse and neglect to adult arrest, whereas Jacobs and
O’Brien (1998) used the tobit model to examine the
use of deadly force by police departments. Although
parental use of corporal punishment does not
approach the level of severity of violence examined
in these two research studies, the general principles
of a dependent variable with a distribution that is
skewed toward zero and the possibility of censoring
in the dependent variable render tobit modeling
appropriate.
Furthermore, important work by McDonald and
Moffit (1980) demonstrated a method for decom-
posing, or taking apart, the coefficients of a tobit
model into two separate sets of coefficients. The
first set of coefficients from this decomposition
84 Family Relations
Volume 56, Number 1
January 2007

procedure applies to the question of whether or not Table 1. Descriptive Statistics

study participants have a nonzero value for the Variable
dependent variable. When the dependent variable of
interest is corporal punishment, this set of coeffi- Continuous variables M (SD)
cients thus refers to the incidence of parental use of Number of spankings 0.26 (0.86)
corporal punishment. The second set of coefficients in past week
applies to the question of the value of the dependent Child’s age in months 111.29 (27.75)
variable for those study participants with a nonzero Mother’s years 13.66 (2.36)
value of the dependent variable, which in the case of of education
corporal punishment may be thought of as the fre- Mother’s age in years 38.57 (2.18)
quency of spanking for those parents who actually Cognitive stimulation 99.68 (14.39)
spank. Therefore, the method of decomposing tobit Externalizing behavior 100.97 (13.48)
coefficients proposed by McDonald and Moffit Internalizing behavior 100.19 (13.77)
provides a unique opportunity to model simulta- Neighborhood quality 0.12 (0.61)
neously, yet separately, the predictors of parental use Categorical variables Frequency (%)
of corporal punishment and the frequency with Gender of child
which corporal punishment is employed. Male 426 (53.25)
Before engaging in multivariate analyses, a corre- Female 374 (46.75)
lation matrix of all independent variables was exam- Race of child
ined for evidence of multicollinearity or high Latino 119 (14.88)
correlations between independent variables. No cor- Black 156 (19.5)
relations high enough to warrant concerns about White 525 (65.63)
these issues were detected. Poverty status
Not in poverty 677 (84.63)
In poverty 123 (15.38)
Sample
Religious affiliation
The sample used in this study was derived from Protestant 428 (53.5)
the NLSY. Begun in 1979, the NLSY is an Catholic 231 (28.88)
ongoing nationally representative panel study of Other 65 (8.13)
men and women (Center for Human Resource None 69 (8.63)
Research, 2000) and has been used in hundreds of
publications on children and families. Since 1986,
the NLSY has also collected information every 2
Measures
years on the children born to women in the origi-
nal analysis sample (Center for Human Resource Information on parental usage of corporal punish-
Research) and joined records of mothers and their ment was obtained from the NLSY from a question
children were the data source for this analysis. In that asked parents about the number of times they
some cases, multiple children per mother were had spanked a particular child within the past week.
interviewed as part of the NLSY. In such cases, Respondents were allowed to define spanking as
one child from the family was randomly selected they saw appropriate.
for participation so the analysis would not violate In addition to parental use of corporal punish-
assumptions about the independent and identical ment, the NLSY also provides information on the
distribution of error terms. To make use of recent level of cognitive stimulation that parents provide to
information, data from the 2000 cohort of the children in the home. Originally devised by Bradley,
NLSY were used for this analysis. The final sample Caldwell, and Elardo (1979), the scale measuring
size for this analysis was 800. Descriptive statistics cognitive stimulation includes items on the number
for the sample are provided in Table 1. Because of books within the home, the frequency with which
the decompositions of the tobit parameters that the child is taken on educational outings, and the
are reported in this paper rely on the first tobit amount of time that parents spend talking with the
analysis, all analyses in this paper rely on this final child (Center for Human Resource Research, 2000).
sample of 800. The cognitive stimulation scale is normed to have
 The Predictors of Parental Use of Corporal Punishment
Grogan-Kaylor and Otis 85

a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 in the Table 2. Tobit Regression Model
overall NLSY sample (Center for Human Resource Variable Coefficient SE t p
Research).
Information on children’s demographic charac- Child’s gender (male)
teristics such as age, race, and gender were easily Female 0.080 0.326 0.25 .81
obtained from the NLSY. The NLSY also contains Child’s race (White)
a measure of a family’s poverty status. This measure Latino 0.194 0.581 0.33 .74
is computed by the staff at the Center for Human Black 1.231 0.416 2.96 ,.01
Resources Research at the Ohio State University and Child’s age in months 20.042 0.006 27.00 ,.01
is the result of a comparison of a family’s total net Externalizing behavior 0.107 0.016 6.49 ,.01
income for a given year with the poverty standards problems
provided by the U.S. Census for that year. Internalizing behavior 20.048 0.015 23.16 ,.01
The NLSY also contains questions from the problems
Behavior Problems Index (BPI; Zill & Peterson, Poverty status
1986), an instrument designed to assess the level of (not in poverty)
children’s behavior problems. Drawing largely on the In poverty 0.420 0.456 0.92 .36
Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach & Edelbrock, Mother’s education 20.060 0.074 20.81 .42
1983), the BPI contains a shorter set of items and is Mother’s age 20.094 0.075 21.24 .21
designed to be administered efficiently within the Cognitive stimulation 20.025 0.012 22.03 .04
context of a larger survey. Research indicates that provided by parents
the BPI factors well into two broad subscales of Neighborhood quality 0.352 0.301 1.17 .24
externalizing and internalizing behavior problems Religious affiliation
(Hofferth, Davis-Kean, Davis, & Finkelstein, 1997). (Protestant)
Externalizing behaviors encompass phenomena such Catholic 21.244 0.469 22.65 .01
as whether children are antisocial or have problems Other 20.870 0.603 21.44 .15
with friends, whereas internalizing behaviors include None 21.095 0.658 21.66 .10
anxiety and depression (Center for Human Resource Region (Northeast)
Research, 2001). North Central 20.609 0.551 21.11 .27
South 0.027 0.510 0.05 .96
West 20.289 0.599 20.48 .63
Results Constant 2.394 3.639 0.66 .51
R 2.714 0.204

Tobit Model Coefficients—Parents’ Propensity to Use
Corporal Punishment
All tobit analyses were conducted using STATA sta-
tistical software. The tobit model yielded a number
of interesting results, which are provided in Table 2.
In interpreting coefficients from a tobit regression
model, it is important to remember that these
coefficients are best interpreted as the effects of a set
of independent variables on a latent propensity
(Roncek, 1992)—in this case, the latent propensity
to use corporal punishment.
Only some of children’s demographic character-
istics were associated with corporal punishment.
Specifically, a child’s gender was not associated with
whether or not her or his parents used corporal pun-
ishment. Also, when compared with parents of
White children, parents of Black children were more
likely to use corporal punishment; however, parents
Note: Reference categories are in parentheses.
of Latino children were no more likely to use corpo-
ral punishment than parents of White children.
Children’s age was negatively associated with the use
of corporal punishment because parents of older
children were less likely to use corporal punishment.
Many family characteristics were not associated
with parental use of corporal punishment. For
example, a mother’s education and age were not
associated with the use of corporal punishment.
However, higher levels of cognitive stimulation pro-
vided in the home was associated with lower levels
of corporal punishment. Religious affiliation was
associated with parental use of corporal punishment
and generated the largest effect sizes of any variables
in the model. Protestant parents were most likely to
use corporal punishment; in comparison, Catholic
86 Family Relations
Volume 56, Number 1
January 2007

parents were less likely to use corporal punishment. Table 3. Decomposition of Tobit Coefficients: Probability
Parents who reported that they had no religious That Child Was Spanked
affiliation did not differ from Protestant parents in Variable dF/dx (%) SE z p
proclivity to use corporal punishment.
There were interesting relationships between Child’s gender (male)
children’s behavior and the use of corporal punish- Female 0.49 0.020 0.25 .81
ment. Children who displayed greater amounts of Child’s race (White)
externalizing behavior problems were more likely to Latino 1.22 0.035 0.34 .73
be the recipients of corporal punishment, whereas Black 8.95 0.025 3.53 ,.01
children who displayed greater levels of internalizing Child’s age in months 20.25 0.000 27.00 ,.01
behavior problems were less likely to be the recipi- Internalizing behavior 20.29 0.001 23.16 ,.01
ents of corporal punishment. In interpreting the problems
effect sizes of these coefficients, it is worth recalling Externalizing behavior 0.65 0.001 6.49 ,.01
that the measurement of children’s behavior was problems
drawn from the BPI (Zill & Peterson, 1986) in Poverty status
which data were normed so that the standard devia- (not in poverty)
tion of both the internalizing and the externalizing In poverty 2.74 0.028 0.99 .32
behavior problems scales was set at 15. Mother’s education 20.36 0.004 20.81 .42
Some larger community-level variables were also Mother’s age 20.57 0.005 21.24 .21
included in the model. Neither the characteristics of Cognitive stimulation 20.15 0.001 22.03 .04
the neighborhood nor the geographic region in Religion (Protestant)
which the family lived showed a relationship with Catholic 26.68 0.029 22.34 .02
parental use of corporal punishment. Other 24.41 0.037 21.20 .23
None 25.31 0.040 21.33 .19
Region (Northeast)
First Decomposition of Tobit Parameters—Effects North Central 23.47 0.034 21.04 .30
of Independent Variables on Use Versus Nonuse South 0.16 0.031 0.05 .96
of Corporal Punishment West 21.69 0.036 20.46 .64
In the second step of the analysis, the coefficients of Neighborhood quality 2.14 0.018 1.17 .24
the tobit model were decomposed into two more Constant 14.57 0.221 0.66 .51
informative sets of parameters using the procedure
Note: Marginal effects: probability uncensored. Incidence: probability that child was
outlined by McDonald and Moffit (1980). Statisti- spanked at least once. Reference categories are in parentheses. dF/dx ¼ change in out-
cally, this ‘‘decomposition’’ may be seen as a process come associated with change in x.
of disentangling—or taking apart—these estimates
into two sets of estimates that are more intuitively a parent would use corporal punishment. Higher
meaningful. The first set of secondary parameters levels of children’s externalizing behavior problems
indicated the extent to which each independent vari- were associated with an increased probability of
able had a relationship with the probability that using corporal punishment, whereas higher levels of
a particular parent would or would not use corporal children’s internalizing behavior problems were
punishment (see Table 3). Parents of Black children associated with a lower probability of corporal pun-
were almost 9% more likely to use corporal punish- ishment. Higher levels of cognitive stimulation were
ment than were White parents. The probability of associated with lower probabilities that corporal
parents using corporal punishment decreased by punishment would be used. However, neither
a quarter of a percent for every month the child aged mothers’ education nor age was associated with cor-
resulting in a 4% reduction in the probability that poral punishment. The internalizing behavior prob-
corporal punishment would be used for every addi- lems score, externalizing behavior problems score,
tional year in children’s age. However, poverty status and cognitive stimulation score were all normed to
did not have an association with whether or not par- have standard deviations of 15. Multiplying the
ents used corporal punishment. parameter estimates for each of these independent
Both internalizing and externalizing behavior variables by 15 suggested that a standard deviation
problems were associated with the probability that change in these quantities was associated with
 The Predictors of Parental Use of Corporal Punishment
Grogan-Kaylor and Otis 87

a 4.4% decrease, 9.7% increase, and 2.3% decrease Table 4. Decomposition of Tobit Coefficients: Effect on
in the use of corporal punishment, respectively. Number of Uses of Corporal Punishment for Parents Who
As expected, religion was related to the use of Employed Corporal Punishment
corporal punishment. Catholic parents were almost Variable dF/dx SE z p
7% less likely to use corporal punishment than Prot-
estant parents. But neither geographic region nor Child’s gender (male)
neighborhood quality was associated with corporal Female 0.013 0.054 0.25 .81
punishment usage when accounting for the presence Child’s race (White)
of other variables in the model. Latino 0.032 0.096 0.34 .74
Black 0.220 0.069 3.21 ,.01
Second Decomposition of Tobit Parameters—Effects Child’s age in months 20.007 0.001 27.00 ,.01
of Independent Variables on Frequency of Use Internalizing behavior 20.008 0.003 23.16 ,.01
of Corporal Punishment problems
A second set of parameters was also obtained from Externalizing behavior 0.018 0.003 6.49 ,.01
the decomposition of the tobit coefficients. This sec- problems
ond set of parameters indicated the relationship of Poverty status
each of the independent variables on the number of (not in poverty)
spankings used by parents in the past week, condi- In poverty 0.071 0.075 0.95 .34
tional on those parents having used one or more cor- Mother’s education 20.010 0.012 20.81 .42
poral punishments. Table 4 provides data on this Mother’s age 20.015 0.012 21.24 .21
second set of parameters. Again, children’s gender did Cognitive stimulation 20.004 0.002 22.03 .04
not have an association with the number of times that Religion (Protestant)
corporal punishment was employed, nor did a child’s Catholic 20.195 0.077 22.52 .01
Latino ethnicity. On the other hand, Black children Other 20.133 0.099 21.34 .18
received 0.22 more spankings than White children in None 20.165 0.108 21.52 .13
families where corporal punishment was employed. Region (Northeast)
As expected, every month increase in a child’s age was North Central 20.098 0.091 21.08 .28
associated with a decrease in the number of spankings South 0.004 0.084 0.05 .96
employed, resulting in a 0.12 decrease in the number West 20.047 0.099 20.47 .64
of spankings used for every year that the child aged. Neighborhood quality 0.058 0.050 1.17 .24
In summary, children’s behavior problems were Constant 0.394 0.599 0.66 .51
related to the number of uses of corporal punishment
Note: Marginal effects: conditional on being uncensored. Frequency: effect of inde-
in families that employed corporal punishment. As pendent variables on number of spankings, given that child is spanked. Reference cate-
with the previous analyses, higher levels of children’s gories are in parentheses. dF/dx ¼ change in outcome associated with change in x.
externalizing behaviors were associated with a higher
likelihood of parental use of corporal punishment.
Religion had a relatively large relationship with the
Conversely, children who demonstrated greater levels
frequency of corporal punishment among parents
of internalizing behavior problems were less likely to
employing physical punishment; however, compared
experience corporal punishment. The relationship of
with Protestant parents, Catholic parents spanked
externalizing behavior problems with the use of cor-
much less frequently. As expected, geographic region
poral punishment was greater than the relationship of
and neighborhood quality did not have an association
internalizing behavior problems with the use of cor-
with the number of times parents who used corporal
poral punishment.
punishment actually spanked their children.
As expected, many characteristics of mothers
were not associated with whether or not children
experienced corporal punishment. Mother’s age and
Discussion
mother’s level of education were not associated with
higher levels of use of corporal punishment among
parents who used corporal punishment. Higher levels Concern over the parental use of corporal punish-
of cognitive stimulation were associated with lower ment has been elevated by a growing body of litera-
levels of the use of corporal punishment. ture linking the disciplinary tactic to a number of
88 Family Relations
Volume 56, Number 1
January 2007
negative child welfare outcomes (Gershoff, 2002;
Grogan-Kaylor, 2004; Straus, 2000). In this study,
we sought to expand our understanding of corporal
punishment by using an ecological framework to
examine variation in both the rates and the chronicity
of corporal punishment among a random sample of
parents. Our analyses provide only partial support for
our model, with race and ethnicity, religion, child’s
behavior, and parental use of cognitive stimulation
being the most consistent predictors of variation in
corporal punishment frequency and chronicity.
An important limitation of cross-sectional
research of this nature is an inability to ascertain
causal direction. There are also some other limita-
tions to this research. First, the NLSY simply asks
survey respondents about the number of times that
they have spanked their child within the past week.
Thus, it is left up to respondents to define the mean-
ing of spanking for them. Additionally, although the
NLSY data contain important information about
the incidence and frequency of corporal punish-
ment that forms the basis of this analysis, important
information on the severity with which corporal
punishment is applied is not present in the NLSY
data.
Bearing these limitations in mind, our analysis is
consistent with past research showing that, in com-
parison with White families, mothers in African
American families were more likely to employ corpo-
ral punishment (Giles-Sims et al., 1995; McLoyd &
Smith, 2002). Interestingly, the inclusion of a var-
iable for poverty into the model did not eliminate
the statistical significance of race, indicating that fac-
tors other than economic status may play a role in
the degree to which parents make use of corporal
punishment as a disciplinary strategy. Horn, Cheng,
and Joseph’s (2004) examination of disciplinary
practices among lower SES and middle-to-upper
SES African American parents reported similar find-
ings, with few SES-related differences noted in their
sample of 175 African American parents.
Similarly, in this analysis, the inclusion of mea-
sures of neighborhood quality does not reduce the
relationship of family race or ethnicity with parental
use of corporal punishment. Indeed, the measure of
neighborhood quality is not predictive of parental
use of corporal punishment, which stands in con-
trast with other research exploring this relationship
(Giles-Sims et al., 1995). To some extent, this lack
of statistical significance may be a function of the
fact that the neighborhood scale in the NLSY has
only five items that correlate highly with each other
and appear to represent a single dimension of neigh-
borhood quality.
Other research, which has relied on data with
measures of multiple dimensions of neighborhood
quality has suggested that adequately accounting
for the characteristics of a neighborhood may do
a great deal to explain racial and ethnic disparities in
child outcomes (Woolley & Grogan-Kaylor, 2006).
Woolley and Grogan-Kaylor explored the effect of
family and neighborhood characteristics on three
school-related outcomes and found that in some
cases the inclusion of neighborhood characteristics
in a statistical model helped to fully explain racial
and ethnic disparities in academic outcomes. This
finding calls to mind the assertion in seminal articles
by Massey (1990, 1994) that African American fam-
ilies are often likely to live in very different neigh-
borhoods from White families. Unfortunately, the
data set used by Woolley and Grogan-Kaylor did
not contain measures of parental discipline, render-
ing direct tests of these ideas impossible. More
research on parental discipline that makes use of
data with rich neighborhood indicators is likely to
be fruitful.
Our findings also suggest that mothers’ decisions
on whether or not to employ corporal punishment
are associated with their child’s behavior. Notably,
the present research suggests that even when other
factors are included in a statistical model, children’s
actual behavior is only one of several factors associ-
ated with parental use of corporal punishment.
Indeed, when the parameter estimates associated
with changes in children’s behavior problems were
multiplied by 15 to obtain an estimate of the
changes in parental corporal punishment related to
a standard deviation change in behavior problems,
several other factors in the model had comparable
effect sizes. These findings suggest that cultural and
religious factors are likely to play a significant role in
affecting whether or not parents employ corporal
punishment. Unfortunately, the NLSY data do not
contain finely grained measures of respondents’ reli-
gious beliefs, rendering further exploration of the
religion measures in this analysis impossible. Further
research of this nature is likely to benefit from the
use of data sets that contain more sophisticated mea-
sures of religion than those present in the NSLY.
Similar to other research suggesting that parental
use of corporal punishment may be part of a pattern
of parenting characterized by less use of positive
 The Predictors of Parental Use of Corporal Punishment
Grogan-Kaylor and Otis
parenting tactics (Grogan-Kaylor, 2004), the results
of this research provide evidence that parental use of
corporal punishment is associated with a lower inci-
dence of parental provision of a cognitively stimulat-
ing environment for children. Such a finding
suggests that corporal punishment may be part of
a parenting style with lesser amounts of positive par-
enting practices. Given the effect size of parental use
of cognitive stimulation on parental use of corporal
punishment, and the fact that increased amounts of
cognitive stimulation are associated with decreased
amounts of children’s behavior problems (Grogan-
Kaylor, 2005a, 2005b), it may be beneficial to focus
on interventions that teach parents to increase the
amount of intellectual stimulation in the home.
Interestingly, community-level variables included
in the model had no measurable relationship with
parental use of corporal punishment. Family neigh-
borhood and the region of the country in which the
family lived were not associated with parental use of
corporal punishment. Important research has sug-
gested connections between neighborhood condi-
tions and other forms of family violence (Molnar,
Miller, Azrael, & Buka, 2004). There are also peri-
odic suggestions in the literature on parental disci-
pline that corporal punishment may be adaptive in
some kinds of neighborhoods (Eamon, 2001),
although these ideas have been further examined
and found wanting (Grogan-Kaylor, 2005b). This
research finds no evidence that neighborhood condi-
tions are likely to play a role in the decision to use
corporal punishment.
Finally, the decomposition of the tobit coeffi-
cients suggests that it is easier to predict the inci-
dence of parental use of corporal punishment than
the frequency with which parents employ corporal
punishment. The effect sizes of the parameters asso-
ciated with incidence were much larger than those
associated with frequency. For example, the coeffi-
cient for the effect of externalizing behavior prob-
lems on the use of corporal punishment (Table 3)
was 0.65%. Given that the standard deviation for
this measure is approximately 15, an increase of
a standard deviation in children’s externalizing
behavior is associated with approximately a 9.75%
increase in the likelihood of parents using corporal
punishment. Conversely, the coefficient for the
effect of externalizing behavior problems on parental
use of corporal punishment for those parents who
do employ corporal punishment was 0.018. Apply-
ing the same multiplier of 15 indicates that for
89
parents who spank, a standard deviation increase in
children’s externalizing behavior problems is associ-
ated with an additional 0.27 uses of corporal pun-
ishment. Thus, interventions targeted at changing
parents’ use of corporal punishment may have more
effect on parents’ decision on whether or not to use
corporal punishment, rather than on the frequency
with which parents who already make use of corpo-
ral punishment apply this tactic.
Implications for Practice and Policy
Collectively, these findings suggest the need to con-
sider a complexity of factors when attempting to
address the use of corporal punishment by parents.
First, family and children’s advocates wishing to
reduce parental use of corporal punishment would
be well advised to direct attention to the role of
broad cultural factors that have an effect on parents’
valuation of the appropriateness and effect of corpo-
ral punishment. Many parents make a conscious
decision to use corporal punishment on the basis of
beliefs about its appropriateness and effectiveness as
a disciplinary tactic. If practitioners presume the
decision is guided by a desire to be a good parent,
then awareness of more effective alternatives may
provide the necessary information to encourage
alternative disciplinary choices. Efforts to teach par-
ents how to be more effective disciplinarians will not
only acknowledge their desire to be good parents
but also include attention to other key aspects of the
parent-child relationship (American Academy of
Pediatrics, 1998).
Acknowledging the importance of cultural con-
text and the dynamic interaction between individu-
als, families, and communities is also critical to
efforts to affect the utilization of corporal punish-
ment. Individual parenting classes that teach parents
to use nonphysical disciplinary tactics may have little
impact in an environment where corporal punish-
ment is the norm and ‘‘spare the rod, spoil the
child’’ is a guiding principle of parenting. Family
and child advocates must attend to these cultural
differences while also being cognizant of the need
for cultural sensitivity to provide effective program-
ming and reduce barriers to client engagement
(Kalyanpur & Harry, 1997; Lieberman, 1998).
Future research should continue to examine the
links between individual factors and social and cul-
tural factors that are associated with the utilization
90 Family Relations
Volume 56, Number 1
January 2007
of corporal punishment. Although the current study
only partially supports the relevance of environmen-
tal factors, the findings do suggest the utility of an
ecological framework for guiding future efforts to
clarify these relationships. Thus, future research
should consider the complex array of cultural norms
and values that influence parenting beliefs and
behaviors to better understand the interrelationship
of these factors.
References
Achenbach, T., & Edelbrock, C. (1983). Manual for the child behavior
checklist and revised child behavior profile. Burlington: University of Ver-
mont, Department of Psychology.
American Academy of Pediatrics. (1998). Guidance to effective discipline.
Pediatrics, 101, 723–728.
Bradley, R. H., Caldwell, B. M., & Elardo, R. (1979). Home environment
and cognition development in the first two years: A cross-lagged panel
analysis. Developmental Psychology, 15, 246–250.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human
development: Research perspectives. Development Psychology, 22, 723–742.
Center for Human Resource Research. (2000). NLSY79: 1998 child and
young adult data user’s guide (The Ohio State University). Columbus:
The Ohio State University, Center for Human Resource Research.
Center for Human Resource Research. (2001). NLSY79 user’s guide: A guide
to the 1979–2000 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth data. Colum-
bus: The Ohio State University, Center for Human Resource Research.
Day, R. D., Peterson, G. W., & McCracken, C. (1998). Predicting spank-
ing of younger and older children by mothers and fathers. Marriage and
Family, 60(1), 79–94.
Dietz, T. L. (2000). Disciplining children: Characteristics associated with the
use of corporal punishment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 1529–1542.
Eamon, M. K. (2001). Poverty, parenting, peer and neighborhood influen-
ces on young adolescent antisocial behavior. Journal of Social Service
Research, 28(1), 1–23.
Ellison, C. G., Bartkowski, J. P., & Segal, M. L. (1996). Conservative Prot-
estantism and the parental use of corporal punishment. Social Forces,
74, 1003–1028.
Frick, P. J., Christian, R. E., & Wootton, J. M. (1999). Age trends in the
association between parenting practices and conduct problems. Behav-
ior Modification, 23(1), 106–128.
Garbarino, J. (1977). The human ecology of child maltreatment: A concep-
tual model for research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 39, 721–732.
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.
Giles-Sims, J., Straus, M. A., & Sugarman, D. B. (1995). Child, maternal,
and family characteristics associated with spanking. Family Relations,
44(2), 70–176.
Graziano, A. M., Hamblen, J., & Plante, W. A. (1996). Subabusive vio-
lence in child-rearing in middle class American families. Pediatrics, 98,
845–848.
Greene, W. H. (1997). Econometric analysis (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2004). The effect of corporal punishment on antisocial
behavior in children. Social Work Research, 28(3), 153–164.
Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2005a). Corporal punishment and the growth trajectory
of children’s antisocial behavior. Child Maltreatment, 10, 283–292.
Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2005b). Relationship of corporal punishment and anti-
social behavior by neighborhood. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent
Medicine, 159, 938–942.
Grogan-Kaylor, A., & Otis, M. (2003). The effect of child maltreatment
on adult criminal behavior: A tobit regression analysis. Child Maltreat-
ment, 8(2), 129–137.
Hashima, P. Y., & Amato, P. R. (1994). Poverty, social support, and paren-
tal behavior. Child Development, 65, 394–403.
Hofferth, S., Davis-Kean, P. E., Davis, J., & Finkelstein, J. (1997). The
child development supplement to the panel study of income dynamics:
1997 user guide. Retrieved February 15, 2005, from http://psidonline.
isr.umich.edu/CDS/usergd.html
Holden, G. W., Miller, P. C., & Harris, S. D. (1999). The instrumental
side of capital punishment: Parents’ reported practices and outcome
expectancies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 908–919.
Horn, I. B., Cheng, T. L., & Joseph, J. (2004). Discipline in the African
American community: The impact of socioeconomic status on beliefs
and practices. Pediatrics, 115, 1236–1241.
Jacobs, D., & O’Brien, R. M. (1998). The determinants of deadly force: A
structural analysis of police violence. American Journal of Sociology,
103, 837.
Kalyanpur, M., & Harry, B. (1997). A posture of reciprocity: A practical
approach to collaboration between professionals and parents of culturally
diverse backgrounds. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 6, 487–509.
Lieberman, A. F. (1998). Culturally sensitive intervention with children and
families. Newsletter of the Infant Health Promotion Project, 22, 1–5.
Luster, T. & Kain, E. L. (1987). The relation between family context and
perceptions of parental efficacy. Early Childhood Development and Care,
29(3), 301–311.
Lytton, H., & Romney, D. M. (1991). Parents’ differential socialization of
boys and girls: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 267–296.
MacMillan, H. L., Boyle, M. H., Wong, M. Y., Duku, E. K., Fleming,
J. E., & Walsh, C. A. (1999). Slapping and spanking in childhood and
its association with lifetime prevalence of psychiatric disorders in a gen-
eral population sample. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 161,
805–810.
Massey, D. S. (1990). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of
the underclass. The American Journal of Sociology, 96(2), 329–357.
Massey, D. S. (1994). America’s apartheid and the urban underclass. The
Social Service Review, 68(4), 471–478.
McDonald, J. F., & Moffit, R. A. (1980). The uses of tobit analysis. Review
of Economics and Statistics, 62, 318–321.
McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on Black families
and children: Psychological distress, parenting, and socioemotional
development. Child Development 61, 311–346.
McLoyd, V. C., & Smith, J. (2002). Physical discipline and behavior prob-
lems in African American, European American, and Hispanic children:
Emotional support as a moderator. Journal of Marriage and Family,
64(1), 40–53.
Molnar, B. E., Miller, M. J., Azrael, D., & Buka, S. L. (2004). Neighbor-
hood predictors of concealed firearm carrying among children and ado-
lescents: Results from the project on human development in Chicago
neighborhoods. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 158,
657–664.
Nobes, G., Smith, M., Upton, P., & Heverin, A. (1999). Physical punish-
ment by mothers and fathers in British homes. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 14, 887–902.
Roncek, D. W. (1992). Learning more from tobit coefficients: Extending
a comparative analysis of political protest. American Sociological Review,
57, 503.
Sariola, H., & Uutela, A. (1992). The prevalence and context of family vio-
lence against children in Finland. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16, 823–832.
Simons R. L., Johnson, C., & Conger, R. D. (1994). Harsh corporal punish-
ment versus quality of parental involvement as an explanation of adoles-
cent maladjustment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 591–607.
Socolar, R. R., & Stein, R. E. (1995). Spanking infants and toddlers:
Maternal belief and practice. Pediatrics, 95(1), 105–111.
Straus, M. A. (1983). Ordinary violence, child abuse, and wife beating:
What do they have in common? In D. Finkelhor, R. Gelles, G. Hotal-
ing, & M. Straus (Eds.), The dark side of families: Current family violence
research (pp. 213–234). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Straus, M. A. (2000). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in
American families and its effects on children. New Brunswick, NJ: Trans-
action Publications.
Straus, M. A., & Donnelly, A. D. (1993). Corporal punishment of adoles-
cents by American parents. Youth and Society, 24, 419–420.
 The Predictors of Parental Use of Corporal Punishment
Grogan-Kaylor and Otis
Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1986). Societal change and change in family
violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed in two national surveys. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 48, 465–479.
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(2), 55–70.
Tobin, J. (1958). Estimation of relationships for limited dependent varia-
bles. Econometrica, 26(1), 24–36.
Wauchope, B., & Straus, M. A. (1990). Physical punishment and
physical abuse of American children: Incidence rates by age, gender,
91
and occupational class. In M. Straus & R. Gelles (Eds.), Physical vio-
lence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence
in 8,145 families (pp. 133–148). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publications.
Wolfner, G. D., & Gelles, R. J. (1993). A profile of violence toward chil-
dren: A national study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 17, 197–212.
Woolley, M. E., & Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2006). Protective family factors in
the context of neighborhood: Promoting positive school outcomes.
Family Relations, 55(1), 93–104.
Zill, N., & Peterson, J. (1986). Behavior problems index. Washington, DC:
Child Trends.