2002, Vol. 51, No. 1 81

Spankers and Nonspankers: Where They GetInformation on Spanking*

Wendy Walsh**

Because spanking is common, puts children at risk for harmful side effects, and is ineffective as a positive behavior management tool,it is important to identify the kind of advice families receive about the appropriateness of spanking. Using the health belief model, Iexamined spankers and nonspankers on the spanking messages they received from eight sources of discipline information and howimportant they perceived these messages to be. Data from telephone interviews with 998 mothers with children aged 2 to 14 yearsshowed that 33% of mothers rated advice from workshops, pediatricians, newspapers and magazines, and books as ‘‘very important.’’Less than 15% rated parents and relatives and friends as such. Spankers perceived sources as recommending spanking, whereasnonspankers perceived sources as opposing spanking. Mothers were more likely to spank when they perceived more intense messagesto spank, less intense messages opposing spanking, had younger children, and were of lower socioeconomic status.

What we read and learn from our environment influenc-es behavior. The messages we perceive help us to de-termine what is normative or expected behavior. For

example, public smoking was once culturally accepted and notquestioned. Once the link between smoking and negative healtheffects was emphasized, smoking was redefined as harmful be-havior, and legal controls were supported (Ferraro, 1990). Sim-ilarly, corporal punishment was once more culturally acceptedthan today. Because parenting attitudes and beliefs are formedin part by interaction with those in our social context and whatwe read, this study examines the sorts of advice families receiveabout the appropriateness of spanking and the importance of in-formation sources.

Spanking Prevalence

Corporal punishment is defined as ‘‘the use of physical forcewith the intention of causing a child to experience pain, but notinjury, for purposes of correction or control of the child’s be-havior’’ (Straus, 1994, p. 4). Six types of corporal punishmentinclude slaps on the hand or leg, spanking on the buttocks,pinching, shaking, hitting on the buttocks with a belt or paddle,and slapping in the face (Straus & Stewart, 1999). Spanking iscommon; approximately 67% of all parents report using sometype of corporal punishment (Straus). This figure is misleading,however, because the use of corporal punishment is strongly de-pendent on the age of the child. For example, spanking on bot-tom with a hand is a common type of corporal punishment with72% of parents of 2- to 4-year-olds, 71% of parents of 5- to 8-year-olds, 43% of parents of 9- to 12-year-olds, and 14% ofparents of 13- to 17-year-olds using this type of corporal pun-ishment (Straus & Stewart).

*An earlier version of this article was presented at the Eastern Sociological SocietyConference in Philadelphia, PA, March 1998. This research was from a thesis submitted tothe Graduate School at the University of New Hampshire as part of the requirements for aMaster of Science in Family Studies. Acknowledgements go to the members of the FamilyViolence Seminar for helpful comments on an earlier draft.

**Department of Sociology, University of New Hampshire, Horton Social ScienceCenter, Durham, NH 03824.

Key Words: corporal punishment, discipline, parenting, physical punishment, spank-ing.

(Family Relations, 2002, 51, 81–88)

Characteristics Associated With Spanking

Some adults spank more than others. The characteristics as-sociated with spanking are the age of the child, age and genderof the parent, socioeconomic status, circumstances, and culturalnorms. Younger parents are more likely to use corporal punish-ment than older parents (Giles-Sims, Straus, & Sugarman, 1995;Straus & Stewart, 1999; Wolfner & Gelles, 1993). Mothers usecorporal punishment more frequently than fathers, although therelative difference is small when time spent with the child isconsidered (Dietz, 2000; Wolfner & Gelles). Research on therelationship between socioeconomic status and the use of cor-poral punishment is inconclusive (Dietz; Giles-Simes et al.;Straus, 1994; Wolfner & Gelles). Parents who were hit as chil-dren are more likely to hit their children (Bryan & Freed, 1982;Graziano & Namaste, 1990; Rodriquez & Sutherland, 1999;Straus).

Not only does a parent’s past history with corporal punish-ment influence his or her own use of it, but also cultural andsubcultural norms may influence the use of spanking. For ex-ample, Greven (1991) proposed that we have perceptual blindersto corporal punishment because nearly everyone has experiencedit. Perceptual blinders may be more prevalent in some geograph-ic locations. For example, research on regional differences onattitudes and use of corporal punishment has consistently foundmore support and use of it in the South than in other regions(Giles-Sims et al., 1995; Straus & Mathur, 1996; Straus & Stew-art, 1999).

Consequences of Spanking

A growing body of literature on spanking has focused onthe potential harmful effects of corporal punishment and its in-effectiveness as a child behavior management tool. Some of thepotential harmful effects of frequent and severe spankings in-clude subsequent antisocial behavior of children (Grusec &Goodnow, 1994; McCord, 1991; Straus, Sugarman, & Giles-Sims, 1997). Some research indicates that the effects are smalland vary by age of child and ethnicity (Deater-Deckard, Dodge,Bates, & Pettit, 1996; Larzelere, 1996). The excessive use ofcorporal punishment has been associated with a number of adultsocial and psychological problems, including physical aggres-sion, delinquency, and depression (Foglia, 1997; Straus, 1994;Swinford, Demaris, Cernkovick, & Giordano, 2000). In addition,physical punishments give children pain and may teach them itis all right to inflict pain on others (McCord, 1996).

82 Family Relations

Research also indicates that spankings may work againstwhat parents are trying to achieve. Results show that using cor-poral punishment leads to greater incidences of child aggressionand maladaptive behaviors (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994; Patterson& Narrett, 1990; Strassberg, Dogde, Pettit, & Bates, 1994). Re-search also indicates that abusive parents spank their childrenmore often than nonabusive parents and that excessive spankingmay be a risk factor for child abuse (Barber, 1992; Holden &Ritchie, 1991; Kadushin & Martin, 1981; Oldershaw, Walters, &Hall, 1989; Whipple & Richey, 1997; Whipple & Webster-Strat-ton, 1991). Therefore, relying on spanking may increase the po-tential for use of frequent and severe physical punishment.

Paralleling the increase in knowledge about consequencesof spanking, approval of corporal punishment has decreasedfrom 94% in 1968 to 68% in 1994 (Straus & Mathur, 1996), andreported use of corporal punishment has decreased from 64% in1988 to 53% in 1992 (Daro & Gelles, 1992). Nevertheless, 94%of parents of 3- to 4-year-olds still report using corporal punish-ment (Straus & Stewart, 1999). Thus, it is important to ask aboutthe kind of advice families receive regarding the appropriatenessof spanking.

Spanking Messages and Advice

Information about the appropriateness of spanking may beinformal, such as comments from friends and relatives, or for-mal, such as information provided by professionals. Althoughparents seem to want information about child discipline, it is notclear where and what kind of information parents typically re-ceive (Riley, Meinhardt, Nelson, Salisbury, & Winnett, 1991;Thompson, 1994). For example, a national study found 4 out of10 parents wanted discipline information from health profes-sionals, yet only 23% of parents reported discussing disciplinewith their child’s pediatrician (Young, Davis, & Schoen, 1996).

In addition to the spanking advice parents receive, we knowlittle about how consistent or strong such messages are. Perhapsthe discipline message from friends and relatives creates confu-sion or conflict if the advice is contradictory to one’s own beliefsor if information sources do not send similar messages (Edwards,1995; Powell, 1979; Small & Eastman, 1991). The effects ofdiscipline messages also may depend on how valued the sourceis and what kind of messages are provided. For example, Smalland Eastman showed that, depending on the message, an infor-mation source could serve as a support or stressor. They foundthat when the source is valued and gives needed advice, thatsource is perceived as supportive. If the source has differentviews on child rearing from those of the parent, then that sourcecould be a stressor. Depending on any sanctions imposed, suchas parents criticizing how their child parents or a social workerremoving a child from the home, the advice may have differ-ential effects. Therefore, the current study examined spankingmessages relative to the importance of the information source.

Theoretical Framework

Building on the principle that our attitudes and behaviorsare formed, in part, by the environment, the health belief model(Ferraro, 1990) incorporates how community norms and opin-ions about the negative consequences of a behavior affect anindividual’s willingness to change a behavior. This frameworkhas been used to examine the influence of community norms onsmoking cessation, seatbelt safety, alcohol use, and dietary fatintake. The health belief model looks beyond the individual to

consider how macrolevel norms and environmental supports en-courage individuals to change behaviors (Portnoy, Anderson, &Erikson, 1989). Environmental supports include social support,availability and accessibility of services, and the mass media.

The health belief model examines how the perception ofwhat is standard or acceptable behavior and public opinion in-fluences an individual’s behavior, positing that positive behaviorchange is enhanced when support networks and communitystructure reinforce such change. For example, the degree of sup-port for smoking in a community was an important factor whencomparing smoking attitudes in two states (Ferraro, 1990). Like-wise, one of the important influences on parenting practices isaccessing sources of support and information (Belsky, 1984).Because parenting attitudes and beliefs are formed in part by theinfluence of those in one’s context and by what one reads (Rich-ardson, Abramowitz, Asp, & Peterson, 1986), it is useful to ex-amine the spanking advice parents receive and how importantthey perceive this advice to be.

Research Questions

Parents need access to a wide range of nonabusive, positive,and effective disciplinary behaviors (Baumrind, 1996). Part ofthe process of increasing access to information about positiveparenting practices is understanding the messages from disci-pline information sources and their importance to parents. Usingthe framework of the health belief model, my objectives were tocompare spankers and nonspankers on the importance of sourcesof discipline information, the nature of spanking advice fromthese sources, and the intensity of messages toward recommend-ing and opposing spanking. The fourth objective was to assessthe degree to which the message intensity of recommending oropposing of spanking was associated with the use of spanking.

Method

ParticipantsThe data were from a study conducted in two counties in

Minnesota by the University of New Hampshire (Straus & Mour-adian, 1998) in 1993 to evaluate the effectiveness of a programto change attitudes and behavior about corporal punishment. Thecounties are thriving agricultural regions containing small man-ufacturing- and service-centered cities.

During a 20-minute telephone interview, 998 mothers an-swered approximately 130 questions about child behavior prob-lems, discipline strategies, discipline information sources, par-enting practices, personality, and family issues. Random digitdialing was used to select a sample of mothers of children aged2 to 14. If a mother had more than one child in this age range,the child with the most recent birthday was the focus of theinterview. Mothers were chosen as the respondents becausemothers have more of the day-to-day child-care responsibilities(Milkie, Bianchi, Mattingly, & Robinson’s study as cited in Pop-ulation Reference Bureau, 2001).

The mothers were primarily from two-parent families(93.7%) and from first marriages (85.0%). The mean age of themothers was 37 (SD 5 5.6). They had an average of two childrenliving at home. The mean age of the focal child was 8.6 (SD 53.7), and they were about equally divided between boys (54%)and girls (46%). Consistent with census data on the socioeco-nomic composition of these two communities, the sample wasalmost entirely White, and 48.8% had at least some college.

2002, Vol. 51, No. 1 83

MeasuresImportance of discipline information sources. Questions

were asked about how important eight sources of informationwere in the mother’s thinking about discipline: parents and rel-atives; friends; magazine and newspaper articles; child-rearingbooks; pediatricians; ministers, priests, or rabbis; psychologists,social workers, or counselors; and parenting workshops. Partic-ipants responded to each question on a 4-point scale (1 5 notat all important, 4 5 very important).

Perception of spanking message. For each of the eightsources of discipline information, participants were asked if thatsource recommended spanking as a way to discipline. Responseswere 1 (recommended,) 2 (neutral,), and 3 (opposed spanking).

Message intensity. Two spanking intensity indexes were cre-ated to capture the intensity of the message about spanking. Oneindex was defined as the total number of sources that recom-mended spanking weighted by the relative importance of eachsource. If the source recommended spanking, the source wascoded 1 and was multiplied by the relative importance of thatsource (ranging from 1 5 not important to 4 5 very important),and then these values were summed. The other index was definedas the total number of sources that opposed spanking weightedby the relative importance of each source. If the source opposedspanking, the source was coded as 1 and was multiplied by therelative importance of that source (ranging from 1 5 not im-portant to 4 5 very important), and then these values weresummed. The potential range of responses for these two indiceswas 0 to 32.

Spanking. Participants were asked ‘‘How often did youspank, slap, or hit him/her in the past 6 months?’’ The possibleresponses ranged from 0 (never) to 6 (more than 20 times). Con-sistent with other research (Dietz, 2000; Straus, 1994), the re-sponses were recoded to reflect two categories: spankers (thosewho spanked once or more) and nonspankers (those who did notspank) in the last 6 months. Spanking chronicity was examinedto determine whether there was a difference among mothers whodid not spank, spanked less than five times, and spanked morethan five times. Results did not reveal significant differences be-tween the two classification techniques.

Demographic data. Because mothers who do and do notspank were compared, demographic data are presented separatelyfor spankers and nonspankers. Demographic data included ageof mother, age of child, number of children in household, maritalstatus, education level, and household income. The indicatorsused to create the socioeconomic status score included the moth-er’s last year of school completed, husband’s last year of schoolcompleted, and household income. Indicators were converted toa z score with equal weighting.

To control for differences of spanking due to a child’s age,two subsets of the sample based on the target child’s age wereused. Spanking prevalence trends show that the likelihood ofbeing hit slowly declines as a child ages, with a drop in spankingat age 9 (Day, Peterson, & McCracken, 1998; Dietz, 2000; Straus& Stewart, 1999). Thus, mothers whose child was 2 to 8 yearsold were defined as the younger child group (n 5 478) and thosewith a child 9 to 14 years were defined as the older child group(n 5 520).

AnalysisTo compare spankers and nonspankers on the importance of

information sources and perception of spanking messages, chi-

square analyses were performed because the independent vari-ables, importance of information source, and perception ofspanking messages were categorical. To compare spankers andnonspankers and the mean scores on message intensity recom-mending and opposing spanking, a t test was conducted. Becausethe dependent variable was dichotomized, logistic regression wasused to assess the degree to which message intensity either rec-ommending or opposing spanking was associated with use ofspanking.

Results

Spanking PrevalenceAbout one third of the mothers (35.6%) reported they

spanked one or more times in the past 6 months. Possible ex-planations for the low percentage of mothers who reportedspanking could be the time referenced; the location of the study,which is generally a low-spanking region (Straus & Mouradian,1998); and the fact that parents of older children made up halfof the sample. Just over half (54.6%) of mothers with youngerchildren and 18.1% of mothers with older children reportedspanking. Consistent with discipline research (Day et al., 1998;Dietz, 2000; Straus & Stewart, 1999), mothers with youngerchildren were significantly more likely to spank than those witholder children, x2(1, N 5 998) 5 144.98, p , .001. In this study,the majority of mothers of 2- to 5-year-olds spanked (58.5% to70.8%), and about half of mothers of 6- to 7-year-olds spanked(47.4% to 54.2%). A minority of mothers of children aged 8 andolder spanked (11.1% to 35.9%) in the past 6 months.

Demographic Characteristics of Spankers andNonspankers

In the younger and older child groups, nonspanking motherswere significantly more likely to be older themselves and to haveolder children than were spankers (see Table 1). In the olderchild group, nonspankers had significantly fewer children athome than spankers. In the younger child group, nonspankershad more education than spankers, although there were no sig-nificant differences between spankers and nonspankers regardingmarital status and income. In the older child group, nonspankershad higher incomes than spankers; there were no significant dif-ferences in marital status and mother’s education.

Importance of Information SourceNo differences between spankers and nonspankers of youn-

ger children were found in the importance of information sources(see Table 2). In this group, more than one third of both spankersand nonspankers rated pediatricians and workshops as very im-portant sources of discipline information. More than 20% of bothspankers and nonspankers rated newspapers or magazines,books, religious leaders, psychologists, and workshops as veryimportant. In contrast, less than 15% of spankers and nonspank-ers rated parents and relatives or friends as very important.

In the older child group, more than 25% of spankers andnonspankers rated pediatricians as very important for disciplineinformation. Both spankers (20.7%) and nonspankers (16.8%)also rated newspapers or magazines as very important. Less than11% of spankers and nonspankers rated parents and relatives orfriends as very important. Two differences between spankers andnonspankers were how psychologists and workshops were rated.Spankers rated psychologists as somewhat (42.3%) or very

84 Family Relations

Table 1Background Characteristics for Spankers and Nonspankers by Age of Child

Child (2–8 years) Child (9–14 years)

Characteristics

Total Sample(N 5 998)

M (SD)

Spanker(n 5 261)

M (SD)

Nonspanker(n 5 217)

M (SD) t

Spanker(n 5 94)

M (SD)

Nonspanker(n 5 426)

M (SD) t

Age (mother)Age (child)Number of children

37.18.62.0

5.63.71.0

33.34.92.1

4.91.9.9

35.85.62.1

5.11.91.2

5.47***4.40***

2.33

37.511.02.2

4.61.7.9

40.011.91.9

4.81.61.0

4.66***4.63**

22.26*

Total Sample

%

Child (2–8 years)

Spanker%

Nonspanker% x2

Child (9–14 years)

Spanker%

Nonspanker% x2

Marital statusMarriedSingle

96.76.3

95.84.2

94.55.5

.45 90.49.6

92.77.3

.57

Mother’s eductionHigh school or lessCollege1

51.248.8

57.242.8

43.156.9

6.20* 62.537.5

49.350.7

3.67

Income$10–30,000$30–40,000$40–50,000$50,0001

21.624.122.831.5

23.927.123.525.5

22.821.820.834.7

4.84 19.134.816.929.2

20.121.124.634.2

8.27*

*p , .05. **p , .01. ***p , .001.

(18.3%) important, whereas 23.2% and 27.1% of nonspankersrated psychologists as such. Similarly, spankers were more likelyto rate workshops as somewhat (46.8%) or very (23.4%) impor-tant compared with nonspankers (32.5% and 32.7% respective-ly).

Perception of Spanking MessagesIn the younger child group, spankers and nonspankers per-

ceived receiving significantly different discipline messages fromall sources, except psychologists (see Table 3). For example,55.7% of spankers and 31.5% of nonspankers responded thattheir parents or relatives recommended spanking. Likewise,43.0% of spankers and only 16.2% of nonspankers respondedthat their friends recommended spanking.

A closer look at the messages perceived by mothers of chil-dren aged 2 to 8 years revealed some interesting distinctionsbetween spankers and nonspankers. Messages from pediatricianswere perceived differently for spankers and nonspankers. Forexample, 28.6% of spankers compared with 45.6% of nonspank-ers perceived pediatricians opposing spanking.

In the older child group, spankers and nonspankers per-ceived significantly different discipline messages from all sourc-es, except newspapers or magazines. About half of spankers(54.7%) and 39.5% of nonspankers perceived their parents orrelatives as recommending spanking. Slightly more than onethird (36.0%) of spankers and 23.2% of nonspankers viewedtheir friends as recommending spanking. Similar to the youngerchild group, 21.7% of spankers and 41.2% of nonspankers ratedpediatricians as opposing spanking.

In both the younger and older child groups, 30 to 59% ofall the sources were perceived as having neutral messages aboutspanking. Specifically, pediatricians, religious leaders, and psy-chologists were most frequently perceived by mothers as neitherrecommending or opposing spanking. It is impossible to deter-mine the meaning of neutral, however. This response might meanspanking was not addressed, or it might mean that information

was equally balanced and parents were encouraged to use theirown judgment.

Message IntensityIn the younger child group, nonspankers had significantly

higher scores (M 5 8.88, SD 5 7.45) on the Spanking Oppo-sition Intensity Index, which summed the sources opposingspanking relative to their importance, compared with spankers(M 5 5.51, SD 5 6.04), t(476) 5 5.46, p , .001. Similarly,spankers had significantly higher scores (M 5 4.13, SD 5 4.59)on the Spanking Recommendation Intensity Index, whichsummed the sources recommending spanking relative to theirimportance, compared with nonspankers (M 5 1.68, SD 5 2.74),t(476) 5 26.92, p , .001.

Likewise, in the older child group, nonspankers had signif-icantly higher scores (M 5 7.72, SD 5 7.19) on the SpankingOpposition Intensity Index compared with spankers (M 5 4.55,SD 5 5.12), t(518) 5 4.04, p , .001. Similarly, spankers hadsignificantly higher scores (M 5 4.10, SD 5 5.12) on the Spank-ing Recommendation Intensity Index compared with nonspank-ers (M 5 2.24, SD 5 3.41), t(518) 5 24.30, p , .001.

Predicted Probability of SpankingAnother objective of this research was to examine the degree

to which message intensity was associated with use of spanking.The results of the logistic regression indicated that child’s age,socioeconomic status, and both indices of spanking message in-tensity were all significant predictors of spanking (see Table 4).The odds ratio for child’s age (.74) suggests that each additionalyear of the child’s age decreases the likelihood of spanking by16%. Similarly, the odds ratio of .78 for socioeconomic status(SES) suggests that each increase in SES decreases the likeli-hood of spanking by 12%. In addition, for each increase in mes-sage intensity opposing spanking, there is a decreased likelihoodof spanking by 5% (odds ratio 5 .95). Finally, the odds ratio of1.12 suggests that for each increase in message intensity rec-

2002, Vol. 51, No. 1 85

Table 2Percentage of Mothers Rating Importance of Information Source

Information Source:Importance

Total Sample(N 5 998)

Child (2–8 years)

Spanker(n 5 261)

Nonspanker(n 5 217) x2

Child (9–14 years)

Spanker(n 5 94)

Nonspanker(n 5 426) x2

Parents, relativesNot importantSlightly importantSomewhat importantVery important

33.830.024.611.5

29.430.625.514.5

34.929.823.711.6

2.00 31.938.324.55.3

36.428.024.611.0

5.65

FriendsNot importantSlightly importantSomewhat importantVery important

32.529.129.78.7

32.227.533.37.0

30.729.329.310.7

2.69 29.023.736.610.8

34.431.126.18.3

5.57

Newspaper/magazineNot importantSlightly importantSomewhat importantVery important

13.323.443.619.8

12.520.644.422.6

9.821.546.722.0

.93 14.127.238.020.7

15.425.142.716.8

1.22

BooksNot importantSlightly importantSomewhat importantVery important

16.122.939.621.4

16.720.741.521.1

10.422.341.126.2

4.51 13.527.034.824.7

19.223.638.718.5

3.39

PediatriciansNot importantSlightly importantSomewhat importantVery important

22.614.031.831.6

19.110.932.637.4

23.114.428.733.8

2.70 13.515.737.133.7

26.715.431.526.4

7.24

Minister, priest, rabbiNot importantSlightly importantSomewhat importantVery important

36.214.326.822.7

32.016.228.123.7

40.612.823.523.0

3.77 26.812.236.624.4

38.514.325.621.6

5.92

PsychologistNot importantSlightly importantSomewhat important

33.114.226.0

34.610.325.4

31.217.225.5

3.72 25.414.142.3

34.814.923.2

11.37**

Very important 26.7 29.7 26.1 18.3 27.1

WorkshopNot importantSlightly importantSomewhat importantVery important

19.711.235.733.5

14.711.939.433.9

18.210.832.438.6

2.78 24.75.2

46.823.4

22.512.332.532.7

8.44*

*p , .05. **p , .01.

ommending spanking there is a 12% increased likelihood ofspanking.

Discussion

Because parenting attitudes and beliefs are formed in partby the influence of those around us and also by what we read(Richardson et al., 1986) and because few studies have investi-gated which parenting resources are perceived most helpful byparents (Thompson, 1994), I examined the advice mothers re-ceive about the appropriateness of spanking and the perceivedimportance of these information sources. Using the health beliefmodel (Ferraro, 1990), spankers and nonspankers were comparedon the importance of and spanking message received from eightsources of discipline information. I also compared spankers andnonspankers on the spanking message intensity and assessed thedegree to which spanking message intensity was associated withreported use of spanking.

Importance and Spanking Message of InformationSource

Spankers and nonspankers with both younger and older chil-dren rated the importance of discipline information sources sim-ilarly. Discipline advice from workshops, pediatricians, news-papers and magazines, and books was rated by more mothers asat least somewhat important. In contrast, informal sources, suchas parents and relatives or friends, were rated by more mothersas not important or slightly important. This is consistent withother research (Clarke-Stewart, 1978; Riley et al., 1991; Stolz,1967) that found professional people, parenting books, andnewsletters were influential sources on parenting in general.

Perhaps parents, relatives, and friends were perceived as lessimportant sources because mothers want to feel independentabout how they discipline their children, dislike these models ingeneral, or disagree with the advice. Mothers may value disci-

86 Family Relations

Table 3Mothers’ Perceptions of Spanking Message by Information Source in Percent

Information Source:Message

Total Sample(N 5 998)

Child (2–8 years)

Spanker(n 5 261)

Nonspanker(n 5 217) x2

Child (9–14 years)

Spanker(n 5 94)

Nonspanker(n 5 426) x2

Parents, relativesRecommendNeutralOppose

43.338.518.2

55.733.311.0

31.546.022.5

29.57*** 54.733.711.6

39.538.721.8

8.04*

FriendsRecommendNeutralOppose

28.143.628.2

43.042.614.5

16.245.638.2

51.47*** 36.050.014.0

23.241.934.8

15.52***

Newspaper/magazineRecommendNeutralOppose

13.332.554.3

18.832.948.3

8.430.361.6

12.29** 14.541.044.6

12.231.656.2

3.79

BooksRecommendNeutralOppose

17.530.651.9

24.531.943.5

11.430.358.4

13.85*** 31.338.830.0

13.428.158.5

25.00***

PediatriciansRecommendNeutralOppose

4.458.736.9

6.564.928.6

054.545.6

18.72*** 13.065.221.7

3.355.541.2

16.37***

Minister, priest, rabbiRecommendNeutralOppose

11.156.932.0

15.162.222.7

4.756.139.2

15.98*** 21.462.915.7

9.552.937.9

16.00***

PsychologistRecommendNeutralOppose

5.149.645.3

8.754.836.5

4.149.646.3

3.76 5.361.433.3

3.744.352.0

6.48*

WorkshopRecommendNeutralOppose

6.041.252.8

9.847.143.1

5.331.862.9

12.92** 8.360.031.7

3.638.557.9

14.28***

*p , .05. **p , .01. ***p , .001.

Table 4Spanking Message Intensity and Spanking Behavior (N 5 998)

Predictors of Spanking B SE Odds Ratio

Child’s ageSocioeconomic statusOpposition intensityRecommendation intensity

2.312.242.05

.12

.09

.09

.01

.02

.74***

.78**

.95***1.12***

**p , .01. ***p , .001.

pline advice from sources that they perceive as more objectiveand expert than advice from family and friends. For example,Riley et al. (1991) found mothers rated a parenting newsletteras ‘‘very useful’’ more often than any other source, includingrelatives and friends. It also is possible that mothers incorporateadvice from their own parents without explicitly recognizing it.If this holds true, then the mothers in this sample may draw fromtheir own experience of being parented (Edwards, 1995).

Spankers and nonspankers perceived different messagesabout the appropriateness of spanking. Spankers perceivedsources as recommending spanking, whereas nonspankers per-ceived these sources as opposed to spanking. These results maybe interpreted several ways. For example, because a family’senvironment is a source of child-rearing ideas (Powell, 1979),perhaps the social networks of mothers who do and do not spank

provide different messages about spanking. Another explanationcould be that mothers perceive discipline messages as reaffirm-ing their own parenting practices, such that they tend to hear andremember information that matches what they already do or be-lieve. This idea would lend support to the ‘‘specificity hypoth-esis,’’ which contends that when faced with a particular problem,individuals will seek others with similar experiences as sourcesof support (Suitor, Pillemer, & Keeton, 1995). Extending thisresearch to the present findings, it would seem likely that parentsassociate with people who may hold the same beliefs, such asbeliefs about discipline techniques.

In contrast to the specificity hypothesis, the health beliefmodel (Mikanowicz, Fitzgerald, Leslie, & Altman, 1999) sug-gests that cues in one’s environment affect behavior. Perceivedcommunity and cultural norms often influence an individual’sbehavior. For example, educational messages and mothers’ per-ception of the community’s social norms about the health ben-efits of breast-feeding were important considerations in mothers’infant feeding decisions (Guttman & Zimmerman, 2000). Like-wise, perceived messages about spanking may affect mothers’discipline decisions. Without longitudinal data, however, it is notpossible to determine explicitly whether such messages influencediscipline actions or visa versa.

Although there were differences in spankers’ and nonspank-

2002, Vol. 51, No. 1 87

ers’ perceptions of spanking messages, there also were similar-ities. At least 30% of both groups perceived messages fromnewspapers and magazines, books, psychologists, and workshopsas opposing spanking. Given that so many mothers perceive afairly large percentage of sources as opposing spanking, it iscurious that these mothers still spank. It may be that Belsky’s(1984) process parenting model, indicating that there are a num-ber of influences on how information is incorporated, is appli-cable here. According to Belsky, for example, the personal char-acteristics of the parent are one of the most influential factorsfor competent parenting. Therefore, perhaps it is the combinationof perceiving messages opposed to spanking and parents’ per-sonal characteristics, such as readiness to incorporate informa-tion into their behavior, that is critical to consider when exam-ining the association of messages and behavior.

Message IntensityIn addition to having different perceptions about the appro-

priateness of spanking, spankers and nonspankers also had dif-ferent spanking message intensities. Spankers scored higher thannonspankers on the index that summed the sources recommend-ing spanking relative to the importance of the sources. Similarly,nonspankers scored higher on the index that summed the sourcesopposing spanking relative to the importance of the sources.These results reinforce the association between information andchild-rearing ideas (Tracy, 1990; McKenry, Kotch, & Browne,1991).

Spankers had similar scores on both the recommendationand opposition indexes, whereas nonspankers had more messag-es that opposed spanking. In addition, increases in the recom-mendation index were associated with increases in the odds ofspanking, whereas increases in the opposition index were asso-ciated with decreases in the odds of spanking. It may be thatmothers need to perceive many more messages that opposespanking to experience a substantial reduction in spanking. Thus,these findings are consistent with the health belief model, sug-gesting that perceptions of what is appropriate behavior are as-sociated with behavior.

LimitationsA number of limitations of this research are noted. First,

because these are cross-sectional data, it is impossible to estab-lish any causal direction. It cannot be said that spanking mes-sages result in the use of spanking because it also may be thatuse of spanking results in greater attention to certain spankingmessages. Another limitation is that the data are from mothersonly. Future research should gather information from all care-takers to better understand the family context of informationsharing and discipline action. Additionally, because the timeframe for recall was the past 6 months, mothers might haveforgotten how often they spanked.

Another issue is the way in which mothers were classifiedas spankers or nonspankers, resulting in the potential for mis-classification. For example, although nonspankers responded thatthey did not spank the target child during the past 6 months,these mothers may have spanked at some point or may havespanked another child, so the estimate of the number of motherswho actually spank may be conservative. In addition, becauseof social desirability to underreport, these are lower bound es-timates. Finally, because the sample was primarily White andfrom two Midwestern cities, the findings are not generalizable.Spanking attitudes and behavior vary by geographic location and

ethnicity (Dietz, 2000; Giles-Sims et al., 1995; Straus & Mathur,1996).

Implications for Parent Education ProgramsThe findings shed some light on mothers’ perceptions of

sources and importance of discipline advice and suggest concreteways to provide information to mothers. Mothers valued disci-pline advice from parenting courses or workshops, pediatricians,newspaper and magazine articles, and parenting books. As such,parenting information can be fairly easily disseminated to a wideaudience, and the majority of those reading it would see it asvaluable. This implies that those responsible for parenting work-shops and those who write for the popular press have the poten-tial to educate parents about alternatives to spanking.

These findings reaffirm the benefits of publishing articlesabout positive parenting practices and suggest that initiating acommunity public awareness campaign about alternatives tospanking would be valuable. In addition, it may be beneficial totarget efforts to provide research-based discipline information toparents of young children and those parents with limited edu-cation.

These results also highlight another important area. It maybe beneficial to give such discipline information not only to par-ents, but also to other professionals in the community. For ex-ample, parent educators could send pediatricians, religious lead-ers, and psychologists research-based information for dissemi-nation. Because 50% to 59% of mothers perceived these profes-sionals as neither recommending nor opposing spanking, theseprofessionals might benefit by having such information.

Pediatricians, in particular, could play an important role indissemination efforts. For example, 63% of mothers perceivedpediatricians as somewhat or very important information sourc-es; yet only 37% of mothers perceived that pediatricians opposedspanking. These results suggest that pediatricians’ role in dis-tributing information about discipline should be enhanced. Forexample, in addition to giving parents printed material, pediatri-cians could discuss child discipline and link parents to parentingresources in their community. Pediatricians may be an under-developed and valuable resource for educating parents about al-ternatives to spanking that is easily accessible to parents.

ConclusionThis research contributes to the knowledge illustrating how

child-rearing ideas from many sources are associated with be-havior. This study also adds to our understanding of how mothersperceive discipline messages. By increasing our understandingof what information sources are important, we can develop waysto make positive discipline approaches more accessible to par-ents.

ReferencesBarber, J. G. (1992). Evaluating parent education groups: Effects on sense of

competence and social isolation. Research on Social Work Practice, 2, 28–38.

Baumrind, D. (1996). The discipline controversy revisited. Family Relations, 45,405–414.

Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child De-velopment, 55, 83–96.

Bryan, J. W., & Freed, F. W. (1982). Corporal punishment: Normative data andsociological and psychological correlates in a community college population.Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 11, 77–87.

Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (1978). Popular primers for parents. American Psycholo-gist, 33, 359–369.

88 Family Relations

Daro, D., & Gelles, R. J. (1992). Public attitudes and behaviors with respect tochild abuse prevention. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 517–531.

Day, R. D., Peterson, G. W., & McCracken, C. (1998). Predicting spanking ofyounger and older children by mothers and fathers. Journal of Marriage andthe Family, 60, 79–94.

Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, J. E. (1996). Physicaldiscipline among African American and European American mothers: Linksto children’s externalizing behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32, 1065–1072.

Dietz, T. L. (2000). Disciplining children: Characteristics associated with the useof corporal punishment. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24, 1529–1542.

Edwards, J. (1995). ‘‘Parenting skills’’: Views of community health and socialservice providers about the needs of their ‘‘clients’’. Journal of Social Policy,24, 237–259.

Ferraro, K. F. (1990). Health beliefs and proscriptions on public smoking. So-ciological Inquiry, 60, 244–263.

Foglia, W. D. (1997). Perceptual deterrence and the mediating effect of inter-nalized norms among inner-city teenagers. Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency, 34, 414–442.

Giles-Sims, J., Straus, M. A., & Sugarman, D. B. (1995). Child, maternal, andfamily characteristics associated with spanking. Family Relations, 44, 170–176.

Graziano, A. M., & Namaste, K. A., (1990). Parental use of physical force inchild discipline. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 449–463.

Greven, P. (1991). Spare the child: The religious roots of punishment and thepsychological impact of physical punishment. New York: Knopf.

Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). Impact of parental discipline methodson the child’s internalization of values: A reconceptualization of current pointsof view. Developmental Psychology, 30, 4–19.

Guttman, N., & Zimmerman, D. R. (2000). Low-income mothers’ views onbreastfeeding. Social Science and Medicine, 50, 1457–1473.

Holden, G. W., & Ritchie, K. L. (1991). Linking extreme marital discord, childrearing, and child behavior problems: Evidence from battered women. ChildDevelopment, 62, 311–327.

Kadushin, A., & Martin, J. A. (1981). Child abuse: An interactional event. NewYork: Columbia University Press.

Larzelere, R. (1996). Implications of the strongest studies for discriminatingeffective vs. counterproductive corporal punishment. Pediatrics, 98, 824–828.

McCord, J. (1991). Questioning the value of punishment. Social Problems, 38,167–179.

McCord, J. (1996). Unintended consequences of punishment. Pediatrics, 98,832–834.

McKenry, P. C., Kotch, J. B., & Browne, D. H. (1991). Correlates of dysfunc-tional parenting attitudes among low-income adolescent mothers. Journal ofAdolescent Research, 6, 212–234.

Mikanowicz, C. K., Fitzgerald, D. C., Leslie, M., & Altman, N. H. (1999).Medium-sized business employees speak out about smoking. Journal of Com-munity Health, 24, 439–450.

Oldershaw, L., Walters, G. C., & Hall, D. K. (1989). A behavioral approach tothe classification of different types of physically abusive mothers. MerrillPalmer Quarterly, 35, 255–279.

Patterson, G. R., & Narrett, C. M. (1990). The development of a reliable andvalid treatment program for aggressive young children. International Journalof Mental Health, 19, 19–26.

Population Reference Bureau. (2001). American families resilient after 50 yearsof change. Washington, DC: Author.

Portnoy, B., Anderson, D. M., & Erikson, M. P. (1989). Application of diffusion

theory to health promotion research. Family and Community Health, 12, 63–71.

Powell, D. R. (1979). Family-environment relations and early childrearing: Therole of social networks and neighborhoods. Journal of Research and Devel-opment in Education, 13, 1–11.

Richardson, R. A., Abramowitz, R. H., Asp, C. E., & Peterson, A. C. (1986).Parent-child relationships in early adolescence: Effects of family structure.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 805–811.

Riley, D., Meinhardt, G., Nelson, C., Salisbury, M. J., & Winnett, T. (1991).How effective are age-paced newsletters for new parents? A replication andextension of earlier studies. Family Relations, 40, 247–253.

Rodriquez, C. M., & Sutherland, D. (1999). Predictors of parents’ physical dis-ciplinary practices. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 651–657.

Small, S. A., & Eastman, G. (1991). Rearing adolescents in contemporary so-ciety: A conceptual framework for understanding the responsibilities andneeds of parents. Family Relations, 40, 455–462.

Stolz, L. M. (1967). Influences on parent behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford Uni-versity Press.

Strassberg, Z., Dogde, K. A, Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1994). Spanking inthe home and children’s subsequent aggression toward kindergarten peers.Development and Psychopathology, 6, 445–461.

Straus, M. A. (1994). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment byparents and its effects on children. Boston: Lexington/Macmillian.

Straus, M. A., & Mathur, A. (1996). Social change and change in approval ofcorporal punishment by parents from 1968 to 1994. In D. Frehsee, W. Horn,& K. D. Bussmann (Eds.), Family violence against children: A challenge forsociety (pp. 91–105). New York: de Gruyter.

Straus, M. A., & Mouradian, V. E. (1998). Impulsive corporal punishment bymothers and antisocial behavior and impulsiveness of children. BehavioralSciences and the Law, 16, 353–374.

Straus, M. A., & Stewart, J. H. (1999). Corporal punishment by American par-ents: National data on prevalence, chronicity, severity, and duration, in relationto child, and family characteristics. Clinical Child and Family PsychologyReview, 2, 55–70.

Straus, A., Sugarman, D., & Giles-Sims, J. (1997). Spanking by parents andsubsequent antisocial behavior of children. Journal of Pediatrics and Adoles-cent Medicine, 151, 761–767.

Suitor, J. J., Pillemer, K., & Keeton, S. (1995). When experience counts: Theeffects of experiential and structural similarity on patterns of support andinterpersonal stress. Social Forces, 73, 1573–1588.

Swinford, S. P., DeMaris, A., Cernkovick, S. A., & Giordano, P. C. (2000). Harshphysical discipline in childhood and violence in later romantic involvements:The mediating role of problem behaviors. Journal of Marriage and the Family,62, 508–519.

Thompson, R. A. (1994). Social support and the prevention of child maltreat-ment. In G. B. Melton & F. D. Barry (Eds.), Protecting children from abuseand neglect foundations for a new national strategy (pp. 40–130). New York:Guilford Press.

Tracy, E. M. (1990). Identifying social support resources of at-risk families.Social Work, 35, 252–258.

Whipple, E. E., & Richey, C. A. (1997). Crossing the line from physical disci-pline to child abuse: How much is too much? Child Abuse and Neglect, 21,431–444.

Whipple, E. E., & Webster-Stratton, C. (1991). The role of parental stress inphysically abusive families. Child Abuse and Neglect, 15, 279–291.

Wolfner, G. D., & Gelles, R. J. (1993). A profile of violence toward children:A national study. Child Abuse and Neglect, 17, 197–212.

Young, K. T., Davis, K., & Schoen, C. (1996). The Commonwealth Fund surveyof parents with young children. New York: Commonwealth Fund.