Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uncpress.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
University of North Carolina Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Social Forces.
http://www.jstor.org
ConservativreProtestantism and the Parental
Use of Corporal Punishment
CHRISTOPHERG. ELLISON,Universityof Texasat Austin
JOHN P. BARTKOWSK[,Universityof Texasat Austin
MICHELLEL. SEGAL,Universityof Texasat Austin
Abstract
T7epresentstudydevelopsargumentslinkingConservative Protestant
affiliationand
conservativebeliefsabouttheBiblewith thefrequency withwhichphysicalpunishment
is usedto disciplinetoddlersandpreschoolers (ages1-4) andolderchildren(ages5-11)
andexplorestheseideasusingdatafrom the1987-88NationalSurveyof Familiesand
Households(NSFH). Multivariateresults generallyconfirm that parents with
conservativescripturalbeliefsuse corporal punishmentmorefrequentlythanparents
with less conservativetheologicalviews. Some modestnet effectsof Conservative
Protestant arealsoobserved.
affiliation Thestudyidentifiesseveralpromisingdirections
forfutureresearch on religiousvariationsin childdiscipline.
* Portions of this study were presented at the 1994 meetings of the Association for the
Sociology of Religion, Los Angeles, and the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion,
Albuquerque.Theauthors thank Norval Glenn,GeorgeHolden,Paula Nesbitt, Daniel Powers,
and two anonymousreviewersfor helpfulcomments.Theauthors are solely responsibleforthe
analyses and interpretationspresentedhere.Direct correspondenceto ChristopherG. Ellison,
Departmentof Sociology, 336 BurdineHall, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712-
1088.
Determinedto go its own way, it resistsall reproof.And remember,all this 'is boundup
in the heartof a child"- yourchild (88, emphasisin original).
Given such distinctive and strongly held views on sin and its consequences,
religious conservatives stress the urgent need for parents to begin "shaping the
1008 / Social Forces 74:3,March1996
Conseratism
Theological
To measurethe types of beliefsregardingreligiousscripturethatwere discussed
earlier,we use a two-itemindex (r = .73,p < .001,Cronbach'salpha=.85)based
on respondents'agreementwith the following statements:(1) "The Bible is
God's word and everything happened or will happen exactly as it says."
(2) "TheBible is the answer to all importanthuman problems."Responsesto
each item range from (1) "stronglydisagree"to (5) "stronglyagree,"and the
mean score is used as our indicatorof theological
conservatism.5
CONTROLVARIABLES
ChildBehaviors
Ouranalysesincludeseveralvariablestappingparentalreportsof the frequency
with which the focal child exhibitedvarious types of behaviors,moods, and
demeanors during the three months prior to the NSFH interview. Primary
responding parents of focal children aged 14 were read a list of ten such
behaviors, including (1) "Is fussy or irritable";(2) "Losestempereasily"; (3)
"Bullies,or is cruel or mean to others";and (4) Obeysor "does what you ask."
For each statement,response categorieswere (1) "not true," (2) "sometimes
true,"and (3) "oftentrue."6Primaryrespondingparentsof older childrenwere
read a similarlist of behaviors(with identicalresponsecategories),except that
"fussy or irritable"was not included on theirlist. In preliminaryanalyses,we
explored the associationbetween the other child behaviorson these lists (e.g.,
"feels sad or depressed," "feels fearful or anxious," "gets along well with
others," "tries new things") and the frequency with which children are
ConservativeProtestantismand CorporalPunishment/ 1011
Authority-Minded ParentalValues
To gauge parents'valuationof obedienceby theirchildren,we used a two-item
index.As partof a largerbatteryof traits,parentswere askedhow importantit
is for theirchildrento "alwaysfollow familyrules"and to "alwaysdo what you
ask."Responsecategoriesrangefrom (1)"notat all important"to (7)"extremely
important."We note that these parentalvalues items differ somewhat from
those used in many previous studies (Alwin 1984;Ellison& Sherkat1993b),in
which respondents were asked to rank the importanceof a series of child
characteristics.The two items identified above are combined into an index
(r=.55, p <.001, Cronbach'sa -.71), and the mean score is our indicator of
authority-minded parentalvalues.
Respondent andHouseholdCharacteristics
We can have confidencein our findingson the relationshipsbetweenConserva-
tive Protestantismand the use of corporalpunishmentby primaryparental
respondents only when we have controlled for the potentially confounding
effects of a range of sociodemographicand backgroundfactors,including the
following: age of respondent (in years); gender of respondent (1 =female);
race/ethnicityof parent(1 = black,1 = Hispanic,0 = white/Anglo); total household
income(in tens of thousands of 1986 dollars, logged); parent's education(in
years);number of childrenyoungerthan5 in the household (besides the focal
preschooler);numberof childrenaged5 andolderin the household (besidesthe
focal child); and the primary parentalrespondent'smarital status (1 =single
parent).7
ChildCharacteristics
In addition, we also include dummy variables to identify the child's sex
(1 =femalechild), as well as to indicate whether the focal child is a stepchild
(1 = stepchild)or an adopted child (1 = adopted).In the analysesof focal toddlers
and preschoolers,we use dummyvariablesto identifythe child's age (1 = age4,
1 = age 3, 1 = age 1, 0 = age 2), because preliminaryanalyses indicated that the
estimatedeffectsof age on the frequencyof corporalpunishmentis curvilinear
for childrenof this age group.We also investigatedthe associationbetweenage
and corporalpunishmentfor older childrenand found the relationshipto be
generallylinear.Thereforewe include a linearageeffectin the models for grade
school-agedchildren.Means and standarddeviationsof the variablesused in
the final analyses are displayed in Table1.
A NOTE ON MISSING DATA
As a rule, valid sample means are substituted for missing values on most
predictorvariablesin order to maximize the effective sample size. Ancillary
analysesshow thatthis meansubstitutionproceduredoes not significantlyalter
our results. Because a relatively large proportion of NSFH respondents
1012 / Social Forces 74:3, March 1996
Children Children
Aged 14 Aged 5-11
Dependentvariables
Frequencyof corporalpunishment 1.22
(continuous) (1.67)
Use of corporalpunishment .23
(dichotomous) (.42)
Religiousfactors
ConservativeProtestantaffiliation .25 .27
(43) (.44)
Theologicalconservatism 3.36 3.41
(1.08) (1.10)
Respondentand householdcharacteristics
Female .60 .55
(.49) (.50)
Age 30.10 34.96
(6.75) (6.71)
Black .11 .14
(.32) (.35)
Hispanic .10 .11
(.30) (.31)
Single parent .18 .18
(.39) (.38)
Education 13.23 12.97
(2.79) (2.79)
Household income Oogged) .90 1.02
(1.38) (1.22)
Childrenyounger than 5 .40 .29
(.57) (.54)
Children aged 5-18 .49 .88
(.81) (.93)
Children Children
Aged 14 Aged 5-11
Childcharacteristics
Female .46 .51
(.50) (.50)
Age 2.47 7.81
(1.09) (1.95)
Stepchild .01 .04
(.10) (.21)
Adopted .01 .03
(.12) (.18)
Childbehaviors
Obeys 2.31 2.48
(.54) (.53)
Losestemper 1.99 1.86
(.70) (.72)
Bulliesothers 1.36 1.32
(.57) (.55)
Fussy 1.98
(.58)
Child-rearing
values
parentalvalues
Authority-minded 5.64 5.91
(1.04) (.89)
N 1,393 1,829
Findings
THE CORPORALPUNISHMENT OF CHILDRENAGES 14
Childbehaviors
Obeys - .266*** -.275*
(-.086) (-.089)
Loses temper .314*** .317***
(.133) (.134)
Bullies others - .327*** .341***
(.111) (.116)
Fussy .279*** .278**
(.097) (.097)
values
Child-rearing
Authority-minded
parentalvalues - - .133*
(.083)
(N-1,393)
a
OLSregressionestimates,metriccoefficients.Standardizedbetas are in parentheses.
Respondentand household
dharacteristics
Female .656* .623* .668"* .685m
(1.927) (1.865) (1.951) (1.984)
Age -.022* -.021* -.011 -.011
(.978) (.979) (.989) (.989)
Black .060 .032 .310 .273
(1.062) (1.033) (1.363) (1.313)
Hispanic -.044 -.076 .198 .170
(.957) (.927) (1.219) (1.186)
Single parent .064 .114 -.002 .005
(1.066) (1.120) (.998) (1.005)
Education -.054* -.048t -.037 -.032
(.947) (.953) (.964) (.969)
Household income -.030 -.023 -.026 -.025
(logged) (.970) (.977) (.975) (.976)
Children younger .417m .413*** .461m .465*
than 5 (1.517) (1.511) (1.585) (1.592)
Children ages 5-18 .009 -.001 -.036 -.040
(1.009) (.999) (.965) (.961)
Childcharacteristics
Female -.591** -.597* -.544 -.533***
(.554) (.551) (.580) (.587)
Age -.262* -.266* -.308* -.305**
(.770) (.767) (.735) (.737)
Stepchild -.069 -.054 -.135 -.128
(.933) (.948) (.874) (.880)
Adopted child .424** .400* .421* .413*
(1.528) (1.492) (1.524) (1.511)
Conservative Protestantism and Corporal Punishment / 1019
Dependent variable
mean .228 .228 .228 .228
Pseudo R2 .100 .103 .162 .163
(N-1,829)
a Logisticregressioncoefficients.Exponentiatedcoefficientsare in parentheses.
Discussion
that parentswho believe (1) that thqBibleis the inerrantWord of God and (2)
that it provides answers to all human affairs and problems use corporal
punishmentto disciplinetheirchildrenmore frequentlythanparentswith less
conservativetheologicalviews. In addition,consistentwith the thrustof some
earlierresearch(e.g.,Ellison&Sherkat1993a),statisticalcontrolsfor theological
conservatismvirtuallyeliminatethe estimatedeffectsof ConservativeProtestant
denominationalaffiliation.Further,the link betweentheologicalbeliefsand the
use of physical punishmentpersists even when the potentiallyconfounding
effectsof numerousparentaland householdcharacteristics, child characteristics
and behaviors,and global parentalchild-rearingvalues are takeninto account.
While our findings underscore the importance of religious values
particularlythose associatedwith ConservativeProtestantism- for the study
of child discipline,they also raisea numberof importantquestionsthatwarrant
clarificationin the future.First,the NSFH - like most large-scalesurveys-
does not contain detailed informationon the typeand intensityof corporal
punishment. Anecdotal evidence suggests that terms like "spanking"and
"slapping"may covera varietyof disciplinarypractices,rangingfrommild taps
or swats on the buttocks to more determinedbeatings with belts and other
objects,to the most severe forms of abuse. Obviously the levels of force and
intensity implied by these differences,and the probable consequencesfor
children, may vaxy considerably. Although some accounts suggest that
ConservativeProtestantsare proneto use particularlyviolentformsof physical
punishment(Capps1992;Maurer1982),much more informationis needed on
the diverse forms of corporal punishment administered by Conservative
Protestantsand other parents(Bartkowski1995).
Second,given our finding that the comparativelyfrequentuse of corporal
punishment by conservative religious parents is not attributableto more
negativeglobalassessmentsof children'sbehavior,we need moreinformationon
how parents arrive at decisions on disciplinary responses to specificchild
misbehaviorsunderparticular circumstances,and especiallyon how Conserva-
tive Protestant parents may differ from others in their decision-making
processes.Forinstance,given the importanceof themesof sin and punishment
in ConservativeProtestanttheologyand child-rearingphilosophy,parentsmay
be especially prone to interpretspecific child misbehaviorsas instances of
"willful disobedience,"to downplay alternativeexplanationsfor these mis-
behaviors(e.g.,"childishirresponsibility"),and to deemphasizethe role of other
types of situationalinformation(e.g., child illness, fatigueor emotionalupset,
parentalstress).In this way, the distinctivetheologicalviews of Conservative
Protestantparentsmaybe introducedinto the decision-makingprocess,possibly
leading parentsto engage in a specificversion of "thefundamentalattribution
error"- thatis, to attributemisbehaviordispositionally, as a consequenceof the
child'scharacter,ratherthansituationally,as a consequenceof the circumstances
surroundingthe event (Grasmick& McGill1994).A multimethodapproach
involvingnot only standardsurveyinstruments,but also personalizedvignettes,
in-depthinterviews,and perhapsobservationalmethods - will ultimatelybe
required to investigate these and other possible religious variations in the
parentaldecision makingprocess.
1022 / Social Forces 74:3,March1996
References
Bartkowski,John P. 1995. "Sparethe Rod ... or Spare the Child? Divergent Perspectiveson
ConservativeProtestantChild Discipline.' Reviewof ReligiousResearch.37:97-116.
Bartkowski,John P., and ChristopherG. Ellison. 1995. "DivergentModels of Childrearingin
Popular Manuals: Conservative Protestants vs. the MainstreamExperts." Sociologyof
Religion56:21-34.
Beck, Scott H., Bettie S. Cole, and Judith A. Hammond. 1991. "Religious Heritage and
Premarital Sex: Evidence from a National Sample of Young Adults." Journalfor the
ScientificStudyof Religion30:173-80.
Boone, Kathleen C. 1989. The BibleTells ThemSo: TheDiscourseof ProtestantFundamentlism.
SUNY Press.
Bronfenbrenner, Urie. 1958. "Socializationand Social Class throughTime and Space.' Pp. 400-
25 in Readingsin Social Psychology,3d ed., edited by Eleanor Maccoby, Theodore
Newcomb, and Eugene Hartley.Holt, Rinehart& Winston.
Burkett,Steven R. 1993. "Perceived Parents' Religiosity, Friends' Drinking, and Hellfire: A
Panel Study of Adolescent Drinking."Reviewof ReligiousResearch35:134-54.
Campbell,Ross, with Pat Likes.1989. KidsWhoFollow,KidsWhoDon't.VictorBooks.
1992. How to ReallyLoveYourChild.Victor Books.
Capps, Donald. 1992. "Religionand Child Abuse: Perfect Together.' Journalforthe Scientific
Studyof Religion31:1-14.
Cazenave, Noel A., and MurrayA. Straus.1990. "Race,Class, Network Embeddedness,and
Family Violence:A Searchfor Potent SupportSystems."Pp. 321-39 in PhysicalViolencein
AmericanFamilies:Risk Factorsand Adaptationsto Violencein 8,145 Families,edited by
MurrayA. Straus and RichardJ. Geltes. Transaction.
Christenson,Larly. 1970. TheChristianFamily.BethanyHouse.
Daugherty,Billy Joe. 1991. BuildingStrongerMarriagesandFamilies:Aaking YourHousea Home.
HarrisonHouse.
Dobson, James.1970. Dare to Discipline.living Books/Tyndale.
. 1976. 7heStrong-Willed Child:BirththroughAdolescence. Living Books/Tyndale.
.1987. ParentingIsn'tfor Cowards.Word.
Duvall, Debra, and Alan Booth. 1979. "Social Class, Stress, and Physical Punishment."
International Reviewof ModernSociology9:103-17.
Eckenrode,John, Molly Laird, and John Doris. 1993. "School Performanceand Disciplinary
Problemsamong Abused and Neglected Children.' Developmental Psychology29:53-62.
Egeland, Byron, Deborah Jacobvitz,and K. Papatola. 1987. "IntergenerationalContinuity of
Abuse." Pp. 255-76 in ChildAbuseand Neglect:BiosocialDimensions,edited by RichardJ.
Gelles and J.B.Lancaster.Aldine.
Ellison, ChristopherG., and John P. Bartkowski.1996. "Religion and the Legitimation of
Violence:The Case of ConservativeProtestantismand CorporalPunishment."In TheWeb
of Violence:From Interpersonalto Global,edited by Lester Kurtz and Jennifer Turpin.
University of Illinois Press. In press.
Ellison, ChristopherG., John P. Bartkowski,and Michelle L. Segal. 1996. "Do Conservative
Protestant Parents Spank More? Evidence from the National Survey of Families and
Households."SocialScienceQuarterly.In press.
Ellison, Christopher G., and Darren E. Sherkat. 1993a. "Conservative Protestantism and
Support for CorporalPunishment."AmericanSociological Review58:131-44.
-. 1993b. "Obedience and Autonomy: Religion and ChildrearingValues Reconsidered."
Journalfor the ScientificStudyof Religion32:313-29.
Erlanger,Howard. 1974. "Social Class and Corporal Punishment in Childrearing A Reas-
sessment."AmericanSociological Review39:68-85.
Fabrizio,Pat. 1969. Children- Fun or Frenzy?Self-published.
Conservative Protestantism and Corporal Punishment / 1027
Nelsen, Hart M., and Alice Kroliczak 1984. 'Parental Use of the Threat'God Will Punish':
Replicationand Extension."Jounalfor the ScientificStudyof Religion23:267-77.
Nunn, Clyde Z. 1964. "Child-Controlthrough a 'Coalition with God.'" Child Development
35:417-32.
Rose, Susan D. 1988. KeepingThemOut of the Handsof Satan:EvangelicalSchoolingin America.
Routledge,Chapman& Hall.
Simons,RonaldL, Jay Beaman,Rand D. Conger,and W. Chao. 1993. "ChildhoodExperience,
Conceptionsof Parenting,and Attitudesof Spouse as Deteiminantsof ParentalBehavior."
Journalof Marriageand theFamily55:91-106.
Simons,RonaldL., ChristineJohnson,and RandD. Conger.1994."HarshCorporalPunishment
versus Quality of ParentalInvolvementas an Explanationof AdolescentMaladjustment."
Journalof Marriageand theFamily56:591-607.
Simons,RonaldL, Les B. Whitbeck,RandD. Conger,and Wu Chyi-In.1991."Intergenerational
Transmissionof Harsh Parenting."Developmental Psychology27:159-71.
Stark, Rodney. 1984. "Religion and Conformity: Reaffirming a Sociology of Religion."
SociologicalAnalysis45:27342.
Straus, Murray A. 1991. "Discipline and Deviance: Physical Punishment of Children and
Violence and Other Crimein Adulthood."SocialProblems38:133-54.
-. 1994a. "Shouldthe Use of CorporalPunishmentby ParentsBe ConsideredChild Abuse?
Yes." Pp. 197-203 in DebatingChildren'sLives: CurrentControversieson Childrenand
Adolescents,edited by MarshaA. Mason and Eileen Gambrill.Sage.
1994b. Beatingthe Devil Out of Them:CorporalPunishmentin AmericanFamilies and Its
Effectson Children.LexingtonBooks.
Straus,MurrayA., and RichardJ. Gelles. 1986. "SocialChangeand Changein FamilyViolence
from 1975 to 1985 as Revealed by Two National Surveys."Journalof Marriage and the
Family48:465-79.
Sweet, James A., LarryBumpass, and Vaughn Call. 1988. "The Design and Content of the
National Survey of Families and Households." Center for Demography and Ecology,
University of Wisconsin,Madison.
Swindoll, Chuck.1991. TheStrongFamily:GrowingWisein FamilyLife.Multnomah.
Taylor,Leslie, and Adah Maurer.1985. ThinkTwice:TheMedicalEffectsof PhysicalPunishment.
GenerationBooks.
Wald, Kenneth D., Dennis E. Owen, and Samuel S. Hill. 1989. "Habits of the Mind? The
Problem of Authority in the New ChristianRight."Pp. 93-108 in Religionand Political
Behaviorin the UnitedStates,edited by Ted G. Jelen.Praeger.
Wauchope,BarbaraA., and MurrayA. Straus.1990."PhysicalPunishmentand PhysicalAbuse
of AmericanChildren:IncidenceRatesby Age, Gender,and OccupationalClass."Pp. 133-
48 in PhysicalViolencein AmericanFamilies:RiskFactorsandAdaptationsto Violencein 8,145
Families,edited by MurrayA. Strausand RichardJ. Gelles. Transaction.
Weiss, Bahr, Kenneth A. Dodge, John E. Bates, and Gregory S. Pettit. 1992. "Some Conse-
quences of EarlyHarshDiscipline:ChildAggressionand a MaladaptiveSocialInformation
ProcessingStyle." ChildDevelopment 63:1321-35.
Widom,C.S.1989. "ChildAbuse, Neglect, and Violent CriminalBehavior.nCriminology 27:251-
71.
Wiehe,Vemon R. 1990. "ReligiousInfluenceon ParentalAttitudestoward the Use of Corporal
Punishment."Journalof FamilyViolence5:173-86.
Wolfe, David A. 1987. ChildAbuse:ImplicationsforChildDevelopment andPsychopathology. Sage.