Psychology paper

physicaldiscipline.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >Psychology paper

F E A T U R E

Sociocultural Differences in the Developmental Consequences of the Use of Physical Discipline During Childhood for African Americans

ARTHUR L. WHALEY New York State Psychiatric Institute

Given the diverse cultures that can shape parenting behavior, some basic assumptions regarding the links between parenting styles and developmental outcomes may not be

universal. Although a positive correlation between the use of physical discipline (i.e.,

spanking) and disruptive disorders in children is found in studies of European Ameri- can families, research on African American families has found a negative association

or none at all. Moreover, a review of the literature indicates that the positive associa- tion between spanking and child behavior problems is bidirectional for White families, whereas it is the product of reverse causation (i.e., negative child behaviors result in

spanking) in Black families. The implications of these sociocultural differences for par- ent training programs and the family study of disruptive behaviors are discussed.

' African American * discipline * disruptive disorders * parenting * family studies

Contemporary theories and research sug- broader community instead of vice versa gest that the broader sociocultural context (Kelley, Sanchez-Hucles, & Walker, 1993; may play a more important role than par- Mason, Cauce, Gonzales, & Hiraga, 1996). enting behaviors or family characteristics in Given the diverse cultures that can shape developmental outcomes (e.g., Brooks- parenting behavior, some basic assumptions Gunn, Duncan, Klebanov, & Sealand, 1993; regarding the links between parenting styles Gorman-Smith & Tolan, 1998; Harris, 1995; and child development may not be univer- Ogbu, 1981). Moreover, several studies pro- sal. Consequently, the cross-cultural validity vide empirical support for the notion that of research based on these assumptions is parenting practices are shaped by the called into question.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Arthur L. Whaley, Department of Social Psychiatry, New York State Psychiatric Institute, 1051 Riverside Drive, Unit 8, New

York, New York 10032. Electronic mail may be sent to [email protected].

W H A I, E Y

One such assumption is the belief that the use of physical discipline (i.e., spanking) leads to the development of conduct disor- ders or disruptive behaviors in children. The purpose of this article is to review the evi- dence suggesting sociocultural differences in developmental outcomes from the use of spanking by African American parents in contrast to their European American coun- terparts. (Use of the term physical discipline in this article always refers to spanking.) In addition, the implications of these sociocul- tural differences for parent training pro- grams and the family study of disruptive be- haviors are discussed. Specifically, the consequences of ethnocentric biases in gen- eralizing from White samples to African Americans are explicated, and suggestions are offered as to how to make such research and training culturally sensitive.

Physical Punishment and Disruptive behavior

The positive association between aversive parenting and disruptive disorders in chil- dren is a well-established empirical finding. Cohen and Brook (1987) reported a positive relationship between "power assertive pun- ishment" and behavior problems in a sample of 725 children in an 8-year longitu- dinal study of two upstate New York coun- ties. Similarly, Vuchinich, Bank, and Patter- son (1992) found a positive association between aversive parenting and antisocial behavior in a 2-year longitudinal study of 206 preadolescent boys. Both of these longi- tudinal investigations also revealed a recip- rocal relationship between negative parent- ing and behavioral disorders, suggesting a mutually reinforcing cycle of negative inter- actions between parent and child. A cross- sectional study of 1,285 youths and their par- ents by Goodman et al. (1998) also found a positive correlation between physical pun- ishment and disruptive disorders.

The above studies on parenting style and child behavior problems have several limita-

tions. First, they tend to include several dif- ferent parenting behaviors in their measure of aversive parenting. Thus it is unclear whether spanking per se is responsible for the negative behavioral outcomes in chil- dren. Second, this style of parenting has been referred to as power assertive punishment (Cohen & Brook, 1987) and authoritarian (Baumrind, 1972), suggesting that parents who use spanking as a disciplinary tech- nique have little or no regard for the child: Their main concern is obedience to author- ity. Finally, this research and the conclusions drawn from it come from studies of com- pletely or predominantly European Ameri- can samples. Thus it can be argued that an ethnocentric bias is operating in the design, conduct, and interpretation of research on the association between parenting and dis- ruptive disorders in children.

For example, physical discipline can be either parent oriented or child oriented. A child-oriented view assumes that children need to learn obedience to become self- respecting and responsible adults, whereas a parent-oriented perspective considers obe- dience to parental authority an end in it- self (see Kelley, Power, & Wimbush, 1992). Kelley et al. (1992) found physical punish- ment to be correlated with both parent- oriented and child-oriented disciplinary styles in a group of low-income Black moth- ers. This finding is at odds with the notion, derived from the study of White families, that use of physical discipline always reflects a parent-centered style (Kelley et al., 1992, 1993). Further evidence of the cultural un- derpinnings of the use of physical disci- pline comes from studies of within-group variation among Black families. Heffer and Kelley (1987) examined race and income differences in 83 mothers' views of the ac- ceptability, as measured by the Treatment Evaluation Inventory, of positive reinforce- ment, response cost, spanking, and medica- tion as child behavior management strate- gies. They found that physical punishment was acceptable to 64% of low-income and 67% of middle-income Black mothers, whereas 60% of low-income White mothers

C U L T U R E A N D T H E C O N S E Q U E N C E S O F S P A N K I N G 7

endorsed it in contrast to 25% of their middle-income counterparts (Heffer & Kelley, 1987). These findings suggest that, unlike Eu- ropean Americans, physical punishment is not simply a social class phenomenon for African Americans. These studies, taken together, in- dicate that spanking may represent different motivations and meanings for Black and White parents.

There are a few studies that examine eth- nic/racial differences in the developmental consequences of physical punishment. One of the earliest studies was conducted by Baumrind (1972), who found that, unlike with her White subsample, an authoritarian parenting style was not associated with nega- tive behavioral outcomes for Black pre- school children. Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates, and Pettit (1986) followed a sample of 466 European American and 100 African American children of various socioeco- nomic backgrounds from kindergarten through third grade. Maternal use of physi- cal discipline was assessed by interviews and questionnaires. Children's externalizing be- haviors were rated annually by mothers, teachers, and peers. Teacher and peer rat- ings of externalizing behavior problems were positively associated with mothers' use of physical discipline for European Ameri- can mothers but not for African American mothers.

Another study by McLeod, Kruttschnitt, and Dornfeld (1994) used data from the Children of the National Longitudinal Sur- vey of Youth to compare 536 Black families and 1,330 White families in terms of the link between parenting and antisocial behavior. Using the 1986 and 1988 data on spanking, McLeod et al. (1994) demonstrated reverse causation between spanking and antisocial behavior for Black mothers, that is, chil- dren's antisocial behavior led to them being spanked. The relationship between White mothers' use of spanking and children's an- tisocial behavior was reciprocal or bidirec- tional. McLeod et al.'s findings of a recipro- cal relationship between spanking and behavioral disorders in children for the White subsample were consistent with other

studies that used broader measures of aver- sive parenting (Cohen & Brook, 1987; Goodman et al., 1998; Vuchinich et al., 1992). These studies, in conjunction, sug- gest that mothers' use of physical discipline is a risk factor for disruptive behaviors for European American families but not for Af- rican American families.

In fact, in some instances, physical pun- ishment may be a protective factor against the development of child behavior problems in African American families. The results of a longitudinal study of 112 inner-city boys, 6-10 years of age, by Wasserman, Miller, Pinner, and Jaramillo (1996) are consistent with this argument. Wasserman et al. found that, after controlling for baseline behavior problems, parental reports of punishment on the Pittsburgh Youth Study Survey were negatively correlated, and child reports on the same instrument were not correlated at all, with measures of external- izing behavior 15 months later. In contrast, they reported that fighting, as measured by an adapted version of the Conflict Tactics Scales, between parents and children was a positive predictor of externalizing behav- iors. Ethnocentric bias is evident in Wasser- man et al.'s perspective by their categoriza- tion of physical punishment, along with more severe behaviors like fighting, as a form of parent—child conflict. Because of the unexpected findings, Wasserman et al. acknowledged that punishment and fighting are different constructs, but they did not consider the possibility that the results may have been because their sample is 54% Af- rican American and 44% Latino.

The results of Wasserman et al. (1996) are the most compelling evidence of the lack of cross-cultural validity of the positive association between physical discipline and disruptive disorders in children. Overall, the pattern of results from the various studies of African American families appears on the surface to be inconsistent. Wasserman et al. reported a negative association between physical punishment and disruptive disor- ders, Baumrind (1972) and Deater-Deckard et al. (1986) reported no association, and

W H A L E Y

McLeod et al. (1994) reported a positive as- sociation with reverse causation. These vari- ous studies have a number of methodologi- cal differences that may be responsible for the differential outcomes. The most impor- tant point, however, is that these studies have in common the fact that none of them support the hypothesis that parents' use of spanking causes disruptive disorders as a de- velopmental outcome in African American children. The situation is analogous to the difference between one-tailed and two-tailed statistical tests. Allowance for cross-cultural differences in the association would be equivalent to a two-tailed test. On the other hand, ethnocentric bias in interpretations of the positive association found for European American families is tantamount to a one- tailed test, so both null results and negative associations found in studies of African Americans are treated uniformly in hypoth- esis testing.

The meaning of physical punishment in Black communities includes concerns about survival (see Baumrind, 1972; Belsky, 1993; Kelley et al., 1992; Mason et al., 1996). These concerns derive from both historical and contemporary experiences with oppres- sive societal conditions. African American children tend to grow up in communities suffering economic, political, and social dis- advantages, and they must therefore cope with more environmental adversities. "In contrast to middle-class mothers, who can afford to be more tolerant of mild levels of disobedience, the consequences of disobe- dience in a low-income environment may be much more serious and may require more forceful methods to prevent any level of in- volvement" (Kelley et al., 1992, p. 574). Spanking may have originally functioned as a means of teaching children to respect power and authority to protect them from greater harm by violating social rules. Some researchers have traced this perspective back to slavery (see review by Belsky, 1993). Although the consequences are often not as severe as during the era of slavery, contem- porary experiences with legal authorities re-

flect the same concerns. A common saying in the Black community is "I'd rather my child get a beating from me than from the police." Belsky (1993) aptly pointed out that the Rodney King beating was evidence in support of the assertion that violation of so- cietal rules has graver consequences for Af- rican Americans. From an African American cultural perspective, the goal of spanking may be to use strong external controls to help children develop better self-control rather than external control being an end in itself. In this way, use of physical disci- pline can be construed as a child-oriented parenting technique when used by some Black parents.

Implications

Parent Training

Successful behavior change from parent training will be limited without considering the parents' cultural background (Forehand & Kotchick, 1996). The functional signifi- cance of spanking in African American fami- lies needs to be assessed as a part of any intervention targeting their parenting skills. It should be determined whether a given parent uses spanking as a parent-oriented versus a child-oriented approach. These two approaches would require different ration- ales for encouraging a parent to use alterna- tive strategies. Interventions for parent- o r i e n t e d p u n i s h m e n t w o u l d e n t a i l challenges to the attitudes underlying the behavior, whereas child-oriented physical discipline can be replaced with equally ef- fective alternative methods of teaching chil- dren consequences for inappropriate behav- ior. Moreover, the alternative should be viable to the African American parent. Re- search suggests that response cost, which in- volves reprimands and taking away privi- leges, is an a c c e p t a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e to spanking for Black parents (see Heffer & Kelley, 1987; Kelley et al., 1993). These ad-

C U L T U R E A N D T H E C O N S E Q U E N C E S O F S P A N K I N G

aptations may make parent training pro- grams more culturally sensitive.

The importance of a cultural analysis of physical discipline was illustrated by the re- sults from a parent training program for inner-city African-American families re- ported by Myers et al. (1992), who designed a parent training program that was ostensi- bly sensitive to African American culture. The cultural elements included the use of Black professionals, discussions of ethnic/ racial pride, and strategies for helping chil- dren cope with racism. The program re- sulted in significant improvements on a number of parental, family, and child behav- ior outcomes, many of which were main- tained 1 year later. However, at 1-year follow- up, Myers et al. (1992) noted "a disturbing tendency for treatment parents to regress to the use of earlier and more coercive parent- ing practices" (p. 145). An assessment of the motivation and meaning underlying the use of spanking and other "coercive" parenting practices may prevent such tendencies on the part of African American parents. An important lesson from Myers et al.'s inter- vention program is that cultural sensitivity requires that the behavior management strategies themselves be evaluated.

Family Studies of Disruptive Disorders

Psychological and biological studies of dis- ruptive disorders in children implicate aver- sive parenting practices as a major cause (e.g., Cohen & Brook, 1987; Pine et al., 1996; Wasserman et al., 1996). These studies do not take into account cross-cultural varia- tion in the relationship between parenting behaviors and child behavior problems. One consequence of this ethnocentric bias is that researchers inappropriately generalize from studies of predominantly White samples to minority samples from inner-city communi- ties. This methodological error is particu- larly problematic in biological studies. For example, Pine et al. (1997) tested the hy- pothesis that serotonin deficits were associ- ated with antisocial behaviors in Black and

Latino children. It is important to note that they used the same sample as Wasserman et al. (1996). Consistent with their hypothesis, Pine et al. also found that parenting behav- iors were associated with low serotonergic activity. From a sociocultural perspective, it could be argued that both aversive parent- ing styles and disruptive behavior are the re- sult of a third variable, such as exposure to community violence.

Exposure to community violence has been found to be correlated with aggressive behaviors in urban youths (Gorman-Smith & Tolan, 1998). Moreover, Gorman-Smith and Tolan found no significant mediational or moderator effect for parenting practices in the association between exposure to com- m u n i t y violence and youth aggression. These findings are consistent with Harris's (1995) and Ogbu's (1981) theories of child development, which posit a more significant role for the extrafamilial environment. It is also possible that parents become more con- trolling and aversive in response to concerns about violence and other dangers in their children's environment (cf. Kelley et al., 1993; Mason et al., 1996). Although both the parenting style and child behavior prob- lems may be the result of community vio- lence, an ethnocentric perspective would lead to the misattribution of adverse devel- opmental outcomes to the family because environmental adversity, in this case expo- sure to community violence, is treated as constant.

Family studies that ignore sociocultural and environmental differences in communi- ties can lead to blame-the-victim types of conclusions. Schwartz (1998) pointed out, for example, that research on the biological bases of aggression and violence in African American and Latino children from inner- city communities limits the variability of al- most all social factors (i.e., neighborhood poverty, racism, etc.) related to juvenile de- linquency by holding them constant, leaving only the variance owing to individual differ- ences to be explained. These types of de- signs would leave consumers of research

10 W H A 1, F. Y

with the impression that all disruptive be- haviors in children have exclusively biologi- cal etiology. Although these concerns are not new, they need to be articulated given the resurgence of biological research and the advances in biogenetic technology.

The treatment of noxious (extrafamilial) social environments as a constant in family studies of disruptive disorders in ethnic and racial minority communities reflects the cul- tural values of researchers (Schwartz, 1998). The implication of this type of research de- sign is that high-risk environments are "natural" for Blacks and other ethnic/racial minority children. In other words, the cul- tural ecology of a community is construed as a source of within-group variation but not between-groups variation. This assumption is challenged by research indicating that Black and White families are similarly af- fected by environmental adversity (McLeod et al., 1994; Sampson, 1987). Therefore, generalizations from family studies of White middle-class families living in low-risk envi- ronments to Black families living in high-risk environments without considering between- groups differences in ecological context constitute a racist perspective, albeit a subtle form. The implicit assumption is that the overwhelming racial disparities in almost ev- ery indicator of health and well-being play no role in the dysfunctional or maladaptive family and developmental outcomes. A fo- cus on differences at the individual or family level would then serve to legitimize the so- cial conditions by promoting deficit models of parenting and child development. Racism in scientific research must be acknowledged and confronted, if scientific inquiry is to have humanity and integrity. For a research design to be more culturally sensitive, it must address between-groups differences at the ecological level in addition to the indi- vidual and family levels.

Concluding Remarks

The positive correlation between the use of physical discipline and disruptive disorders

in children found in research on European American families does not appear to be generalizable to African American families (Deater-Decker et al., 1986; McLeod et al., 1994; Wasserman et al., 1996). Black par- ents' use of spanking is more a consequence than a cause of problem behaviors in chil- dren (Mason et al., 1996; McLeod et al., 1994). Moreover, parents in the African American community, especially in low- income urban areas, may use authoritarian methods in attempts to protect their chil- dren from noxious social environments. Awareness of sociocultural differences in the relationship between parenting practices and developmental outcomes would put Black parents' behavior in proper perspec- tive, as well as encourage interventions and policies that address community-level prob- lems to ensure healthy child development in high-risk environments.

On the one hand, these controlling methods of parenting may be effective in reducing undesirable or high-risk behaviors of Black children and adolescents (e.g., Jemmott & Jemmott, 1992; Mason et al., 1996; Wasserman et al., 1996). On the other hand, they may place African Ameri- can children at risk for other problems, such as academic failure (Taylor, Hinton, £ Wilson, 1995) and child abuse (Belsky, 1993; Cappelleri, Eckenrode, & Powers, 1993). Thus an appreciation of sociocultural differ- ences in parenting styles and related out- comes should not lead to unconditional ac- ceptance of punitive behaviors because of their cultural significance. As mentioned earlier, alternative strategies that are cultur- ally compatible, such as response cost, may be useful if the motivation is child oriented and not parent oriented. Sensitivity to dif- ferences in parenting styles across cultures simply means that the functional signifi- cance of spanking should be explored, and the ecological context in which families live should be taken i n t o consideration in theory, research, and practice devoted to understanding environmental influences on child development.

C U L T U R E A N D T H E C O N S E Q U E N C E S O F S P A N K I N G 11

References

Baumrind, D. (1972). An exploratory study of so- cialization effects on Black children: Some Black-White comparisons. Child Development, 43, 261-267.

Belsky,J. (1993). Etiology of child maltreatment: A developmental—ecological analysis. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 114, 413-434.

Brooks-Gunn, }., Duncan, G.J., Klebanov, P. K., & Sealand, N. (1993). Do neighborhoods influence child and adolescent develop- ment? American Journal of Sociology, 99, 353-395.

Cappelleri, J. C., Eckenrode, J., & Powers, J. L. (1993). The epidemiology of child abuse: Findings from the Second National Inci- dence and Prevalence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect. American Journal of Public Health, 83, 1622-1624.

Cohen, P., & Brook,]. (1987). Family factors re- lated to the persistence of psychopathology in childhood and adolescence. Psychiatry, 50, 332-345.

Dealer-Decker, K., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G, S. (1986). Physical discipline among African American and European American mothers: Links to children's externalizing be- haviors. Developmental Psychology, 32, 1065-1072.

Forehand, R., & Kotchick, B. A. (1996). Cultural diversity: A wake-up call for parent training. Behavior Therapy, 27, 187-206.

Goodman, S. H., Hoven, C. W., Narrow, W. E., Cohen, P., Fielding, B., Alegria, M., Leaf, P . J . , Kandel, D., McCue Horwitz, S., Bravo, M., Moore, R., & Dulcan, M. K. (1998). Mea- surement of risk for mental disorders and competence in a psychiatric epidemiologic community survey: The National Institute of Mental Health Methods for the Epidemiol- ogy of Child and Adolescent Mental Disor- ders (MECA) study. Social Psychiatry and Psy- chiatric Epidemiology, 33, 162-173.

Gorman-Smith, D., & Tolan, P. (1998). The role of exposure to community violence and de- velopmental problems among inner-city youth. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 101-116.

ment? A group socialization theory of devel- opment. Psychological Review, 102, 458-489.

Heffer, R. W., & Kelley, M. L. (1987). Mothers' acceptance of behavioral interventions: The influence of parent race and income. Behav- ior Therapy, 18, 153-163.

Jemmott, L. S., & Jemmott, J. B. (1992). Family structure, parental strictness, and sexual be- havior among inner-city Black male adoles- cents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 7, 192-207.

Kelley, M. L., Power, T. G., & Wimbush, D. D. (1992). Determinants of disciplinary prac- tices in low-income Black mothers. Child De- velopment, 63, 573-582.

Kelley, M. L., Sanchez-Hucles, J . , & Walker, R. R. (1993). Correlates of disciplinary practices in working- to middle-class African-American mothers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 252-264.

Mason, C. A., Cauce, A. M., Gonzales, N . , & Hiraga, Y. (1996). Neither too sweet nor too sour: Problem peers, maternal control, and problem behavior in African American ado- lescents. Child Development, 67, 2115-2130.

McLeod, J. D., Kruttschnitt, C., & Dornfeld, M. (1994). Does parenting explain the effects of structural conditions on children's antisocial behavior? A comparison of Blacks and Whites. Social Forces, 73, 575-604.

Myers, H. F., Alvy, K. T., Arlington, A., Richard- son, M. A., Marigna, M., Huff, R., Main, M., & Newcomb, M. D. (1992). The impact of a par- ent training program on inner-city African- American families. Journal of Community Psy- chology, 20, 132-147.

Ogbu, J. U. (1981). Origins of human compe- tence: A cultural-ecological perspective. Child Dmelopment, 52, 413-429.

Pine, D. S., Coplan, J. D., Wasserman, G. A., Miller, L. S., Fried, J. E., Davies, M., Cooper, T. B., Greenhill, L., Shaffer, D., & Parsons, B. (1997). Neuroendocrine response to fenflur- amine challenge in boys: Associations with ag- gressive behavior and adverse rearing. Ar- chives of General Psychiatry, 54, 839-846.

Sampson, R.J. (1987). Urban Black violence: The effect of male joblessness and family dis- ruption. American Journal of Sociology, 93, 348-382.

Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the child's environ- Schwartz, S. (1998). The role of values in the

12 W H A 1. E Y

nature/nurture debate about psychiatric dis- orders. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemi- ology, 33, 356-362.

Taylor, L. C., Hinton, I. D., & Wilson, M. N. (1995). Parental influences on academic per- formance in African-American students. Jour- nal of Child and Family Studies, 4, 293-302.

Vuchinich, S., Bank, L., & Patterson, G. R.

(1992). Parenting, peers, and the stability of antisocial behavior in preadolescent boys. De- velopmental Psychology, 28, 510-521.

Wasserman, G. A., Miller, L. S., Pinner, E., & Jaramillo, B. (1996). Parenting and predic- tors of early conduct problems in urban, high-risk boys. Journal of the Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 1227-1236.

Correction to Comas-Diaz (1998)

A quotation within the editorial "Ethnic Minority Psychology: Identity, Empowerment, and Transformation," by Lillian Comas-Diaz (Cultural Diversity and Mental Health, 1998, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 151-152) was incorrectly attributed to Nelson Mandela and contained errors. The original quote appeared on p. 151. The corrected quote follows.

"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us." We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God—There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you... .We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we're liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others. (Marianne Williamson, A Return to Love, 1992, New York: HarperPerennial, pp. 190-191)