e a . bl. . 92613.. ‘ in x 4.71:}... E, 2.. . 3.1.. 1 flat Let... Fit. 1:... .. . .93... .ttaalf: a v pl: 3 JLK .l .971... xsdmfl ‘ £135! )1 a: t I; .7 55$ ‘1': .31 u"... h ‘ :4 4 xiii}? :1..>$..xa‘ . X ghtr‘w. .5) I A: !. 5h ' :..u o L fikvvg. k. .5.“ .uuuuuvfimm f '3... a.“ . fl;- {tr-.13.! 313 V «KIN! w. m... *xi‘ .1 AN...|I!{DI\.>I: . q .I is“... v..\ .7 s f - iii. .)s$|.s :....v.! . . #1.“. TE 1111111111le IVE [murmurmmummm ” 01410 3240 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Perceptions of Physical Abuse in African American and European American Subcultures presented by Verniha.Annette Marsh has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D . degree in Psychology Date 11/16/95 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771 LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE II RETURN BOX to move this chockoutfrom your record. TO AVOID FINES Mum on or before duo duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE APR 21mg ll 7 - 7 -'~ 4:1 T 5?: i I l MSU I. An Milan-tin ActionlEqud Oppommity UWIOI'I WA PERCEPTIONS OF PHYSICAL ABUSE IN AFRICAN AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN AMERICAN SUBCULTURES By Vernita Annette Marsh A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1995 ABSTRACT PERCEPTIONS OF PHYSICAL ABUSE IN THE AFRICAN AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN AMERICAN SUBCULTURES By Vernita Annette Marsh Perceptions of physical discipline by 218 adult participants were analyzed using a retrospective method and cross-cultural comparisons. Although the focus of this study involved African Americans and European Americans, no racial group was excluded. {will/Tour major issues were examined: (a) perceived severity of past physical discipline; (b) 'I. reported frequency of past physical discipline; (c) current perceptions of child discipline and physical abuse; (d) the relationship between religious amliation and endorsing the physical punishment of children. African Americans indicated that they had received more childhood physical discipline than their European American cohorts, yet they perceived this corporal punishment as being less abusive than did the European Americans. African Americans were also more likely to approve of physical punishment for the next generation than European Americans. These results support the idea that receiving much physical discipline as a child was associated with the sanctioning of the firture use of corporal punishment. Childhood religious afliliation better predicted one's perceptions of physical discipline than did one's current affiliation. Childhood religious afiliation also interacted with gender in regard to the approval of corporal punishment. Fundamentalist men were much more approving of physical punishment than Fundamentalist women, while men and women raised in more Liberal religions difl‘ered little in this respect. Education also influenced perceptions of physical punishment. Generally, the more educated reported having received less frequent and less severe physical punishment than the less educated. An authoritarian ethic appears to underlie the use of corporal punishment. African Americans and others reared in Fundamentalist religions had more authoritarian attitudes toward child-rearing. One’s endorsement of physical discipline for the next generation seems more influenced by childhood than by later experiences, emphasizing the importance of early preventive interventions. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to acknowledge my chair, John R. Hurley, Ph. D. who I have nown over a period of 15 years. Special gratitude and thanks are extended for believing in me, encouraging me, as well as shaping me to become a clinical psychologist. His gentle confrontation in critiquing my writing has also been much appreciated. Also, I would like to acknowledge the other committee members, Elaine Donelson, Ph.D., Bertram Stoffelmayr, Ph.D., and Lee June, PhD. for their assistance, guidance, and support throughout my dissertation project. Also, I would like to thank my research assistant, Julius Kim, who volunteered his services to help collect and code my data. I appreciate your dedication and your skill for details. Finally, I would like to acknowledge my family and friends who made it possible for ' me to complete my doctorate’s degree. “Without the emotional support from my parents, siblings, and friends, it would have been impossible for me to have completed my degree. I would like to especially thank Shirley Bass-Wright and Lisa Jordan who were there for me when I needed it most. Thanks for your understanding and endless support. I would like to acknowledge a friend, Pete who has been particularly supportive during the latter stages of my dissertation. Thanks for believing in me. Again, I would like to acknowledge my parents who ofl‘ered many prayers and emotional support for me. Finally, I would like thank God and give him the glory and credit for making all things possible. Throughout this process, I have learned to put my faith and trust in him. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ................................................... vii LIST OF FIGURE ................................................... viii INTRODUCTION .................................................... 1 Theoretical Model ................................................... 4 Potential Benefits of the Study .......................................... 6 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................ 9 Ethnicity ......................................................... 10 Social Class ....................................................... 12 Ethnicity and Social Class ............................................ 12 Religion ................ ' ......................................... 14 Gender .......................................................... 15 Summary ........................................................ 15 HYPOTHESES ...................................................... 18 METHOD .......................................................... 19 Sample .......................................................... 19 Measures ........................................................ 21 DQ-18 Questionnaire .............................................. 21 Giovannoni & Becerra's (1979) Vignettes ............................... 25 Smith's (1990) Religious Classification System ............................ 26 Procedure ........................................................ 27 RESULTS .......................................................... 28 Retrospective Perceptions of Severity of Abuse ............................ 28 Endorsements of Frequency of Physical Discipline .......................... 30 Current Perceptions of Child-Rearing Physical Discipline ..................... 32 Post Hoc Analyses .................................................. 32 DISCUSSION ....................................................... 38 Sampling Issues .................................................... 38 Overview of the Findings ............................................. 39 Implications and Recommendations ..................................... 44 Methodological Limitations ................. - .......................... 48 APPENDICES ...................................................... 51 Appendix A ....................................................... 53 Appendix B ....................................................... 56 Appendix C ....................................................... 61 Appendix D ............................................... A ....... 69 LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................. 70 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Descriptive Statistics of Demographic Variables by Racial Groups ....................................................... 20 2 Descriptive Statistics for Reported Severity of Physical Punishment in Childhood by Race .............................................. 29 3 Frequency of Reported Childhood Physical Punishment by Race ........... 31 4 Current Perceptions of Physical Abuse by the Vignette Measure ........... 34 5 Mean CAPP Scores for Current Perceptions of Physical Discipline by Childhood Religion and Gender .................................... 37 LIST OF FIGURE Figure Page 1 Mean Scores for Current Attitudes of Physical Punishment (CAPP) by Gender and Childhood Religious Affiliation ......................... 36 INTRODUCTION Literature addressing the plight of abused children has grown markedly. Concerns about child abuse in the U. S. have increased exceptionally since the 19605 (Rossi, 1978; Gelles & Cornell, 1990; Gil, 1983; Jacobsen, 1986; Wright, 1982). Before the early 19005, child-rearing practices were considered a rather private matter and kept secret by most families (Gelles, 1983; Wright,.l992). Therefore, society values and beliefs about child-rearing as well as child abuse have varied. Historically, adults have shown little concern with the rights of children because they were viewed as the property of their parents (deMause, 1974; Gelles, 1979; Maher, 1987) and sometimes children were subjected to cruel and harsh treatment for the amusement of adults (Pagelow, 1984). Furthermore, children were often physically assaulted as a result of religious beliefs, based on the idea that it was the duty of parents to ”beat the devil" out of them (Pagelow, 1984). It was not until the 19205 and 19305 that Child Guidance Clinics were established in the U. S. (Horn, 1989). Prior to this period, children were often ignored and many children were forced to work long hours as ”miniature" adults for cheap wages. In fact, the first National Child Labor Law was established in 1916 to abolish the abusive practice of children in the work force (Johnsen, 1925; Markham, Lindsey, & Creel, 1969). Health, hygiene, and mental health services for children were largely nonexistent. Parents tended to raise their offspring according to their own values and beliefs (Coleman, Ganong, Clark, & Madsen; 1989) with little community interference or concern. Soon after the establishment of Child Guidance Clinics, mental health professionals began to demand clinical services for children (Horn, 1989). With the increased training of these professionals, research studies of youth were initiated. The U. S. government took a concerted interest in the research of child abuse and neglect by enacting the "Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act" in 1973 and allocating 20 million dollars a year for the purpose of child abuse research and mental health training (Gil, 1983). Even though all this effort to prevent child maltreatment took place, child abuse remains prevalent. According to Green (1988), 2.25 million incidents of child abuse were reported within the U. S. in 1987. Authorities suggest that the incidents which are not reported exceed those reported by as much as 25 to l (Jacobsen, 1986; Burdork, 1980). The vast majority of child abuse cases occur within the family. In a national survey, Gil (1970) found that 87% of child abuse cases involved a parent or parent substitute. As a response to increased interest in child welfare and nonabusive parenting, national and state laws have been developed to address child abuse (Garrett & Rossi, 1978; Gil, 1983). Such laws provide a general definition of child abuse. The U. S. Department of Health and Human Services (1981) defined child abuse as: a situation in which through purposive acts or marked inattention to a child's basic needs, behavior of a parent/ substitute or other adult caretaker caused foreseeable and avoidable injury or impairment to a child or 3 materially contributed to unreasonable prolongation or worsening of an existing injury or impairment (p. 4). Typically, these laws serve as broad guidelines for social behavior. However, there are specific problems inherent in the definition of child abuse (Gelles & Cornell, 1990; McGee & Wolfe, 1991; Straus & Gelles, 1989). First, child abuse laws tend to be vague, permitting great latitude in their interpretation (Garrett & Rossi, 1978; Roscoe, 1987). According to many researchers, it is unclear whether physical or corporal punishment constitutes child abuse (Doemer, 1987; Garbarino & Vondra, 1987). In formulating these laws, legislators may be reifying their own social values or the social majorities‘ beliefs and perceptions (Gil, 1983) and disregarding the perceptions of minority groups. Moreover, it is not known what frequency and/or severity of physical punishment would qualify an act to be considered as abuse from such definitions (Roscoe, 1990; Silver 1968). Ultimately, ”the ambiguity of definition precipitates problems and disagreements among . . . professionals . . . " (Giovannoni & Becerra, 1979, p. 2) and the general population at large. Additionally, the majority of legislators who make child abuse laws are European American middle-class, male attorneys and other European American professionals (Giovannoni & Becerra, 1979). Since minorities and the other social classes have largely been excluded from the creation and interpretation of these laws, whether these laws are representative of all ethnic groups' and social classes' perceptions within the U. S. cannot be determined. Silver (1968) suggested that cultural difi‘erences may influence ”the differential between parental rights and child abuse" (p. 804). It is likely that ethnic 4 groups and social classes will differ in what they perceive child abuse to be. This study proposed to examine African American and European American cultural difi‘erences in perceptions of child abuse, as well as related differences such as social class, religion, and gender differences. It has been noted that attitudes toward child abuse influence one's decision of whether or not to report it (Willis & Wells, 1988). Furthermore, values, social class, religion, and environmental factors contribute to the respondents' perceptions of child discipline (Coleman et al., 1989; Giovannoni & Becerra, 1979; Giovannoni & Billingsley 1970; Grasmick, Bursik, & Kimpel, 1991; Jenkins, Bell, Taylor, & Walker, 1989; Kohn, 1979: Petersen, Lee, & Ellis, 1988; Silver, 1968; “fiche, 1990). However, little is known about ethnic and cultural difi‘erences in the perceptions of child abuse. Given the reality that Afiican Americans and European Americans frequently experience the world difl‘erently, it is likely that these racial/ethnic groups will differ in such perceptions. The present study investigated how African American and European American adult children perceive child physical abuse. Because laws concerning child abusers have tightened and enforcement improved, parents' verbal description of their own conduct may well differ from their actual behavior. Consequently, parents' descriptions were not collected. Ihccretical Model According to the authoritarian personality structure, obedience and submission to authority are valued moral characteristics (Byme, 1974). It is also believed to be the basis 5 for many Fundamentalist religious institutions (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950; Byrne, 1974). Since the African American family traditionally has a strong and predominately Fundamentalist religious orientation (Blau, 1981; Jones, 1990), it was proposed in this study that the authoritarian theory provides an explanatory model as to why African Americans would report more physical abusive acts while perceiving acts of corporal punishment as less abusive in contrast to European Americans. In fact, several works have documented that authoritarian values concerning child-rearing practices contribute to strict or more punitive discipline (Blau, 1981; Janssens, 1994) and child abuse (Whissell, Lewko, Carriere, & Radford, 1990; Williams-Petersen, Myers, Degen, Knisely, Elswick & Schnoll, 1994). In a racial comparison, other studies have found that African Americans tend to adopt more of an authoritarian style of parenting (Blau, 1981; Durrett, O'Bryant, & Pennebaker, 1975; McLoyd, 1990; Marsh, 1991; Reis, 1993) than Whites, while some investigations have shed light on the importance of Black families' ability to parent primarily by using physical discipline (Blau, 1981; Giovannoni & Becerra, 1979; Lindholrn & Willey, 1986; Payne, 1989). From an historical perspective, African Americans were ofien beaten by their slave masters to enforce submission to authority. As a preventive measure, Afiican American mothers would frequently beat their children in an attempt to spare their children from further beatings and cruelty by their slave master (Johnson, 1982; Wright, 1982). Even though slavery has been abolished, values promoting physical punishment and obedience continue to be transmitted to subsequent generations. Coupled with African American's history and their strong religious orientation, they are likely to have authoritarian values 6 that result in perceptions of their parental discipline as less abusive as compared to European Americans. Also based on this authoritarian model, it was proposed that those ascribing to Fundamentalist religions are more likely to condone corporal punishment than those ascribing to Liberal religions. Retential Bmefits of the Stud! This study's main concern was how participants perceived or defined physical child abuse. Another feature concerned how one views others, particularly whether or not these adult respondents perceived their parents' behavior as physically abusive. Information about perceptions of physical child abuse by the general public may be useful as contributions to the formation of laws regarding behaviors that are designated as abusive or nonabusive (O’Toole & Webster, 1988). Additionally, public views of child abuse may also directly influence the reporting of child abuse. Thus, possible differences in perceptions of physical child abuse needed to be considered when addressing related prevalence and incidence rates, especially given that numerous studies (Cupoli & Sewell, 1988; Daniel, Hampton, & Newberger, 1983; Eckenrode, Munsch, Powers & Eckenrode, 1988; Powers & Doris, 1985; Hampton, 1987) have reported that Afiican Americans are over-represented as victims of child abuse compared to European Americans. Possible differences between these two subcultures may also illuminate existing cultural difi‘erences. Certainly, perceptions of physical abuse may provide explanations for actual disciplinary behaviors. Since there are clearly defined 7 cultural differences, perhaps consideration of what is legally admissible child discipline and what is inadmissible as physical abuse is warranted. Differential perceptions of Afiican Americans and European Americans may also have an impact on clinical interventions for patients from these different cultures as this relates to abuse. For example, if an Afiican American describes behavior that appears abusive to a clinician, it would seem important to understand how abuse is defined within the client's culture. Furthermore, possible cultural differences may mean that researchers need to account for these differences when constructing tools for assessing child abuse. Although the child abuse literature is extensive, there is a paucity of scholarly material concerning cultural differences in definitions and perceptions of child abuse (Koski & Mangold, 1988). Much of the pertinent information focuses on the actual reporting of child abuse or the varying incidence or prevalence rates for ethnic groups ' (Berger, Knutson, Mehm, & Perkins, 1988; Daniel, Hampton, & Newberger, 1983; Hampton, 1987; Jason & Andereck, 1983; Powers & Eckenrode, 1988; Rosenthal, 1988). Other studies have concentrated on determining whether abuse occurred within various ethnic groups (Durrett et al., 1975; Giovannoni & Becerra, 1979; Lindholrn & Willey, 1986). Some of the research have addressed perceptions of child-rearing (Coleman et al., 1989; Durrett et al., 1975; Escovar & Escovar, 1985; Giovannoni & Billingsley, 1970; Marsh, 1991; Payne, 1989). Few studies, however, have directly addressed perceptions of child abuse and even fewer scholarly publications considered the role of ethnic/racial difi‘erences. Given a dearth of material concerning the topic of perceptions of physical 8 child abuse, the following literature review addresses research in both child-rearing and child abuse. REVIEW OF LITERATURE A frequently cited study (Giovannoni & Becerra, 1979) compared perceptions of child abuse of various groups of professionals with those of the general public. Findings based on the use of vignettes indicated that professionals rated vignettes depicting child abuse with significantly greater severity than did the general public. Several researchers have adapted this method and found similar findings (Christopherson, 1983; Garrett & Rossi, 1978; Roscoe, 1987). Another study compared the general public's perceptions of child abuse by using both adolescents and adults (Roscoe, 1990). Adolescents ranked the seriousness of different child-rearing practices which were later contrasted with their parents' perceptions and also with those of other community members' and views of Giovannoni and Becerra's (1979) professionals. Teenagers consistently rated child abuse more severely than did the other community members and professionals, indicating that adolescents seem more critical of child abuse than did parents or mental health professionals within the community. Trickett and Susman (1988) compared parents' views of child-rearing behaviors in physically abusive and nonabusive families and found that these parents' perceptions of what was considered to be appropriate parenting differed significantly between these two groups. These findings suggested that parents' values about child-rearing influence how 10 they discipline their children and that abusive parents have less lenient guidelines about child-rearing than nonabusive parents. Ethnicim Ethnic and/or racial differences have also been widely reported. This author ( sh, 1991) has confirmed prior findings of different perceptions of child discipline between European Americans and Afiican Americans (Davis & Havighurst, 1946; is " Erlanger, 1975). Addressing perceptions of child-rearing practices, Marsh found that African American adult children perceived their parents to be much stricter disciplinarians than did European American adult children. Cultural difi‘erences have also been studied with respect to crime. Perceptions of . crimes were examined in three difi‘erent racial groups: Afiican Americans, Mexican Americans, and other Caucasians (Lampe, 1984). Adults were asked to rank and rate the seriousness of various crimes: murder, rape, arson, robbery, physical violence, thefi, and child abuse. As expected, Caucasians ranked child abuse as a significantly more serious crime than did either Afiican Americans or Mexican Americans. Another study concerning mostly Blacks was conducted in Barbados (Payne, 1989). Although outside the U. S., Payne noted this sample was greatly influenced by American culture. Approval of corporal punishment was assessed using Caribbean adults from Barbados, of which 95% were of African descent; 71% approved of corporal punishment. Indicating widespread support for the use of corporal correction, 77% of those who 11 endorsed physical punishment, condoned whipping with a belt or strap as the most common method of discipline. It remains unclear whether this method of physical punishment was primarily attributed to race or culture, but it seems likely that both contributed to this widespread approval. Escovar and Escovar (1985) compared the child-rearing practices of three different cultures: Caucasian, Cuban American, and Latin American. Adults from each culture were asked to rate how they perceived their parents' child-rearing patterns, and, as expected, cultural differences were found. A surprising finding was that Caucasians were perceived as more physically punitive than either Cuban Americans or Latin Americans. However, this finding is consistent with other outcomes indicating significant interethnic and interracial difi‘erences in child discipline, as Hispanics tend to be less abusive than some other ethnic groups (Durrett et al., 1975; Giovannoni & Becerra, 1979; Giovannoni & Billingsley, 1979; Payne, 1989). In suggesting that racial differences may not contribute to how child abuse is defined, one study (Cazenave & Siraus, 1990) appeared to conflict with the previously cited findings. These authors studied difi‘erences between Black and White parents' evaluations of child physical abuse based on a survey completed by Black and White parents regarding their degree of approval of certain parental aggressive acts toward 12-year-olds. They found no significant racial difi‘erences in what these parents perceived to be physically abusive. No apparent reason was given for this atypical finding and the lack of validational support for their measure makes this work difiicult to evaluate. 12 Social Class There is evidence that suggests differential perceptions of child-rearing between low-income and middle-income families. A recent study explored whether the type of community had any influence on child-rearing, and implied that there may be social class differences (Coleman et al., 1989). Rural and urban parents' perceptions of child-rearing were compared in the North Central Region of the U. S. Rural and urban parents perceived parenting difi‘erently. For instance, urban parents placed a significantly higher importance on teaching social skills to their children than did rural parents. Therefore, based upon the assumption that rural families, on the average, are from lower income households than in urban areas, this finding suggested that low-income households (rural areas) difi‘ered fi'om middle-income households (urban areas) in their parenting behaviors. However, this study does not present clear evidence for how child abuse was perceived by these two social classes. Vifrthin the same social class, ethnic groups differed in their views of how parents should rear their children. For example, an early study by Durrett et al., (1975) examined perceptions of child-rearing practices by three ethnic groups. Among low-income Afiican Americans, Caucasians, and Mexican Americans, these authors found that both Afiican American and Caucasian parents were more authoritarian in their child-rearing techniques than Mexican Americans. In addition, Afiican American fathers were found to be more strict in enforcing arbitrary rules than these other groups. While these results weaken the 13 idea that low-income families are more uniformly strict in parenting styles, this study did not compare these families with those of other income levels and therefore cannot support the idea that social class did not influence one's views about parenting. Ethnic differences persist despite controlling for social class. Another portion of Giovannoni and Becerra's (1979) work examined both cultural and social class differences in perceptions of child abuse. These authors analyzed community perceptions and compared them to professionals' perceptions of child abuse. The sample of community members included Caucasians, Afiican Americans, and Hispanics. Within this sample there were clear social class differences between the "working" and the "middle" classes. When social class was taken into account, the research suggested that the ”working" class had more stringent attitudes concerning the severity of physical abuse than did those of the ”middle” class. Although lower class Caucasians rated child abuse severely, the minority groups (African Americans and Hispanics) rated their vignettes of child abuse even more severely. As in Payne's (1989) work, Blacks rated spanking a child with a leather strap as significantly less severe than did either Caucasians or Hispanics. Cultural difi‘erences in child-rearing practices remained within each ethnic/racial group after social class was controlled. Another early study (Giovannoni & Billingsley, 1970) addressed social class, as well as ethnic difi‘erences, in child-rearing practices. Low-income Afiican American, Caucasian, and Latin American mothers were interviewed concerning their child-rearing behaviors. A significant relationship between how both Afiican American and Caucasian mothers were involved with their relatives was associated with whether or not these mothers were considered adequate. The more these l3 idea that low-income families are more uniformly strict in parenting styles, this study did not compare these families with those of other income levels and therefore cannot support the idea that social class did not influence one's views about parenting. Ethnic differences persist despite controlling for social class. Another portion of Giovannoni and Becerra's (1979) work examined both cultural and social class differences in perceptions of child abuse. These authors analyzed community perceptions and compared them to professionals' perceptions of child abuse. The sample of community members included Caucasians, Afiican Americans, and Hispanics. Within this sample there were clear social class difi‘erences between the "working" and the "middle" classes. When social class was taken into account, the research suggested that the ”working” class had more stringent attitudes concerning the severity of physical abuse than did those of the "middle” class. Although lower class Caucasians rated child abuse severely, the minority groups (Afiican Americans and Hispanics) rated their vignettes of child abuse even more severely. As in Payne's (1989) work, Blacks rated spanking a child with a leather strap as significantly less severe than did either Caucasians or Hispanics. Cultural difi‘erences in child-rearing practices remained within each ethnic/racial group after social class was controlled. Another early study (Giovannoni & Billingsley, 1970) addressed social class, as well as ethnic difi‘erences, in child-rearing practices. Low-income Afiican American, Caucasian, and Latin American mothers were interviewed concerning their child-rearing behaviors. A significant relationship between how both African American and Caucasian mothers were involved with their relatives was associated with whether or not these mothers were considered adequate. The more these 14 mothers were involved with their own mothers, the more likely their parenting was found to be adequate as compared to those mothers less involved with their kin. This relationship was not found, however, among the Latin American mothers. 15:11am Religious affiliation also appeared to influence perceptions of physical punishment. \Vrehe (1990) assessed adults' parental attitudes using the Adult Adolescent Parental Inventory (AAPI). This work resembled Smith's (1990) religious classification scheme which identified participants' religion as either Literalist or Nonliteralists. All Baptist, Church of God, Holiness, Nazarene, and Pentecostal religions were considered to be Literalists, while Catholic, Disciples of Christ, Episcopal, and Methodist denominations were classified as Nonliteralists. This demarcation of religions is consistent with Greven's (1991) theoretical framework. Those who ascribed to the Literalist religions were found to be significantly more favorable toward corporal punishment than those who ascribed to the Nonliteralist religions. Grasmick et a1. (1991) conducted a related study of attitudes toward physical punishment. Confirming Wiehe's findings, the majority of those who favored corporal punishment were found to be afiliated with a Fundamentalist religion. Religious amliation apparemly influenced perceptions of physical discipline in both of these studies. However, Grasmick et al.'s work did not control for either social class or race, leaving it likely that these variables may have contributed to their finding. 15 Gender Gender also appears to influence perceptions of violence. In a telephone survey, Koski and Mangold (1988) examined perceptions of family violence. As anticipated, and consistent with both prior and subsequent works (Garrett & Rossi, 1978; Graziano et al., 1992; Gully, Pepping, & Dengering, 1982; Kelder, McNamara, Carlson, & Lynn, 1991), women perceived family violence as more serious than did men. Also, Kelder, et a1. (1991) found that adult men expressed greater approval of physical abusive behaviors than women. The researchers also found that the degree to which an adult had experienced physical punishment as a child influenced the degree of approval: the more one was physically abused as a child, the greater the likelihood of approving physical abuse of own children. Even among those heavily disciplined as children, males continued to favor corporal punishment significantly more than females. Summit 7 Most of the relevant research supports the view that ethnic differences contribute to the perceptions of child abuse/child discipline. Also, clear support for religious influence on the views of child abuse/child-rearing is chic... Social class, however, appear to have less than conclusive support as an influence on child abuse/child-rearing, especially if Social Economic Status (SES) was based only on the family's income. While some studies have addressed perceptions of child physical abuse, many considered the aspects of professional versus public views, adolescents versus adults, ethnic difi‘erences, religious influence, SES difi‘erences, and gender difi‘erences. Few investigators examined major l6 ethnic/racial difi‘erences within the U. S. and the religious influence as well as the SES factor that include educational level. This study addressed such variables. I}- Cultural differences in child-rearing styles (Durrett et al., 197 5; Escovar & Escovar, 1985; Lindholrn & Willey, 1986) seem well-documented and Afiican Americans have generally been'found to perceive child abuse less severely than their European American counterparts. Furthermore, it is proposed that since historically Afiican Americans have had fundamentalist religious leanings which have been predominately authoritarian in nature, that they would perceive physical discipline with less severity as compared to European Americans. The literature suggests that such perceptions are also influenced by social environment, culture, and religion (Lampe, 1984). Additionally, it is believed that these differences in child-rearing styles will affect how each culture defines child abuse. It has been established that perceptions influence behavior. "leased on Afiican Americans’ perceptions, they seem more likely to have experienced physical disciplinary acts that the broader U. S. society defines as more physically abusive than their European American counterparts. For example, Graziano (1992), like Kelder et a1. (1991), found that those adults vvho favored physical punishment typically had received significantly greater amounts of corporal discipline as children. These outcomes are compatible with the intergenerational transmission literature that suggests the abused child is more likely to condone abuse in the next generation either by being the perpetrator or the victim (Cantrell, Carrorico, Franklin, & Grubb, 1990; Dutton, Fehr, & McEwen, 1982; Herrenkohl, Herrenkohl, & Toedter, 1983; Kalmus & Straus, 1982; Zaidi, Knutson, & Mehm, 1989). Furthermore, perceptions of violence have been found to vary with both 17 social class and education (Coleman et al., 1989; Erlanger, 1974; Kohn, 1979; Koski & Mangold, 1988; Petersen et al., 1982). Therefore, this study attempted to include various educational and social classes. Previous studies have revealed a relationship between conservative religious beliefs and the approval of corporal punishment. In contrast to Liberal religions, prior works have presented an analogous association between amliation with Fundamentalist religion and the perception of child abuse as an appropriate means of physical punishment. Thus, in this research, respondents ascribing to Fundamentalist precepts were expected to show greater approval of physically abusive behaviors than those ascribing to Liberal religions. HYPOTHESES The following hypotheses were examined: African Americans will perceive their parents as significantly less abusive than their European American counterparts. Afiican Americans will report having experienced more physical abusive acts than their European American counterparts. Those amliated with F undarnentalist religious beliefs will be more likely to approve physical punishment more than those afiiliated with more Liberal religions. Higher levels of social class, as defined by educational status, will be less tolerant of physical discipline than those from lower social class. 18 METHOD Sample Table 1 shows descriptive statistics for all demographic variables by racial groups. A total of 218 participants (141 females and 77 males) with ages ranging from 18 to 76 (M = 27.17) were recruited by the author and a research asssistant during group administrations for the present study. Afiican Americans (n = 99), European Americans (11 = 60), Asian American Pacific Islanders (n = 24), Hispanics (n = 23), Native Americans (n = 6), and Other races (n = 6) were included in this research. The Other category of races are identified as Caribbean, Arab, Thai, and Afiican. The overall sample had three elements. The university participants included two subsarnples: undergraduates from the Psychology Department who received extra-credit for their participation and students fi'om a special group who were selected for career and research development. The third subsample was investigator recruited community participants who were offered the opportunity for a summary of the results, once the study was completed. 19 833.588.8232. .82 20 22... $2 8.. 8.2. ....2 22.2 2.2 .....2. 8.2 8.2. 22... 2.2. 8.8.8582 22 8.2 2.2 22.2. ....2 2... 22.2 3.2 22.. 8.2. 8.2 .22 8.8.85.3. :2 22.2 22... 8.2. 22.2 8.2 8.2 .2. 8.2 22.2. 8.2 .e... gens. 2.. 8c. 22.. :2. 22.. .2... 8.. 8.... 22.. 8.: 2.... 8.: Bias... .8.... 8. .88.... 8. .88.... 8. .88.... 8. .82... ... .88.... 8. 3.8.3 .88.... 8. .88.... 8. .88.... 8. .88.... . 8. .882. .2. .83. .... 28.2.2. .88.... 8. .822. .2. .82. .2. .82... ... .8282. . 8.. .8222. .82. BE: .88.. .e. .888. .... .828. ..2. .822. .22. .828. 8... .868. .8. 32.2 .8228. .... .822. .2. .888. 8.. .828. .2. .82..... .2... .82..... 8.. ..B... .822. .2. .8882. .2. .83... .... .822. .2. .82.. .... .83.... .8. 31355... .88.... 8. .862. ... .82.. .2. .822. .... .82.. .... .882. .... .88.. 8.91.. .88.... .2. .822. .2. .828. .2. .8222. .2. .82... .3. .8222. ...2. .53 .822. .2. .8882. .2. .82.. .2. .8282. .2. .82.. .2. .822. .22. lugs. .88.... 8. 82.2. ... .82.... .2. .8282. .2. .82.. .... .82..... .2. .823. .822. .2. .88.. 8. .8282. .2.. .822. .2. .828. .... .888. .8. also. .828. .... 8.... 8. .82.. .2. .828. .2. .852. .2. .822. .. 2. c1: 2.... 8.2 28 22.8 2.2 8.22 2.2 .22 22.. 8.82 8.2 22.82 a? .8.2.Iva Eel. .8.~.Im .22 .8.2.Ivi .22 .838 .22 .852 .22.... .8.2.In .22 e e 22 a 8 8 2 Rise. .25 28.22 9.32 8.5!: 23.32. 9...? 9.8.2. cases §§3§>£§s§s§ .22 21 MW Given the paucity of the literature concerning perceptions of child abuse, there are understandably few inventories that attend to cultural perceptions. This work addressed the physical abuse of children because it seemed more readily assessed than other types of child abuse. While only a scant number of measures and inventories that address perceptions of child care or physical discipline have been identified (Giovannoni & Becerra, 1979; Graziano & Namaste, 1990; Graziano et al., 1992;1tkin, 1952; Kelder et al., 1991), even fewer address both the adult's current perceptions of physical discipline/physical abuse and the physical discipline that s/he received as a child. One measure that provided such information, Graziano's et al.'s (1992) Discipline . Questionnaire (DQ-18), was selected for this research. Giovannoni & Becerra's (1979) vignettes were also chosen, as these were comprehensive in encompassing a wide range of child-rearing behaviors. MW Recently developed, Graziano et al. adapted the DQ-18 from earlier work by Graziano and Namaste (1990). This 43-item, self-report questionnaire has four parts and takes approximately 20 minutes to complete. It was modified from the Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979) and research on categories of physical punishment by Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz (1980). One section concerned demographic information. The other three 22 sections included information concerning the participants' "past physical punishment" (PPP scale), "evaluation of past punishment" (EPP scale), and "current attitudes toward physical punishment" (CAPP scale). The DQ-18 questionnaire may be individually or group administered. Graziano (1992) established internal consistency for these measures that yielded alpha values of .80 for Past Punishment, .62 for Evaluation of Past Punishment, .86 for Current Attitudes. The scoring of DQ-18's three scales are inconsistent. For the PP scale, lower scores, denote higher punishment. With regard to the EPP scale, the higher scores indicate more severe physical punishment, and higher ratings on the CAPP scale represent propunishment views. In the next version, all items will be scaled so that higher scores represent greater punishment across all scales (Graziano, 1993). Although the DQ-18 was adapted from the Conflict and Tactic Scales (Straus, 1979), the new DQ-18 has yet to be independently validated. Therefore the validation information was based on Straus' (1979) measure. The Conflict Tactic Scales (CTS) revealed content validity by its description of aggressive acts towards family members on all items. The operational definition of family violence used in the CTS explicitly paralleled the nominal definition of violence described by Gelles & Straus (1979). Documented by Burdorf and Straus (1980), a moderate degree of concurrent validity was established for the CTS scales. This study revealed that college students' report of their parents' volatile behavior (11.4%), as assessed by the CTS, resembled the national incidence rates for intrafarnily violence. Although there were gender differences in these 23 college students' reports of family violence, they were consistent with other studies that suggested that gender difi‘erences existed in the report of family violence (Garrett & Rossi, 1978', Graziano et al., 1992; Gully et al., 1982;1(elder et al., 1991; Koski & Mangold, 1988). Women tended to report a higher number of violent acts as compared to men. Also, there is evidence for construct validity which involved the best indication for validity. The outcome of the CTS showed a high incidence of socially undesirable aggressive behaviors which were congruent with other previous studies (Gelles, 1974). Furthermore, the CTS demonstrated relatively high ratios of agreement between mothers and fathers for overall family violence (Szinovacz, 1983), while differing in the frequency of violent acts by mothers and fathers. In addition, physically abused children, as assessed by the CTS, were shown to have two to three times the amount of behavioral problems than nonabused children (Gelles & Straus, 1990). It was also found that abused children were four times more likely to be arrested for juvenile crimes than nonabused children. These findings are consistent with other studies that suggested that abused children fi'equently exhibit behavioral and delinquency problems (Garbarino & Vondra, 1987; Green, 1988; Herman, 1981; vanDalen, 1989', Weissberg, 1983). Along these same lines and consistent with prior works (Hilberman, 1980; Mills, 1984) was the finding that the greater the severity of assault that women experienced by their mates, as assessed by the CTS, the more likely they were to encounter significantly greater physical and mental health problems than nonabused women (Stets & Straus, 1990). A common characteristic of abusive parents was that their own mothers and fathers had displayed little or no 24 affection while growing up which was also consistent with previous studies (Faller, 1981; Finkelhor, 1984;1-Ierrenkohl, Herrenkohl, & Toedter, 1983). There are empirical data indicating that the CTS revealed significant aggression when the power structure was imbalanced between a marital couple, either the husband was significantly more dominant than the wife, or vice versa. In addition, there is significant CTS evidence suggesting that the lower the husband's income relative to that of his spouse, the more likely he is to be violent. These scales have been correlated with the theory of intergenerational violence. Furthermore, the CTS scales have shown high rates of socially unacceptable behaviors of both verbal and physical aggression. Graziano's measures were also chosen for this study because they address both the participants' perceptions of physical punishment and their current perceptions of physical discipline. These measures appear useful for comparing reports of the amount of punishment received with the respondents' current perceptions concerning physical abuse. All of the DQ-18 scales, PPP, EPP, CAPP, and the demographic information were used in the current study. However, the demographic information section was modified to include additional demographic variables such as religion, living arrangement for most of the participant's child-rearing years, and race (African Americans, European Americans, Asian Pacific Islanders, Hispanics (Latinos, Mexican Americans, Cuban Americans, Puerto Ricans, etc), Native Americans, and Others). 25 fiioxannoni & Becerra's (.1212) Mignrms Vignettes have been constructed by several researchers for exploration in this sector (Giovannoni & Becerra, 1979). These vignettes addressed nine categories of child care. Ranging fi'om normal to severe types of child care within each category, these vignettes addressed ”drug/alcohol," "emotional neglect,” "educational neglect,” "fostering delinquency," "medical neglect,” "parental sexual mores, " "physical abuse, " "sexual abuse,” and ”supervision.” Each person was asked to rate the incident described by each vignette on a one (least severe) to nine (most severe) scale. Initially, 185 vignettes were pretested with undergraduate and graduate students and after pretest 29 vignettes that had received either extremely high or low endorsements were eliminated and 156 were retained. Using Cronbach's alpha, internal consistency was established for all categories, ranging fi'om coemcients of .70 to .98. While validity was not established, several other investigators used minor modifications of this instrument (Lindholm & Willey, 1986', O'Toole & Webster, 1988; Roscoe, 1987; Roscoe, 1990; Doerner, 1987; Willis & Wells, 1988). The widely used vignettes of Giovannoni and Becerra (1979) were elected for this research because they address a range of child care attitudes, particularly physical abuse. In addition, this measure has been used for both adults and children. For present purposes, it was shortened to include only 16 vignettes addressing physical abuse, emotional abuse, and sexual abuse. 26 Measures adapted from Smith's (1990) religious classification system was used to assess religious values. This classification schema was not administered to this sample, but was used only to classify each participant's stated religious orientation as either Fundamentalist or Liberal. Smith's scheme was developed by utilizing several previous religious classification systems and formulating a consensus across these systems. The various denominations and the religious organizations with which they were associated were identified. These organizations then were categorized as Fundamentalist or Liberal. Ifthere were no consensus of prior religious schemes, then each religion's doctrine was examined and classified as Fundamentalist or Liberal. Finally, to strengthen further this classification scheme, both the clergy's and the laity's beliefs of each domination were analyzed and compared to the prior classification schemes and the religious orientation of the various afilative organizations. Among 154 denominations considered by Smith, there were only four exceptions in which the consensus of the classification systems or doctrines did not correspond with the beliefs of the laity and clergy. Smith's classification schema (1990) was selected also since it described comprehensively the wide spectrum of various religions categorized as Fundamentalist or Liberal. This system was used both to designate which religion participants were reared and to which religion they currently ascribe. 27 Bromine Participants were largely sought from the Department of Psychology's subject pool (n = 154) at Michigan State University (MSU). Others were recruited by the word of mouth through the contacts of several Lansing area church organizations (n = 64) in order to supplement the sample in an attempt to diversify the population by involving various levels of SES (various levels of education) and ages. These contacts were solicited through the researcher's affiliations with church organizations. Both Afiican American and European American groups were contacted. Leaders of the various church organizations were approached and asked for the participation of their congregation and/or members. Group administrations were conducted both on MSU‘s campus classrooms and at the various local churches. All respondents completed a brief form pertaining to their general life history and their parent's marital status, education, economic background, race, gender, childhood religion, and current religion. This history was used to assess participants' SES and other moderating variables that may influence their perceptions. SES was assessed by the level of one's education rather than income. Other information such as age, gender, and economic background appeared useful for the preliminary exploration of variables that might influence the difl‘erences of the adult children perceptions. The Analysis of Variance (AN OVA) was used to analyze the research findings. RESULTS W 2912611119115 of 52min: of Abuse Univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a statistically significant main efi‘ect of race (E[l, 157] = 4.35, p < .04) for severity of physical discipline. As predicted (Hypothesis 1) and shown in Table 2, multiple comparisons from a Duncan test indicated that Afiican American adults perceived their custodial parents to be significantly less physically abusive (M = 2.9) by Graziano's Evaluation of Past Punishment scale (EPP) than did their European American (M = 3.2) counterparts. When all races were compared, however, the race efi‘ect was not statistically significant (HS, 210] = 1.51, p < .20). 28 29 Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Reported Severity of Physical Punishment in Childhood by Race Severity Races L M g Blacks 99 2.9' l .02 Whites 60 3.2' .71 Asian Amer. 24 3.1 .73 Hispanics 23 2.9 .20 Native Amer. 6 2.9 1.01 Other 6 3.0 .33 Note: The greater the mean, the more severe was the physical punishment reported. 'These means difi‘ered significantly (p < .05, one-tailed test). 30 Endnrsementsnffirequeasxnffihxsicalmscinline Also, as anticipated (Hypothesis H), there was a significant racial main efl‘ect for the frequency of physical punishment (HS, 210] = 7.36, p < .001) using Graziano's Past Physical Punishment scale (PPP). Despite having rated their parents as less physically abusive than their European American cohorts, Table 3 shows that Afiican Americans (M = 3 .4) acknowledged having received more physical punishment than their European American counterparts (M = 4.1). A broader ethnic group comprised of non-European participants also acknowledged having received physical discipline significantly more fi'equently (M = 3.5) than European Americans. Thus, both Afiican Americans and those respondents born in non-European countries, but not identified in the major category of persons of color, endorsed having received more physical punishment than European Americans. European Americans reported fewer parental acts of physical discipline than any other racial group, although this difference was not statistically significant across all racial groups. Table 3 Frequency of Reported Childhood Physical Punishment by Race 31 Frequency Races 11 M S_D Blacks 99 3.4‘ .72 Whites 60 4. 1' .68 Asians 24 3.7 .68 Hispanics 23 3.8 .79 Native Amer. 6 3.6 1.03 = Other & 6 f 3.5‘I .85 l. Note: Ihe smaller the mean, the greater the frequency of respondents reported physical punishment. 'These means difi‘ered significantly (p < .001; one-tailed test). 32 Cmmfimpjrons' uranium - 'EhxsicalDrssmhne' " bxflelisism The religion in which one had been reared had statistically significant main effects by both the Giovannoni & Becerra's vignette measure (E[1, 192] = 7.30, p < .01) and Graziano's CAPP scale (EU, 192] = 5.29, p < .05) for current perceptions of physical abuse and punishment respectively, while one's current religious affiliation did not (E[1, 192] = 1.82, p < 18, Hypothesis III). By the data provided by the vignette measure, those reared in Fundamentalist religions (M = 6.5) as noted above were significantly more likely to approve of physical abuse as compared to those were reared in Liberal religions (M = 7.0). Similarly, on the CAPP scale, those raised in Fundamentalist religions (M = 2.6) approved the use of physical punishment significantly more than those who were reared in Liberal religions (M = 2.1). These findings indicate that child-rearing experiences impacted current perceptions of physical abuse and/or punishment. Education was not significantly related to respondents' current perceptions of physical discipline, (E[3, 59] = .58, p < .63) indicating no support for Hypothesis IV. PostHocAnW Analogous to Hypothesis 1, a post hoc finding identified a significant main effect of race for current perceptions of physical abuse and physical discipline by two measures, the vignettes and the CAPP scale (E[1,157]= 5.1, p <.001;E[1,157]= 27.5, p < .001) respectively. According to Table 4, multiple comparisons indicated that Afiican 33 Americans (M = 6.4) disapproved of physical abuse/punishment statistically significantly less than European Americans (M = 6.8). This outcome indicated that having experienced physical punishment when younger was associated with these adults' approval of physical discipline. Further comparisons showed that both Afiican Americans (M = 6.4) and European Americans (M = 6.9) approved of physical punishment to a significantly greater degree (E[5, 210] = 5.1, p < .001) than the very small sample of Native Americans (n = 6; M=8.l). Table 4 Current Perceptions of Physical Abuse by the Vignette Measure Current Perceptions Of Physical Abuse Races at M Blacks 99 6.4‘ 1.3 Whites 60 6.8‘ 1.5 Asians 24 7.5 1.01 Hispanics Native Amer. Note: The smaller the mean, the greater the approval of the use of physical punishment as rated by the respondent. 'Tlrese means difi‘ered significantly (p < .001; one-tailed test). Similarly to Hypothesis IH, another post hoc finding revealed a main effect for religion and frequency of abuse (Ii[l, 192] = 28.7; p < .001). Those who were reared in Fundamentalist religious backgrounds (n = 94', M = 3.4) reported having received physical punishment significantly more fi'equently than those who were reared in Liberal religious households (n = 100', M = 4.0). 35 Post hoc analyses of EPP data revealed that education was associated with respondents' ratings of the severity of abuse that they received as children (HS, 21] = 3.09; p < .05). The less educated were more likely to endorse having been reared with severe physical discipline than those more educated. Level of education also had a statistically significant main efi‘ect for recall of past physical punishment as noted on the PPP scale, (H3, 59] = 3.98; p < .01). Generally, the more education received, the lesser the fi'equency of physical punishment reported during childhood. Although gender did not have a statistically significant main effect for current perceptions of physical discipline by either the vignette measure (E[ l , 216] = 2.71; p < .10) or the CAPP scale (EU, 216] = 3.05; p < .08), the most dramatic post hoc finding was the significant interaction efl‘ect for gender and childhood religion ' (E11, 189] = 2.79; p = .04) by the CAPP scale as illustrated in Figure 1. Although not significant, childhood religious afliliation revealed a larger mean between Fundamentalist and Liberal subsamples than did current religious afliliation. Specifically, within childhood religion, Fundamentalist religion showed more of a significant difl‘erence. As shown in Table 5, multiple comparisons indicated that Fundamentalist men (M = 3 . 5) condoned corporal punishment more than did Fundamentalist women (M = 2.9). 36 3.3 4 Gender 3.4 4 male 3.31 CAPP 31‘ 3.1 t 3.0 ‘ 2.3‘ uorelenient 2.3 PM Liberal Childhood Religion Figure 1 Mean Scores for Current Attitudes of Physical Punishment (CAPP) by Gender and Childhood Religion 37 Table 5 Mean CAPP Scores for Current Perceptions of Physical Discipline by Childhood Religion and Gender. Gender Fundamentalist 2.9 3.5' 3.2 Liberal 3.2 2.9 3.1 Mean 3.1 3.2 3.2 Note: The greater the mean, the greater the approval of physical punishment as rated by the respondent: 'denotes significant difference by p < .001 Another interesting post hoc outcome revealed. gender as a significant main effect on current perceptions of emotional abuse (E[1, 213] = 8.85, p < .001). By the vignette measure, women (M = 8.3) rated emotional abuse as significantly more serious than men (M = 7 .9). However, no significant difl‘erences were found for perceptions of sexual abuse. DISCUSSION Samplinelsms Because many features of this sample makes it unlikely to be representative of the general population, the findings must be interpreted with caution. Distinctive characteristics of this study include the greater number of African Americans (11 = 99) than European Americans (n = 60) and the disproportionate percentage of women (65%) compared to men (3 5%). The larger subsample of the university students (n = 154) also differed importantly . fi'om the smaller community subsample (n = 64). The latter contingent included members of several groups from the Methodist, United Church of Christ, Congregationalist, Full Gospel, Church of God in Christ, and Baptist churches. This subsample consisted of persons who likely had experienced strong religious influences that may have impacted their views of both physical punishment and physical abuse. This subsample was also more diverse than the student subsample in terms of both age and marital status. The oldest of the entire sample were two 76-year-olds who were drawn from the community sample. Also, there are more participants who are married or divorced in the community sample than the student sample. Having more married adults in the community sample 38 39 increased these adults' chances of rearing their children and they are likely to have difi'ereperceptions concerning child-rearing and discipline as opposed to no experience of child-rearing. AS suggested by Roscoe (1990) and Graziano and Namaste (1990), younger people may have more idealistic views of child-rearing than adults who are currently child-rearing or have had the opportunity to rear their own children. The student sample was comprised mostly of single college-aged-adults, thus likely reflecting more idealistic perceptions. A subgroup within the student sample was also uncharacteristic of the general population. These were students of color, largely Black participants in a special career and research development program who were required to have at least a 3 .0 (B) grade point average. Their motivation for participating in this study likely difl‘ered from the others, and they likely had personal attributes atypical for either the university students or the general population. Mm of the Findings Results of this research support the widely accepted notion that there are cultural difi‘erences concerning the perceptions of parental discipline. African Americans perceived their parents to be significantly less abusive than European Americans, despite the former group's acknowledgment of having received Significantly more physical punishment than did the latter. African Americans also expressed more current approval of both physical punishment and physical abuse than the European Americans. 4O Participants who were born and reared in other countries outside the Afiican American and European American and the other major classifications also endorsed having received significantly more physical discipline than European Americans. However, this small group (n = 6) did not view the discipline that they received as Significantly more or less abusive as compared to other racial groups. A possible reason as to why this finding lacked statistical significance is that these participants are more Americanized or acculturated and less likely to be representative of their respective cultures. Regardless, these ethnic members add fiirther support for child discipline being culturally influenced. Another interesting post hoc finding was that Native Americans were significantly less approving of corporal punishment than both Afiican Americans and European Americans. However, the rninuteness of the Native American sample (n = 6), precludes reliable inferences. These data also support the view that physical punishment is culturally influenced. These findings suggested that past physical punishment influenced current perceptions regarding physical punishment, tending to substantiate Graziano and Namaste's (1990), Graziano's et al. (1992), and Kelder's et al. (1991) association between current perceptions of abuse with a history of abuse. That is, those who favor the greater use of physical punishment tend to report having received more fi'equent corporal punishment as children than others. This outcome also suggested that these Afiican American adults perceived that the physical discipline they had received as children as useful, and had subsequently become proponents of its firture use for their own children. 41 Furthermore, these results identified cultural influences in child-rearing practices which are congruent with earlier reports of ethnic differences in child-rearing styles (Davis & Havighurst, 1946; Durrett et al., 1975; Erlanger, 1975', Escovar & Escovar, 1985; Lindholrn & Willey, 1986; Marsh, 1991). Perhaps, if it is the custom for African Americans to ‘be physically punished as children, it then becomes more of an acceptable and expected way to rear their own children. This helps to explain the paradox that those who acknowledge having received more physically abusive acts in childhood, will tend to perceive their physical discipline as less abusive and advocate the use of corporal punishment for the next generation. This notion is consistent with the transgenerational cycle of abuse theory (Cantrell et al., 1990; Dutton, et al., 1982; Herrenkohl, et al., 1983; Kalmus & Straus, 1982; Sirnons, Whitbeck, Conger, & Chyi-In, 1991; Zadi et al., 1989) that holds that abused children are more likely to condone abuse as adults by becoming a victim or a perpetrator. This transgenerational cycle may also help to explain why there are higher proportions of violent crimes both within (e.g., spouse battery, child abuse, etc.) and outside the homes (e. g., murder, assault and battery, etc.) of the Black community. Similar to the transgenerational transmission theory, these results are also compatible with the ”identification with the aggressor" theory (Freud, 1946). This theory suggests children exposed to violence within the home have minimal opportunity to escape, thus creating conditions that create helplessness and dependency. For some children, this sense of helplessness and dependency develops in identifying with the aggressive parent(s) and 42 during their adult years, these adult children may begin to enact their aggressive impulses onto their own children as a way to feel more powerful (Bandura, 1973; West, 1993). Contrary to what was hypothesized, those affiliated with Fundamentalist religions during their childhood, did not condone physical punishment more than those who were reared in Liberal religions. In adulthood, however, those who were reared in Fundamentalist religions approved of more frequent use of physical punishment than those who were reared in Liberal religions. Childhood religion was irrespective of respondents' current afiilative religion, further supporting the view that past child-rearing has more impact on how one chooses to discipline children. Thus, more recent experiences (e.g., new religion) appeared to have little influence on current perceptions of behavior. Although gender was not significantly associated with current perceptions of physical punishment, there was a statistically significant interaction for current perceptions of physical discipline by gender and childhood religion. This difference was greater among those raised in Fundamentalist than Liberal religions. Men who was raised in Fundamentalist religions were especially likely to condone the use of physical punishment more than women who were reared as Fundamentalist. Additionally, among many Fundarnentalist's teachings, there is a clear power difl‘erential between women and men (Greven, 1991). Men are considered to be the authority or the ruler of the household, while women and children are taught to be submissive to men. While these Fundamentalist women did not approve of physical punishment as much as the men, this does not mean that these women would not permit the use of physical punishment within 43 their households, providing further support for the value of authoritarianism underlying Fundamentalist religions. This is a particularly interesting outcome in view of extensive literature indicating that boys are likely to be hit more frequently and harder than girls (Hegar, Zuravin, & Orrne, 1994; Rosenthal, 1988; Simons et al., 1991). This literature also suggests that men are more likely to minimize abusive behavior relative to women (Finkelhor, 1990; Pagelow, 1984). Thus, males are more likely to condone the use of corporal punishment as well. Given their more rigid adherence to traditional sex-roles, this relationship is probably even stronger among members of Fundamentalist religions. The present women viewed emotional abuse by the vignettes, more seriously than these men. This finding corroborates the gender literature (Alexander, 1989; Chodorow, 1974; Kahn & Leon, 1994) suggesting that women are more concerned about emotional issues than men are. It also fits earlier works that revealed that women view family violence more seriously than men do (Garrett & Rossi, 1978; Graziano et al., 1992; Gully et al., 1982;1(elder, et. al., 1991). Contrary to expectations, education was not found to influence one's current perception of physical discipline or physical abuse, although it was related to participants' evaluations of both the frequency and severity of childhood physical punishment. More educated respondents endorsed significantly fewer and less severe physical punishment than those with less education. Perhaps, the more educated were reared in homes where there were less frequent physical punishment, an atmosphere which may have also contributed to their pursuit of an advanced education. As prior evidence has shown, it is 44 less likely that children raised in households in which there is a significant degree of physical violence will pursue an advanced education (Blau, 1981; Graziano & Mills, 1992; Kurtz et al., 1993; McLoyd, 1990). As with current religion, new experiences (more education) had little relationship on current perceptions of child discipline than early experiences. ' What is considered as socially acceptable in the use of discipline with children appears related to one's racial identification, religious upbringing, educational status, and gender. Retrospectively, African Americans seemed to perceive the physical discipline that they had received as children as more frequent, but less severe, and a more acceptable form of parental behavior than did European Americans. This perception may have accounted for the over-representation of Afiican Americans in the general population for child abusing families (Cupoli & Sewell, 1988; Daniel, Hampton, & Newberger, 1983; Eckenrode, Munsch, Powers, & Eckenrode, 1988; Hampton, 1987; Jason & Andereck, 1983; Powers & Doris, 1985', Powers & Eckenrode, 1988). Assuming that values influence behavior, then differential perceptions of physical punishment and physical abuse suggest that varying values are inherent in child-rearing across races. Trickett and Susman's (1988) works suggested that abusive parents follow stricter guidelines about child-rearing than nonabusive parents. This outcome also may reflect the more authoritarian style of Black parents than Whites noted in earlier studies (Blau, 1981; Davis & Havighurst, 1946; Erlanger, 1975; Marsh, 1991). 45 This research raised another important question for those who acknowledged having been more frequently physically punished, but perceived their corporal punishment as less severe than their comparison groups, while also supporting the use of corporal correction in the next generation. That is whether or not the physical punishment children received Shaped their attitudes or values towards authority to the extent that they became adult advocates of physical punishment for the next generation? Did those who were physically punished frequently and severely learn to submit to authority so well that they do not only perceive that the punishment they received as appropriate, but also a necessary form of discipline in the firture generation? Clearly the authoritarian theory (Adorno et al., 1950; Byrne, 1974) supports such premises. Future research is needed to explore the effects of physical punishment as it pertains to authoritarianism. This discrepancy of perceptions has implications for the abuse literature. Such a finding raises an important question as to whether or not Afiican American values of child-rearing are at a disadvantage with the dominant culture. Since Afiican American values seem to be difi‘erent fiom mainstream society, does this imply that they are at greater risk to abuse their children? This presupposes that being African American is a high risk factor for becoming an abused child and/or a perpetrator of abuse. These findings suggest that child abuse may be predictable. Those who are prone to endorse physical discipline may have an increased tendency to physically abuse their children regardless of race (Graziano, 1994). Other studies have shown that authoritarian attitudes concerning parenting are predictors of child abuse (Trickett & Susman, 1989; Whissel et al., 1990; Williams et al., 1994). 46 Results of this research seemed to emphasize the ambiguous nature of how child abuse is defined while substantiating its subjectivity. For example, in defining child abuse, it is important to note that there are no clear guidelines, thus those who are determining the presence of abuse within a family structure utilize a subjective and inherently culturally biased approach. In essence, what may be considered abusive to some may not be considered abusive to another. This ambiguity may well be more true for scenarios involving corporal punishment for those involving blatantly identifiable abusive behaviors. Clearly, there are multiple values operating concerning physical discipline/abuse both across and within races, but only one dominant value seems to exist which defines child abuse. This dominant value, as defined primarily by European Americans, appeared to be that the application of corporal punishment is frequently viewed as abusive. Given that Afiican Americans will most likely define abuse difi‘erently than European Americans, filrther attention as to what is legally abusive is needed. Anecdotal evidence fi'om one of the present subsamples during a group administration revealed that many Blacks explicitly expressed that they had not been abused. These respondents often seemed offended by questions related to whether or not they had been whipped as children and if so to what extent, insisting that whipping was not abusive behavior. Another subsample, mostly Whites, differed by expressing surprise at the use of parental discipline with physical correction. Regardless of these varied perceptions which may represent a spectrum of "approved" to ”inappropriate" corporal punishment, it appears clear that the very use of corporal punishment by either end of the spectrum may be a precursor of cruel types of physical abuse (Graziano, 1994). For example, even the “approved” forms of physical 47 discipline may lead to more severe types of physical discipline, including clearly defined types of physical abuse. Although there is a plethora of research on child abuse and child discipline, there seems limited attention to cultural differences. The present finding suggest that it would be useful for researchers to design instruments to address cultural differences in physical abuse by using normative data for various ethnic groups. Measures to quantify abuse based on various ethnic, religious, educational, and gender groups may prove useful, while some existing measures may prove invalid for certain populations. The present results may also have important implications for psychotherapists which relate to Afiican Americans' denial of their child abuse experience, when this presumed minimization may in fact be attributed to the cultural norms regarding the use of child discipline. The same assumptions may apply to difi'erences in educational level, religions, and other cultural features which need to be explored both within clinical and preventive contexts as they relate to issues and attitudes toward physical abuse. Perhaps Special attention to religious background should be given to patients with a abuse history, especially in light of this research's finding concerning the relationship between childhood religion and the approval of physical punishment and a general tendency within the mental health field to neglect one's religious afliliation. It will be important to empathize with the cultural experience as an acceptable one in their upbringing. A possible exception may involve individuals who were reared in Satanic cults. In addition, the impact of abusiveness regardless of its frequency and severity, may also differ by ethnic and religious group. More research is needed to substantiate these possibilities. 48 Race and childhood religious affiliation seem to importantly influence current perceptions of abuse. Other factors, such as education and changes in religious affiliation, appear to have little influence in changing the perceptions of discipline of adults from those of their childhood. This raises the question as to which factors play a role in mitigating current perceptions of child discipline fi'om past child discipline behaviors? While additional research is needed to identify such factors, the results of this analysis point toward the importance of primary prevention with children at a early age. I I l l l . l I . . . A possible limitation of this study was that participants self-identified their race. While some argue that being Afiican American is anyone who was born in America of Afiican descent, others argue that anyone who is a citizen of the United States with Afiican descent is an Afiican American (Phinney, 1989). Given the controversy surrounding the composition of Afiican American category, self-identification may not have been the best way to measure the race category (Larkey, Hecht, & Martin, 1993). Similar arguments are applicable for European Americans and other ethnic groups. Perhaps it would have been better to ask individuals where they were born. Another methodological limitation was that the retrospective perceptions by adult children of their parental discipline were likely to be biased. Some (Halverston, 1988; Yarrow, Campbell, & Burton, 1970) contend that a retrospective reliance on memory tends to yield findings biased toward more recent experiences. These authors argued further that selective memory is often colored by individuals' most predominant 49 experiences, thus influencing a tendency toward frequently forgetting less prevalent events. Participants' perceptions of their parents behavior may also be minimized by a desire to present a favorable impression of their parents (McCrae & Costa, 1988a). As McCrae & Costa (1988b) suggested, while specific memory is often biased, the questionnaires in this research may have minimized this problem by assessing memory for broad features of behavior. More importantly, this researcher was more interested in the respondents' perceptions than the actual events. The current research design also had advantages. Requiring participants to be at least 18-years-old may have reduced attempts to describe their parents' conduct in a favorable light. At the age of 18, respondents were also less suggestible than they would have been during earlier years. Adults' perceptions have been found more stable than those of childhood (Alwin & Kroenick, 1991). The community subsample was recruited ‘ in order to diversify these respondents in education and age, rendering the whole sample more representative of the general population. While this research was exploratory, its extension and replication in a sample that is more representative of the general population is needed. In addition, the theory of authoritarianism that appears to underlie the Afiican American's and the childhood Fundamentalist's perceptions of parental discipline theory requires confirmation as this research only offered this as a proposed model. However, the current work does pose socio-political, cultural, religious, and feministic issues regarding child discipline. AS noted earlier, these findings have a number of implications for the abuse literature. Future 50 studies should also examine which specific acts are considered to be abusive in diverse cultural and religious groups. APPENDICES APPENDIX A 10. ll. 12. l3. 14. 15. 16. 52 APPENDIX A Participant I.D. # Demographic Questionnaire What is your marital status? Age 3. Sex Birth Date 5. Highest Grade Completed Highest Degree Completed Religion (Please specify the type of religion not just Protestant or Catholic) Ethnicity: Afiican-American Caucasian Hispanic Native American Asian-Pacific Islander Other In what religion were you reared? F ather’s Occupation Highest Grade or Educational level Completed by Father__ Mother's Occupation Highest Grade or Educational level Completed by Mother Please identify your living arrangement for most of your child-rearing years by placing a check or filling in the blank with mother and/or father or type of relative. both biological parents_ single biological mother_ single biological father_ adoptive parent(s) step parent(s) foster parent(s) relative(s) other Are your custodial parents now living? Ifnot which parent is deceased? Date of Death APPENDIX B 54 APPENDIX B Participant I.D. # Directions: The following scenes are various ranges of child care. Some are considered very serious acts, while others are considered not so serious. Each item contains a short passage describing various levels of child care. Please rate the incident on a scale from 1 to 9, assigning high numbers to incidents which you believe are very serious and low numbers to incidents which you believe are not so serious. 1. A child is severely emotionally disturbed. The parents refuse to accept treatment for themselves or for the child. Not very Somewhat Very serious serious serious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 On one occasion, the parent and the child engaged in mutual masturbation. Not very Somewhat Very serious serious serious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The parents are constantly screaming at their child and sometimes calling the child names. Not very Somewhat Very serious serious serious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Parents usually punish their child by spanking her/him with their hand. Not very Somewhat Very serious serious serious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 55 Participant ID#_ The parent repeatedly shows the child pornographic pictures. Not very Somewhat Very serious serious serious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The parent immersed the child in a tub of hot water. The child suffers from second-degree burns. ‘ Not very Somewhat Very serious serious serious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The parents ignore their child most of the time, seldom playing with or listening to her/him. Not very Somewhat Very serious serious serious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The parents constantly compare their child with her/his younger siblings, sometimes implying that the child was not planned. Not very Somewhat Very serious serious serious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. 11. 12. 13. 56 Participant ID#_ The parent made one sexual advance to her/his child. Not very Somewhat Very serious serious serious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The parents keep their child locked up in their home while failing the child to socialize with other children her/his age. Not very Somewhat Very serious serious serious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The parent hit the child in the face, striking the child with their open hand. Not very Somewhat Very serious serious serious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 On one occasion, the parent fondled the child's genitals. Not very Somewhat Very serious serious serious I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The parent banged the child against the wall while shaking her/him by the shoulders. Not very Somewhat Very serious serious serious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14. 15. 16. 57 Participant ID# The parent struck the child with a wooden stick. Not very Somewhat Very serious serious serious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A child has severe behavior problems, the parents refuse to seek help for their child. Not very Somewhat Very serious serious serious I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The parents usually spank their child using their hand. Not very Somewhat Very serious serious serious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 APPENDIX C 59 APPENDIX C Participant ID#_ DISCIPLINE QUESTIONNAIRE FORM 18 This study is about the use of physical punishment in disciplining children. We are interested in your recall of the physical punishment that you received as you were growing up. While there are many forms of physical punishment, we will focus on only a few. We will define physical punishment as occurring when: "An adult (18 years or older) intentionally disciplines a minor (under 18) and, in the process, causes physical pain to the minor." The pain felt by the minor may range from very mild and brief (such as a slap on the hand) to much more severe and lasting. The punishment may be in the following forms: hitting, slapping, spanking, punching, kicking, pinching, twisting, pulling or shaking. We are not interested in other forms of punishment such as yelling, grounding, restraining, or confining to a room or chair. Ifyou recall even minor slaps or spankings, these are considered to be physical punishment, and are of interest to us. PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS 1. YOUR RECALL OF BEING PHYSICALLY PUNISI-IED WHEN YOU WERE GROWING UP Please keep in mind our definition of physical punishment as occurring when: "An adult (18 years or older) intentionally disciplines a minor (under 18) and, in the process, causes physical pain to the minor." Participant I.D. #_ While growing up how often were you physically punished? Daily A few times A few times A few times Never Don't a week a month a year know 1 2 3 4 5 6 How often were other family members physically punished? Daily A few times A few times A few times Never Don't a week a month a year know 1 2 3 4 5 6 How important was physical punishment as a primary child-rearing procedure in your family? Very Not at all Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 Who physically punished you? (Check all that apply) [ ] Mother [ ] Adult Sister/Brother [ ] Father [ ] Stepparent [ ] Grandparent [ ] Other (Identify): [ ] Iwas never physically punished Of the pe0ple checked above, who punished you the most 61 Participant I.D.#_ From ages 5-12, about how frequently were you physically punished? Daily A few times A few times A few times Never Don't a week a month a year know 1 2 3 4 5 6 From ages 5-12, how severe was most of the physical punishment you received? [ ] caused injury more severe than welts and bruises [ ] caused welts and bruises but no other injury [ ] caused considerable pain but no welts, bruises, or other injury [ ] caused moderate pain [ ] caused mild pain [ ] I was never physically punished From ages 13-17, about how frequently were you physically punished? Daily A few times A few times A few times Never Don't a week a month a year know 1 2 3 4 5 6 From ages l3-l7, how severe was most of the physical punishment you usually received? ' [ ] caused injury more severe than welts and bruises [ ] caused welts and bruises but no other injury [ ] caused considerable pain but no welts, bruises, or other injury [ ] caused moderate pain 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 62 Participant ID#_ [ ] caused mild pain [ ] I was never physically punished Check all that you received [ ] Spanking [ ] Arm-Twisting [ ] Punching [ ] Hair/Ear Pulling [ 1 Slapping [ 1 Shaking E } Kicking [ ] Whipping I ] Pinching [ ] Other(list) I was never physically punished Of the punishments above, which one did you receive the most?_ The most severe physical punishment that you ever received (check one) [ ] caused injury more severe than welts and bruises [ ] caused welts and bruises but no other injury [ ] caused considerable pain but no welts, bruises, or other injury [ ] caused moderate pain [ ] caused mild pain [ ] I was never physically punished How old were you when this incident occurred? Were objects ever used in the physical punishment? Never About half Always the time 1 2 3 4 5 15. 16. 17. 18. 63 Participant ID# What objects were used (other than hands or feet)? Please list in order of frequency. Usually, how did the person act while punishing you? (Circle the appropriate degree of each of the following) Extremely Not Angry Angry at all 1 ............ 2 ......... 3 ......... 4 ........ S Lovrng Hateful 1 ............ 2 ......... 3 ......... 4 ........ S Controlled Out of Control 1 ............ 2 ......... 3 ......... 4 .......... 5 Usually, how justified was the person in punishing you? Completely Somewhat Not Somewhat Completely Unjustified Unjustified Certain Justified Justified l 2 3 4 5 How often was the punishment effective in getting you to do what the adult wanted? Never About half Always Effective the time Effective 1 2 3 4 5 19. 20. 21. 22. Participant I.D.#__ How often was the punishment effective in teaching something of importance to you? Never About half Always Efi‘ective the time Effective 1 2 3 4 5 How much resentment did you usually feel about being punished? None A little Some Much A great deal 1 2 3 4 5 How ofien did you deserve the punishment? Never About half Always ' the time 1 2 3 4 5 How much were you punished? Not About the Too much Enough right amount 1 2 3 4 5 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 65 Participant ID# II. YOUR CURRENT OPINIONS ABOUT PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT HOW MUCH DO YOU AGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS? Strongly Disapee Parents should have the right to physically punish their children 1 Physical punishment is helpful for children 1 I intend to use physical punishment with my own children 1 Children need to be physically punished 1 Physical punishment is harmful 1 Physical punishment is a proper child-rearing technique 1 Physical punishment used on children is abusive 1 Teachers and principals should have the right to physically punish their pupils 1 Disagree Neither Agree Strongly nordiusree Agree Agree 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 S 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 66 Participant ID# 31. I would support a law that says parents cannot physically punish their children 1 2 3 4 5 32. Rate each of the following types of discipline on how appropriate you think it is. Never Somewhat Always Appropriate (Sometimes okay) Spanking 1 2 3 4 5 Punching 1 2 3 4 5 Slapping l 2 V 3 4 5 Kicking l 2 3 4 5 Pinching l 2 3 4 5 Arm Twisting 1 2 3 4 5 Hair/Ear Pulling 1 2 3 4 5 Shaking 1 2 3 4 5 Whipping l 2 3 4 5 33. Of the punishments listed above, which one is the most appropriate? APPENDIX D 68 APPENDIX D Demographic Characteristics of Descriptive Variables Variables __M_(n)r _S___I_)r(%) Age 27.17 11.8 Males (77) 35.3 Females (141) 64.7 1 Blacks (99) (45-4) Whites (60) (27-5) Hispanics (23) (10.5) Native Amer. (6) (2.8) Asians (24) ( 1 1.0) Other (6) (2.8) Religion’ (33) (15.2) Fundamental (76) (34.9) Liberal (109) (49.9) I Relig Reared‘ (24) (11.0) Fundamental (94) (43.1) 1 Liberal (100) (45.9) 1 Single (160) (73.7) I Married (48) (22.1) Divorced (8) (3.7) l Widowed (2) (5) Education 14.8 yrs 1.6 ] Parents’ Educ 12.3 yrs 5.2 Fathers‘ Educ 12.1 yrs 5.9 Mothers' Educ 12.7 yrs 4.4 Note: ’ indicates no or unknown religion. LIST OF REFERENCES 70 LIST OF REFERENCES Adomo, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J ., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The Authoritarian Pczsonalitx. New York: Harper- Alexander, C. S. (1989). Gender differences in adolescent health concerns and self- assessed health. Journal of Early Adolosoenoo. 2, 457-479. Ball-Rokeach, S. (1973). Values and violence: A test of the subculture of violence thesis. AmericanSociologicalRexim 3.8; 736-749. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggroasion; A social loam'mg W. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Berger, A., Knutson, J ., Mehm, J ., & Perkins, K. (1988). The self report of punitive childhood experiences of young adults and adolescents. Child Abuse and Noglaot. 12, 251-262. 31ml. 5- (1931). BlackChildtanlMiitcChildren: WWW WW. NY: Free Press. Burdorf, K., & Straus, M. A. (1980). Recognition and Reporting of Child MaureaImennSummaulEmdingsEmmtthauonalSmdxofmcmcidenccandSmnnr ofChildAhuseandNogleot. Rockville, MD: Westat, Inc. Byrne, D. (1974). An Innoduofion to Eersonalifl. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 72 71 Cantrell, P., Carrico, M., Franklin, J ., & Grubb, H. (1990). Violent tactics in family conflict relative to familial and economic factors. Esyehologieal Reports. 66, 823-828. ago-.... .a‘ Cazenave N., & Straus, M. (1990). Race, class, network embeddedness and family» ) violence: A search for potent support systems. In Straus, M., & Gelles, R. (Eds), / Bhllsical Miolcncc in American Eamih'cs Newbury Park: Sage Publications . ,, Christopherson, R. J. (1983). Public perception of child abuse and the need for intervention: Are professionals seen as abusers? Child Abuse and Negleer. 1, 435-442. Cicirelli, V. (1983). Adult children's attachment and helping behavior to elderly parents: A path model. Joumal of Marriage and the Family. 15, 815-825. Chodorow, N. (1974) Family structure and feminine personality. In M. Z. Rosalso & L. Lamphere (Eds), Women Culture, and Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Coleman, M., Ganong, L. H., Clark, M., & Madsen, R. (1989). Parenting perceptions in rural and urban families: Is there a difi‘erence? Joumal of Marriage and rhe Family 51, 329-335. Daniel, J ., Hampton, R., & Newberger, E. (1983). Child abuse and accidents in Black families: A controlled comparative study. Ameriean Joumal of Wm. 53, 645-653. Davis, A., & Havighurst R. J. (1946). Social class and color difi‘erences in child- rearing- AmericanSociclogicalRon'cla 11. 608-710. ’—- deMause, L. (1974). The Motion offihildhomi. New York, NY: Broadway. Department of Health and Human Services (1981). National Study of the Incidence and Severity of Child and Neglect. Washington, DC: US. Government Printing Office. 72 Dickstein, L. J. (1988). Spouse abuse and other types of domestic violence. BatchiatiicClinicsofNorth America. 11. 611-628. Doerner, W. (1987). Child maltreatment seriousness and juvenile delinquency. Youth and Socicut 12, 197-224. Durrett, M. E., O'Bryant, S., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1975). Child-rearing reports of White, Blaclg Mexican-American families. Deyeloomenral Psychology ii, 871. Dutton, D., Fehr, B., & McEwen, H. (1982). Severe wife beating as deindividuated violence. W931. 1, 13-23. Eccles, J. S., (1987). Gender roles and women's achievement-related decisions. Worm Qtianarly. 11; 135-172. Erlanger, H. S. (1974). Social class difl‘erences in parents' use of physical punishment. In S. Steinmetz, & M. Straus, (Eds,). yiolenee in the Eamily. New York: Harper and Row. Escovar, L., & Escovar, P. (1985). Retrospective perception of parental child- rearing practices in three culturally difi‘erent college groups. International Journal of Interculnlral Relations. 2, 3 1-49. Fagot, B. I., & Hagan, R (1991). Observations of parent reactions to sex- stereotyped behaviors: Age and sex effects. Child Qeyeloomem. 62, 617-628. Fafler.K- (1981). SociallflcrkwithAhusodanchglcctedChildrcn; AManual of Imerdiseiolinaufiraeriee. NY: Free Press. Finkelhorfi. (1984). ChildSmulAhusc; NothcouiandRescarch. NY: Free - Press. . 73 Finkelhor, D. (1990). Early and Long Efi‘ects of Child Sexual Abuse: An Update. Professionalfisxchclogx; ResearchPractice. 21. 325-330. Finkelhor, D., & Redfield, D. (1984). How the public defines sexual abuse. In Finkelhor, D., (Ed,). Child Sexual Abuse. New York: Free Press. Freud, A. (1946). Ihe Ego Mechanisms of Defense. NY: International University Press. Garbarino, J ., 8r. Vondra, J. (1987). Psychological maltreatment: Issues and perspectives. In Brassard, Germain, & Hart (Eds), Bsyehologieal Maltreatment of Chfldren and Youth. NY: Pergamon Press. Garrett, K., & Rossi, P. (1978). Judging the seriousness of child abuse. Medieal W- 2. 147- Gelles, R. J. (1974). Child abuse as psychopathology: A sociological critique and reformulation. In Steinmetz and Straus (Eds), Xiolenoe in the Family. NY: Harper and Row. Gelles, R J. (1983). Child abuse as psychopathology: A sociological critique and reformulation. In Stacey and Shape (Eds), Ihe Family Seeret. Boston, Mass: Beacon Press; 49-65. Gelles, R. J., & Cornell, C. P. (1990). lntinme Xiolenee 'm Families. 2nd Edition. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Gelles R. J. & Straus, M. (1979). Determinants of violence in the family: Towards a theoretical integration. In Burr, Hill, Nye, & Reiss (Eds), Contemporary Theories Ahom the Family. NY: Free Press. 74 Gelles, R J. & Straus, M. (1990). The medical and psychological costs of family violence. In Straus & Gelles (Eds), thsieal yiolm in Ameriean Families. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Gil, D. G. (1983). The United States versus child abuse. lournal of Clinieal Child Balchology;12(3). 300-306. Gil, D. G. (1970). YiolenceAgainSIChildren; EhxncalChildAhuseWithinthe United States. MA: Harvard University Press. Giovannoni, J. M. & Becerra, R. M. (1979). Defin'mg Child Abuse. NY: Free Press. Giovannoni, J. M. & Billingsley, A. (1970). Child neglect among the poor: A study of parental adequacy in families of three ethnic groups. Child Welfare 22, 196-204. Grasmick, H., Bursik, R., & Kimpel, M. (1991). Protestant fundamentalism and attitudes toward corporal punishment of children. yiolenee and Mietims. 6, 283-298. Gray, E., & Cosgrove, J. (1985). Ethnocentric perceptions of childrearing practices in protective services. Child Ahuse and Negleet. 2, 389-396. Graziano, A. (1994) Why we should study subabusive violence against children. Joumaloflntcrrmsonal Yiolcncc. 2. 412-419. Graziano, A, Lindquist, C., Kunce, L., & Munjal, K. (1992). Physical punishment in childhood and current attitudes. An exploratory comparison of college students in the United States and India. Journal of Interpersonal yiolmee. 1, 147-155. Graziano, A., & Mills, J. (1992). Treatment for abused children: When is a partial solution acceptable? Child Ahuse and Neglect. 16, 217-228. 75 Graziano, A., & Namaste, K. (1990). Parental use of physical force in child discipline. Joumal of Intcimrsonal Miolcnce. 5. 449-463. Green, F. C. (1988). Corporal punishment and child abuse. Ihe Humanist. 58, 9-10 & 32. Greven-P. (1991). Snarcthckod: IheRcligioiisRootsofEhxsicalhm'ishment NY: Alford A. Knopf. Gully, K., Pepping, M., & Dengerink, H. (1982). Gender differences in third-party reports of violence. Journal of Marriage and the Family 42, 497-498. Halverston, C. (1988). Remembering your parents: Reflections on the retrospective method. JoumalofEersomlitx. 5.6. 435-443. Hampton, R. L. (1987). Race, class, and child maltreatment. mm of Ccmnaratiiie Emil! Studies. 1.8.113-126. Hegar, R., Zuravin, S., & Orme, J. (1994). Factors predicting severity of physical child abuse injury; A review of the literature. Journal of Interpersonal yiolenee. 2, 170- 183. Herman, J. (1981). Father-daughter incest. W 25191191931. 12, 76-80. Herrenkth E., Herrenkth R., & Toedter, L. (1983). Perspectives on the intergenerational transmission of abuse. In D. F inkelhor, R. J. Gelles, & M. A. Straus (Eds). The Dark Side of Eamihes. Current Earnilx Miolcnce Research (911 305-316). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Holden, G., & Edwards, L. (1989). Parental attitudes toward child rearing instruments, issues and implications. Esyehologieal Bulletin. 1.0.6. 29-58. 76 Horn, M. (1989). Before his Too Late. Penn: Philadelphia, Temple University Press. Itkin, W. (1952). Some relationships between intra-farnily attitudes and preparental attitudes toward children. Joiimal of Genetic. Fsyehology. 89, 221-252. Jacobsen J. (1986). Fsyehiatrie Seouelae of Child Abuse. Springfield, ILL: Charles C. Thomas Publishers. Janssens, J. (1994). Authoritarian child rearing, parental locus of control, and the child's behaviour style. intemationaiioumaiararhanoni Detachment. 11. 485-501. Jason, J ., & Andereck, N. (1983). Fatal child abuse in Georgia: The epidemiology of severe physical child abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect. 1, 1-9. Jenkins, E., Bell, C., Taylor, J ., & Walker, L. (1989). Circumstances of sexual and physical victimization of Black psychiatric outpatients. Joumal of the Natioml Medieal Association. 8.1. 246-252. Jensen, J. (1925). Child Labor. NY: The H.W. Wilson Company. /" Johnson, J. E. (1982). The Afro-American family. A Historical Overview in Bass et al. ,(Eds). IheAfroaAmericanEamilx: AssessmenLIreatmenLandResearchlsaies NY. Gruno and Stratton, 35-68. K, Jones, N. S. (1990). Black/White issues in psychotherapy: A framework for clinical Practice. Journal of Social Behaxior and Personality- 5.. 305-322. Kahn, P. M. & Leon, G. R. (1994). Group climate and individual functioning in all- women Antarctic expedition team. Enyironmqit and Behayior. 26(5); 669-697. Kalmus, D., & Straus, M. (1982). Wife's marital dependency and wife abuse. lournal of Marriage and the Family. 53(2), 277-286. 77 Kelder, L., McNamara, J ., Carlson, B., & Lynn, S. (1991). Perceptions of physical punishment. lollml of Interpersonal Xiolence a. 432-445. Kohn, M. (1969) The effects of social class on parental values and practices. In Kohn (Ed), Class and Conformity; A Study in Malues. Homewood, ILL: Dorsey Press. Koski, P., & Marigold, W. (1988). Gender efl'ects in attitudes about family violence. loumal of Emily Yiolence. 5. 225-237. Kurtz, P. D., Gaudin, J. M., Wodarski, J. S., & Howing P. T. (1993). Maltreatment and the school-aged child: School performance consequences. Child Abuse and Neglect. 11, 581-589. Larkey, L. K., Hecht, M. L., & Martin, J. (1993). What's in a name? Afiican American Ethnic Identity Terms and Self-Determination. Journal of Language and Smial Esxchology. 12. 302-317. Lampe, P. (1984). Ethnicity and crime: Perceptual difi‘erences among Blacks, Mexican Americans and Anglos. International Ioiimal of Intercultural Relations 3; 357- 372. Lindhohn, K., & Willey R. (1986). Ethnic differences in child abuse and sexual abuse. Hispanic lclimal ofBehaxioral Sciences. 3.111-125. McCrae, R. R., & Costa P. T. (1988b). Recalled parent-child relations and adult Personality. loiimalcf Personality. 55. 417-434. McCrae, R. R., & Costa P. T. (1988b). Do parental influences matter? A reply to Halverson. Ioumal of Eersonaliu 56. 445-449. MacEwen, V. E. (1994). Refining the intergenerational transmission hypothesis. Joumal of Interpersonal idolence. 2. 350-365. 78 McGee, R., & Wolfe, D. A. (1991). Between a rock and a hard place: Where do we go fi'om here in defining psychological maltreatment? Deyelooment and Esyehooathology. 3, 1 19-124. Maher. P. (1987) Child Abuse“. The Educational Eersoectile. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Limited. Markham, E., Lindsey, B., & Creel, G. (1969) Children in Bondage. NY: Arno and the New York Times. McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on black families and children: Psychological distress, parenting, and socioemotional development. Child Dexelonment. or, 311-346. _/-N ./ Marsh, V. A. (1991). Adult Siblings' Perceptions of their Parents' Child-Rearing Conduct. Thesis Abstracts. A... ---.. O'Toole, R., & Webster, S. (1988). Differentiation of family mistreatment: Similarities and difi‘erences by status of the victim. Deyiant minor 2, 347-368. Pagelow, M. (1984). Family yiolenoe. NY: Praeger Publishers. Payne, M. A. (1989) Use and abuse of corporal punishment: A Caribbean view. Child Abuse and Neglect. 11,389-401. Petersen, L., Lee, G., & Ellis, G. (1982). Social structure, socialization values, and disciplinary Techniques: A cross-cultural analysis. lloumal of Mmiage and the Family. 45, 131-142. Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research. Buichological Bulletin. 193(3); 499-514. 79 Powers, J, & Eckenrode, J. (1988). The maltreatment of adolescents. Child Abuse and Neglect 12,188-199 Reis, J. (1993). Black and White adolescent mothers' child-rearing beliefs and behaviors. Infant Mental Health Journal. 13. 221-233. Richards, M. H., Gitelson, I. B., Petersen, A. C., Hurtig, A. L. (1991). Adolescent personality in girls and boys: The role of mothers and fathers. Bsyehology of Women Quarterly- 15. 65-81. Ringwalt, C., & Earp, J. (1988). Attributing responsibility in cases of father- daughter sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect. 12,; 273-281. Rokeach, M. (1956). Political and religious dogrnatism: An alternative to the authoritarian personality. Pathological Moncgmihs; General and Applied. 29. 1-9. Rosenthal, J. A. (1988). Patterns of reported child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse induction. 12. 261-271. Roscoe, B. (1990). Defining Child maltreatment: Ratings of parental behaviors. Adolescence 2.5. 517-528. Roscoe, B. (1987). Defining Child Abuse: Younger adolescents' ratings of parental behaviors. Education 1512, 287-295. Shaw, M., & Wright. J. (1967). Scales for the Measuement ofAttitlides. NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Silver, L. B. (1968). Child abuse syndrome: A review. Medieal Times 2o, 803- 820. 8O Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., Conger, R. D., & Chyi-In, W. (1991). Intergenerational transmission of harsh parenting. Qeyeloomental Esyehology. 21,159- 17 l . Smith, T. (1990). Classifying protestant denominations. Reyieiy of Religious Research. 11, 225-245. Stets, J ,. & Straus M. (1990). Gender difl‘erences in reporting marital violence and its medical and psychological consequences. In Straus & Gelles (Eds), Bhysied Miolenm in the Ameriean Families. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Straus, M. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) scales. Journal of Maniage and the Eamfly- il. 75-88. Straus M ..&Gelles R (1990) PhysicallflolenceinAmericanEamilies New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Straus, M., Gelles, R., & Steinmetz, S. (1980). Behind Closed Doors; yiolenee in the American Family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Szinovacz, M. (1983). Using couple data as a methodological tool: The case of marital violence. loumal of Marriage and the Emily. 95. 633-644. Trickett, P. & Susman, E. (1988). Parental perceptions of child-rearing practices in physically abusive and nonabusive families Deyeloomental Esyehology. 25, 270-275. vanDalen A (1989). The emotional consequences of physical child abuse. Clinieal Social Work Journal. 11'. 383-394. Weissberg, M. P. (1983). Dangerous Seerets. NY: W.W. Norton & Company. Weller, S., Romney, A. K., & Orr, D. (1987). The myth of sub-culture of corporal Punishment. Human Qrganization as. 39-47. 81 West, L. J. (1993). A psychiatric overview of cult-related phenomena. lournal of theAmericanAcademxofEsxchoanalxsis. 21,1-19. Whissel], C., Lewko, J ., Carriere, R., & Radford, J. (1990). Test scores and sociodemographic information as predictors of child abuse potential scores in young female adults. Joumal of Social Beholder and Eersonalint- 5. 199-208. Vlfrehe, V. (1990). Religious influence on parental attitudes toward the use of corporal punishment. Lournal of Family mm. 5, 173-186. Willis, C ., & Wells, R. (1988). The police and child abuse: An analysis of police decision to report illegal behavior. Criminology 26, 695-715. Wolfe, D. A. (1985). Child-abusive parents: An empirical review and analysis. Esxcholcgical Bulletin. 21, 462-482. Wright, K. (1982). Sociocultural factors in child abuse. in Bass, B., Wyatt, G., & Johnson. G. (Eda).IheAfritAmeiicanEamil¥; AssessmenLIrcannentandResearch Issues. NY: Grune and Stratton; 237-261. Wurtele, S. & Miller, C. (1987). Children's conceptions of sexual abuse. lournal of ClinicalChildRsxchclogxlo. 184-191. Yarrow, M. R, Campbell, J. D., & Burton, R. V. (1970). Recollections of childhood: A study of the retrospective method. Monograohs of the Society for Research in Child Dcxcloomcnt. 3.5(Serial No. 138). Zaidi, L., Knutson, J ., & Mehm, J. (1989). Transgenerational patterns of abusive parenting: Analogue and clinical test. Aggressiye Behayior. 15, 137-252. "llllllll1111111111“