- .» any...“
5.

 

L1. LIBRARY
2002 Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

A LONGITUDINAL EXAMINATION OF HARSH DISCIPLINE AND
EXTERNALIZING BEHAVIOR: AN ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

presented by

TOKO OSHIO

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph. D. degree in Family and Child Ecology

 

 

fizz)?“ 4‘7fia

’ Major Proféssoi’s Signature
IL”!
fjfl 9/0 f“

Date

 

MSU is an affirmative-action, equal-opportunity employer

..-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-._.-.-._.-.-.-.-._.-._._.-.-.--.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-._4-.-..

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5108 KzlProVAcaPreyCIRC/Dateoue indd

 

 

A LONGITUDINAL EXAMINATION OF HARSH DISCIPLINE AND
EXT ERNALIZIN G BEHAVIOR: AN ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

By

Toko Oshio

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Family and Child Ecology

2008

ABSTRACT

A LONGITUDINAL EXAMINATION OF HARSH DISCIPLINE AND
EXTERNALIZING BEHAVIOR: AN ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

By
Toko Oshio

The purpose of this study was to use an ecological perspective to longitudinally
investigate the relation between harsh discipline, which consists of physical and
psychological discipline, and externalizing behaviors in children. In this study, harsh
discipline refers to the disciplinary practices which are likely to result in physical and
psychological pain or fear but not injury on the part of the child. More specifically, this
study focused on models examining three sets of relations among the key variables of
interest: 1) the individual change trajectory of externalizing behaviors relating to harsh
discipline and child temperament, 2) the reciprocal relations between harsh discipline and
children’s externalizing behaviors over time, and 3) the relations among children’s
temperament, harsh discipline, children’s externalizing behaviors, and exposure to
violence in the neighborhood.

This study used the data fiom the Project on Human Development in Chicago
Neighborhoods (PHDCN); the subsample of interest was the age 3 cohort group from
Wave 1 which includes 1003 children and their primary caregivers. Of the primary
caregivers in the sample, 45.5% were Latino, 16.8% were Caucasian, 34.7% were
African American, 94.2% were female, and 5.8% were male. Of the focal children in the
sample, 50.1% were male and 49.9% were female. For research questions and hypotheses,
multivariate analyses including latent growth curve, cross-lagged model, and path

analysis using structural equation modeling were employed.

The results showed that harsh discipline, including physical and psychological
discipline, challenging temperamental characteristics, and exposure to violence in the
neighborhood had significant relations with externalizing behavior in children over time.
Consistent with prior research, physical discipline was associated with higher levels of
externalizing behavior. Psychological discipline was also associated with higher levels of
externalizing behavior; there was little prior research investigating the relation between
psychological discipline and externalizing behavior. Moreover, exposure to violence in
the neighborhood was related to increases in harsh discipline and externalizing behavior.
Further analyses showed, in particular, that exposure to violence was a risk for
externalizing behavior among the African American children and among males, and a

higher level of activity was a risk for externalizing behavior among females.

Copyright by
Toko Oshio
2008

To my parents, Midori and Yoshihisa Oshio,
for their love and support

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It has been a great journey to write this dissertation. I must say that I have enjoyed
this process -- thinking, learning, and growing. However, it would not be the same
without a group of individuals who have guided my learning, helped me push my limits,
and provided tremendous support, fiiendship, and kindness. This is the expedition that I
have completed with these wonderful people.

First of all, I would like to express my deep appreciation to my mentor, Dr. Tom
Luster. He has served as an extraordinary role model, showing me what it takes to
become a fine scholar, what a great professor does for his students, and how a
compassionate human being treats someone in need. His mentorship has made me feel
that I am an extremely lucky student. I also wish to thank Dr. Esther Onaga for providing
me with a variety research opportunities, teaching me the value of collective intelligence
and social networking, and offering me unlimited support. I would like to thank Dr.
Alytia Levendosky for bringing her clinical perspectives and expertise of
psychopathology to my research. Likewise, I wish to express gratitude to Dr. Anne
Soderman for guiding me through fiom my undergraduate program to the completion of
this dissertation. I would not have been here if she did not encourage me to pursue a
graduate program and give me a chance to come back to Michigan State University by
choosing me as her teaching assistant.

I also wish to acknowledge the many friends in Japan, the U. K., and the US. who
have helped me have a “life” throughout my graduate program. I would like to thank

Amy Darnrow, Hiroe Lindsay, Eri Nakano, Reiko and Hideyuki Nakano, Jennifer New,

vi

Shizuka Shimabukuro, and Dr. Ann Stacks for their encouragements, fi'iendship, humor,
and ability to cheer me up.

I am especially grateful to my best friend Amy Tackabury, and her family: Dr.
Dan Tackabury, Ava, Macy and Ryann Tackabury, Elynn and Stephen Fraser, and Sarah
and Jim Tokach. I would like to thank them for their love and support, and for being there
for me as my family in the US. I also wish to thank Ava, Macy, and Ryann for their
natural talent to make me happy and brighten me up even when I am down.

Most importantly, I would like to express my deep appreciation to my family in
Japan, Midori and Yoshihisa Oshio, Wakako Wakarnatsu, Mariko, Nozomu, and Hajime
Oshio, and Michiko and Tarnae Matsumoto, for loving and supporting me, for believing
me that I can accomplish my goals, and for accepting as I am and letting me follow my
dreams. Their unconditional love and support and continuous encouragements have

always been with me.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................. x
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................ xi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 1
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................... 2
Conceptual and Theoretical Framework ............................................... 3
Research Questions and Hypotheses .................................................. 11
Conceptual and Operational Definitions ............................................. 12
Significance of the Research ........................................................... 14
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................... 15
Continuing Debate: Physical Discipline and Child Outcomes .................... 1.5
Correlates of Physical Discipline ...................................................... 18
Psychological Discipline ............................................................... 24
Externalizing Behavior: Trajectories and Reciprocal Relations .................. 26
Temperament ............................................................................ 31
Neighborhood Influence and Externalizing Behaviors ............................. 35
Summary ................................................................................. 37
CHAPTER 3 METHODS ....................................................................... 40
Research Design .......................................................................... 40
Data Collection ........................................................................... 41
Participants ................................................................................ 42
Missing Data ............................................................................... 43
Measurements ............................................................................. 44
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS ......................................................................... 53
Data Analysis Overview ................................................................ 53
Preliminary Analyses .................................................................... 53
Research Question 1 ..................................................................... 64
Research Question 2 ..................................................................... 67
Research Hypotheses .................................................................... 71
Summary .................................................................................. 84
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ......................................... 87
Discussion ................................................................................. 87
Limitations ................................................................................ 96
Implications ............................................................................... 97
Directions for Future Research ......................................................... 99
Conclusion ............................................................................... l 01

viii

REFERENCES .................................................................................. 1 02

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Harsh Discipline Measures Used for Each Analysis .............................. 48
Table 2: T-Test: Mean Scores by Gender ...................................................... 56
Table 3: One Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA): Mean Scores by Ethnicity ......... 59
Table 4: T-Test: Mean Scores by Income ...................................................... 61
Table 5: Pearson Correlations among Variables .............................................. 63

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Coercion Theory: An Example of a Coercive Interchange ........................ 7

Figure 2: Conceptual Model 1: Latent Growth Curve Modeling of Children’s
Extemalizing Behaviors in Relation to Temperament and Harsh Discipline 8

Figure 3: Conceptual Model 2: Cross-lagged Model of Harsh Discipline
and Children’s Extemalizing Behaviors ............................................. 9

Figure 4: Conceptual Model 3: Multiple Factors Related to Children’s

Extemalizing Behaviors ............................................................... 10
Figure 5: Model 1 Latent Growth Curve Model -— Modified Model ........................ 66
Figure 6: Model 2 Physical Discipline — Saturated Model .................................. 69
Figure 7: Model 2 Physical Discipline - Modified Model .................................. 69
Figure 8: Model 2 Psychological Discipline — Saturated Model ........................... 70
Figure 9: Model 3 Initial Full Model ........................................................... 73
Figure 10: Model 3 Multi-Sample Analysis: Male Subsample ............................. 76
Figure 11: Model 3 Multi-Sample Analysis: Female Subsample ........................... 77
Figure 12: Model 3 Multi-Sample Analysis: Hispanic Subsarnple ........................ 81
Figure 13: Model 3 Multi-Sample Analysis: African American Subsample ............. 82
Figure 14: Model 3 Multi-Sample Analysis: Caucasian Subsarnple ........................ 83

xi

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Why do we discipline children? In dictionaries, discipline refers to learning and
instructing. Children do not always do what parents want. When a child rnisbehaves, the
parent must decide what kind of discipline strategy to use. The parents use discipline to
correct the behavior and to teach the child how to follow the rules that keep a child safe
and help him or her learn the difference between right and wrong. The American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (2004) states that it is important to View
discipline as teaching not punishing.

However, more than ninety percent of preschool-age children in the US.
experience physical punishment as a form of discipline. Straus and Stewart (1999)
reported that the overall prevalence rate of physical punishment was 35% for infants and
94% for children ages three and four. Additionally, approximately 50% of American
parents used physical punishment for children at age 12, a third at age 14, and 13% at age
17. Regardless of the effectiveness or detrimental effects on children, the use of physical
punishment remains strong in the US.

The use of corporal punishment has been debated for decades among scholars and
practitioners working with children and families, and among lawmakers not only in the
US. but all over the world (Kazdin & Benjet, 2003). The United Nations (UN) clearly
stands against all forms of violence in relation to children, and declares its position in
Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Children (1990). In fact, policies and
laws that ban the use of corporal punishment at home and school have been adopted in 23

countries including: Austria, Bulgaria, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland,

Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway,
Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Uruguay, Ukraine, and Venezuela (Global Initiative
to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, 2007). On the other hand, the U. K. voted
against banning parents from spanking their children, with the government fearing that it
would be accused of intruding into family affairs. There are no laws that prohibit parents
from using corporal punishment in the United States except in Minnesota where parental
corporal punishment is a criminal assault (Gershoff & Bitensky, 2007).

There are many discipline strategies, such as reasoning, discussion, and positive
reinforcement, which teach children how to behave rather than punishing them. There are
also forms of punishment that do not require physical force, such as time-outs.
Nevertheless, the practice of physical discipline is prevalent even though the findings
from research regarding the effectiveness of physical discipline are limited. The findings
regarding the detrimental effects of physical discipline on child development are mixed
and controversial. Furthermore, most previous research has focused on physical
discipline, and there is very little literature that has attempted to investigate the influence
of discipline involving psychological force such as insulting and threatening.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to use an ecological perspective to investigate
longitudinally the relation between harsh discipline, which consists of physical and
psychological discipline, and externalizing behaviors in children. In this study, harsh
discipline refers to the disciplinary practices which are likely to result in physical and
psychological pain or fear but not injury on the part of the child. Further, physical

discipline refers to the use of physical force with the intention of causing a child to

experience pain for the purposes of correction or control of the child’s behavior (Straus,
1994). This study examined physical discipline but not physical abuse. Physical
discipline varies in severity from spanking, which is defined as striking the child on the
bottom or extremities with an open hand without inflicting physical injury, to physical
abuse, which consists of beating and scalding and is more likely to result in injuries.
Some researchers have argued that spanking falls within the normative range of
socialization practices in the US. (e.g., Baumrind, 1997; Baumrind, Larzelere, & Cowan,
2002). In this study, psychological discipline refers to the use of psychological force with
the intention of causing a child to experience psychological pain or discomfort for the
purposes of correction or control of the child’s behavior, and involves psychological
punishment such as yelling, threatening, and refirsing to talk.

More specifically, this study focused on models examining three sets of relations
among the key variables of interest: 1) the individual change trajectory of externalizing
behaviors relating to harsh discipline and child temperament, 2) the reciprocal relations
between harsh discipline and children’s externalizing behaviors, and 3) the relations
among children’s temperament, harsh discipline, children’s externalizing behaviors, and
exposure to violence in the neighborhood.

Conceptual and Theoretical Framework
Ecological Theory

This study was based on the ecological and the Process-Person-Context-Time
(PPCT) models of human development proposed by Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1998, 2001 ,
2005), and coercion theory developed by Patterson (1982, 2002). In the ecological model

of human development, Bronfenbrenner (1979) explained that an individual develops

within a complete system which is influenced by multiple levels of surrounding
environments. He described four dimensions of an individual’s overall ecological system,
which can be used for understanding behavior and development.

The four dimensions consist of the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and
macrosystem. Aspects of the microsystem and exosystem were examined in this study. A
microsystem “is a pattern of activities, roles, and interpersonal relations experienced by
the developing person in a given face-to—face setting with particular physical and material
features and containing other persons with distinctive characteristics of temperament,
personality, and systems of belief.” (Bronfenbrenner, 2005, p. 148). For example, a
home’s physical environment as well as activities, roles and relationships which happen
at home are considered as important elements of the microsystem for children. As a child
grows, he or she develops in other microsystems such as the school, neighborhood, and
peer group. In this study, there are two variables in the microsystems: harsh discipline at
home, and children’s exposure to violence in the neighborhood. Harsh discipline is a
variable in the microsystem of the home because it represents activities taking place in a
child’s home and can influence a child’s relationship with her or his parent. Children’s
exposure to violence in the neighborhood is a variable in a child’s microsystem of the
neighborhood.

An exosystem “encompasses the linkages and processes taking place between two
or more settings, at least one of which does not ordinarily contain the developing person,
but in which events occur that influence processes within the immediate setting that does
contain that person. (e.g., for a child, the relation between the home and the parent’s

workplace)” (Bronfenbrenner, 2005, p. 148). In this study, the primary caregivers’

exposure to violence in the neighborhood is a variable in a child’s exosytem because the
child does not necessarily actively participate in a parent’s experience of violence, but the
parent’s experience may affect the child indirectly via parental characteristics (e.g.,
beliefs, distress) or parental behavior.

Bronfenbrenner (1998) emphasized the importance of dynamic, developmental
relations between an active individual and his or her complex, integrated, and changing
ecology in his model of human development. The relations between the developing
individual and the active context constitute the basic process of human development.
Bronfenbrenner (2005) posited:

Over the life course, human development takes place through processes of

progressively more complex reciprocal interaction between an active, evolving

biopsychological human organism and the persons, objects, and symbols in its

immediate external environment. To be effective, the interaction must occur on a

fairy regular basis over extended periods of time. Such enduring forms of

interaction in the immediate environment are referred to as proximal processes. (p.
6)
Additionally, he stated:

The form, power, and direction of the proximal processes producing development

vary systematically as a joint frmction of the characteristics of the developing

person (including genetic inheritance); of the environment - both immediate and
more remote — in which the processes are taking place; of the nature of the

developmental outcomes under consideration; and of the continuities and changes

occurring in the environment over time, through the life course, and during the

historical period in which the person has lived. (pp. 6-7)

This study attempted to examine the relations between the proximal processes of
parental physical and psychological discipline and one developmental outcome --
externalizing behavior in children. As Bronfenbrenner proposed in his Process-Person-
Context—Time (PPCT) Model, the effect of a proximal process (parental discipline) on
an outcome (externalizing behavior) may depend on other characteristics of the child,
such as temperamental characteristics, and the environment in which the process occurs,
such as neighborhoods with high levels of violence or low levels of violence.

Coercion Theory

Coercion theory provides a conceptual framework for describing the processes
that disrupt families and contribute to child adjustment problems, and examines the role
of aversive events as determinants of antisocial behavior. It explains how parents and
children mutually influence each other to behave in ways that are more likely to increase
aggressive behavior problems among children and to decrease parents’ control over the
children’s behavior problems. The term coercion refers to the contingent use of aversive
behaviors in response to another person’s actions, and the term contingency implies a
connection between one event and another. It is built on the idea that behavior is, to some
extent, governed by immediately impinging events, and positive reinforcement, punishment,
and negative reinforcement play central roles in the coercion model (Patterson, 1982, 2002).
He argues that inconsistent but frequent harsh discipline creates a coercive pattern that is
reflected in all family interactions. These interactions become ineffective which according to
coercion theory becomes a learned response to adverse situations. Coercive interchanges

include physical violence, threatening, negative commands, critical remarks, teasing,

humiliation, and yelling. For example, it can be characterized by a parent’s demands for
compliance, the child’s refirsal to comply, the parent’s use of coercive discipline, and the
child’s escalating problem behaviors (See Figure 1). This study attempted to examine the
reciprocal relations between harsh discipline and children’s externalizing behaviors.
Figure 1

Coercion Theory: An Example of a Coercive Interchange

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child’? — N9 l_—p Escalated
Aggressron Compliance Aggression
Parent’s ’ More Coercive

Ineffective Discipline
Discipline

 

 

 

 

 

 

The conceptual models based on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory and his
Process-Person-Context-Time (PPCT) model of human development, coercion theory,
and the findings from previous studies are illustrated in Figures 2, 3, and 4. The variables
that were examined in this study are: 1) the child’s externalizing behaviors, 2) harsh
discipline, 3) child temperament, 4) the child’s exposure to violence in the neighborhood,
and 5) primary caregiver’s exposure to violence in the neighborhood.

First, the individual change trajectory of externalizing behavior as it relates to
harsh discipline and temperament was examined (see Figure 2). Second, the reciprocal

relations over time between children’s externalizing behaviors and harsh discipline were

7

examined (see Figure 3). Finally, the longitudinal relations among children’s
externalizing behaviors, temperament, harsh discipline, and exposure to violence in the
neighborhood were examined (see Figure 4).

Figure 2

Conceptual Model 1: Latent Growth Curve Modeling of Children ’s Extemalizing
Behaviors in Relation to Temperament and Harsh Discipline

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Emotionality Activity phys, D psy, D
A96 3 A99 3 Age 3 Age 3
/r
Temperament Harsh Discipline \
Age 3 Age 3

    

  
  

   

90 91
Initial Level Total Change

O‘

      

/

 

 

 

Extemalizing Extemalizing Extemalizing
Behavior Behavior Behavior
Age 3 Age 5 Age 9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: Phy. D refers to physical discipline; Psy. D refers to psychological discipline.

Figure 3

Conceptual Model 2: Cross-lagged Model of Harsh Discipline and Children’s
Extemalizing Behaviors

 

Physical
Discipline

Age 6

 

Psychological
Discipline

Age 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Harsh

Discipline
Age 6

Physical

Psychological

Discipline Discipline

Age 9

Age 9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extemalizing

Harsh
Discipline
Age 9

 

 

Behavior
Age 6

 

 

 

Extemalizing
Behavior
Age 9

 

 

 

.SZono basin 8 2&8 00m $32

 

 

e ow<
coco—o5
3 2508mm
(Lo .8530qu

e owe.
8:205
9 oBmomxm FEED

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

e30 FEED mo “Sunbeam 960m
9 ow< SEN—Lem o ow< 8330mm m ow< cogfiom a
3&2anme @538me wENmEEme Encouofim
coco—o5 cone—o5
2 83095 8 cosmoaxm
“boa “boa m om<
EoEEoQEoH

 

   

   

 

 

 

 

 

    

    

EEO

   

 

   
 

 

 

 

a a3 e owe. m one.
2:935 2:985 eczeoeo
smear 5353 5.33 3553‘.
8335 8:385 oeaeao 2:985 oezeoeo 2:9er
Egg—onoamm Eofiznm EofiBOfiifl Eommxam Eommofloaoxmm 329:3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eofiefim MENNEESRN a. 23339 8 ~33me 2893K mafia: ..m. None: 3:38:00

e 2&5

10

Research Questions and Hypotheses
The main research question which encompasses other specific questions and
hypotheses was: What is the longitudinal relation between harsh discipline and children’s
externalizing behaviors? More specifically, this study addressed the two specific research
questions and the five hypotheses listed below:
Specific Research Questions

1) What is the developmental trajectory of externalizing behaviors in relation to
temperament and harsh discipline? (see Figure 2)

2) How do harsh discipline and externalizing behaviors relate reciprocally and
longitudinally (i.e., cross-lagged relations between the two variables over time)?
(see Figure 3)

Research Hypotheses (Figure 4)

1) Challenging child temperamental characteristics at age three, as indicated by
higher levels of activity and ernotionality, are positively related to harsh discipline
and externalizing behaviors at age three.

2) Primary caregivers’ exposure to violence in the neighborhood is positively related
to harsh discipline when children are six- and nine-years old.

3) Children’s exposure to violence in the neighborhood is positively related to
externalizing behaviors when children are three-, six-, and nine-years old.

4) Harsh discipline is positively related to externalizing behaviors when children are
three-, six-, and nine-years old.

5) Extemalizing behavior problems at earlier time points are positively related to

harsh discipline at later time points.

11

Conceptual and Operational Definitions

This section provides the conceptual and operational definitions of the variables
which were examined in this study.
Harsh Discipline

Conceptual: Harsh discipline refers to the disciplinary practices used by a
primary caregiver, which are likely to result in physical and psychological pain or fear
but not injury on the part of the child.

Operational: The latent construct of harsh discipline was measured by two
observed variables: physical discipline and psychological discipline. These observed
variables were assessed by the two subscales: physical assault and psychological
aggression from the Conflict Tactics Scale for Parent and Child (CTSS).

Extemalizing Behavior

Conceptual: Extemalizing behavior refers to manifested behavior directed at
others that conflicts with other people and with their expectations for the child. It consists
of destructive and aggressive behaviors when a child is three years old and of aggressive
and delinquent behaviors when a child is six- and nine-years old (Achenbach, 1991).

Operational: Extemalizing behavior was assessed by the Child Behavior
Checklist for Ages 2-3 (CBCL/2-3) and the Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 4-18
(CBCL/4-18).

Child Temperament

Conceptual: Child temperament refers to an individual’s characteristic way of

responding to aspects of his or her environment. In this study, it includes two dimensions:

activity level and emotionality. Activity is defined as a tendency to be in physical motion,

12

and emotionality is defined as a tendency to become aroused easily to fear and anger and
refers to an expression of negative emotions (Buss & Plomin, 1975).

Operational: The latent construct of child temperament was measured by two
observed variables: activity and emotionality. These observed variables were assessed by
the subscales of activity and emotionality in the Emotionality, Activity, Sociability, and
Irnpulsivity Temperament Survey (EASI; Buss & Plomin, 1975).

Child’s Exposure to Violence in the neighborhood:

Conceptual: Exposure to violence in the neighborhood refers to a caregiver’s
perception of the child's experience of exposure to different types of violent acts such as
seeing someone shoved, kicked, or punched, seeing someone attacked with a knife,
hearing a gunshot, and seeing someone shot.

Operational: Child’s exposure to violence in the neighborhood was assessed by
the primary caregiver’s report on the Exposure to Violence (ETV) measure at ages three
and six. Both the primary caregiver’s and child’s reports on the ETV were used to create
a latent construct of the child’s exposure to violence in the neighborhood when a child is
nine years old.

Primary Caregiver ’s Exposure to Violence in the neighborhood:

Conceptual: Exposure to violence in the neighborhood refers to the primary
caregiver’s experience of exposure to different types of violent acts such as seeing
someone shoved, kicked, or punched, seeing someone attacked with a knife, hearing a

gunshot, and seeing someone shot.

13

Operational: Primary caregiver’s exposure to violence in the neighborhood was
assessed by primary caregiver’s report on the Exposure to Violence (Primary caregiver
version) when a child is six and nine years old.

Significance of the Research

The appropriateness of the use of physical discipline with children is one of the
most debated issues in the child clinical and developmental fields. However, the findings
are inconsistent and researchers interpret the findings differently; thus, additional
research on the associations among physical discipline and child behaviors is clearly
needed. Moreover, much attention has been paid to the effects of physical discipline, but
little is known about the influence of psychological discipline on children’s behaviors.

On the basis of prior research, investigators have emphasized the need for
longitudinal designs to study this topic because it enables researchers to control for child
behaviors at an earlier time point. Many investigators also argue that other factors in the
environment should be included in the analyses in addition to the relations between
physical discipline and child behaviors (e.g., Gershoff, 2002). Therefore, this study
attempted to examine the influence of psychological discipline as well as physical
discipline, utilized a longitudinal data set including data collected at three time points,
and included other factors that may be important for understanding the relation between

harsh discipline and children’s externalizing behavior.

14

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The review of literature is divided into six main parts. The first part presents an
overview of the influence of physical discipline on children. Next the correlates of
physical discipline are presented. The third part summarizes research on psychological
discipline. The fourth part consists of a summary of externalizing behavior, in particular
its trajectories and reciprocal relations to parents’ behaviors. The fifth part discusses the
relations among temperament, parenting, and externalizing behavior. Finally, the sixth
part presents an overview of the influence of community violence on children’s
externalizing behaviors.

Continuing Debate: Physical Discipline and Child Outcomes

The effectiveness of physical discipline is highly debated. Opponents of spanking
argue that spanking teaches children to become aggressive from a social cognitive
perspective, and a large body of research supports this. For example, a meta-analysis
conducted by Gershoff (2002) provided evidence that parental corporal punishment is
associated with child behaviors and experiences including higher levels of immediate
compliance, aggression, delinquency, antisocial behavior, physical abuse victimization,
and lower levels of moral internalization; it has also been linked to mental health issues
and problematic parent-child relationships because children might be more likely to avoid
parents if the children perceive their parents as sources of pain. Some studies show that
parental corporal punishment has prolonged effects influencing adult behavior such as
aggression, criminal and antisocial behaviors, mental health, substance abuse, and abuse

of one’s own child or spouse (e.g., Gershoff, 2002; Straus & Kantor, 1994).

15

Other studies suggest that this association is not found consistently after
accounting for the effects of child factors such as gender, temperament, theory of mind,
early behavior problems, and social information processes (e.g., Belsky, Heieh, & Crinic,
1998; Deater-Deckard & Dodge, 1997; Hughes, Deater-Deckard, & Cutting, 1996;
Hughes & Ensor, 2006; Weiss, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1992) and other factors such as
income, ethnicity, stress, and beliefs about parenting (e.g., Deater-Deckard & Dodge,
1997; Gunnoe & Mariner, 1997; Lansford, Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit,
2004; Pinderhuges, Dodge, Bates, & Zelli, 2000; Polaha, Larzelere, Shapiro, & Pettit
2004). Findings that support the relations between physical discipline and child behavior
problems differ in the degree to which physical discipline accounts for the variance in
child behavior. For example, Paolucci and Violato (2004) reported that corporal
punishment only had a small negative effect on child’s behavioral and emotional
development, and had almost no effect on cognitive development.

While the meta-analysis conducted by Gershoff (2002) provided evidence against
physical punishment, Larzelere, Kuhn and Johnson (2004) argued that some of the
studies in her analysis used clinical samples, which would bias outcomes because
children whose parents seek out intervention services likely have more behavior
problems than those whose parents do not use intervention services. Baumrind, Larzelere,
and Cowan (2002) noted that Gershoff’s (2002) analysis was flawed because 58% of her
effect size estimates came from cross-sectional analyses and 65% did not discriminate
between non-abusive and abusive physical discipline. In general, the literature that

examines the effect of physical discipline on children’s behaviors has methodological

16

problems, including measuring behaviors and discipline at the same time point and using
a retrospective design (e. g., Larzelere, 2000; Larzelere & Kuhn, 2005).

Moreover, it appears that the study design is associated with findings. For
example, longitudinal studies and studies that statistically control for early behavior
problems found that the predominant use of corporal punishment was more strongly
associated with negative outcomes than cross-sectional studies did (Larzelere & Kuhn
2005). There are also opposing findings, which make it difficult to be confident about the
associations among physical discipline and child behaviors. In a comprehensive review
based on 35 peer-reviewed studies with longitudinal designs on the relationship among
customary physical punishment and child outcomes, Larzelere (2000) reported that 34%
of the studies found predominantly detrimental outcomes, 34% found neutral or mixed
outcomes, and 32% found predominantly beneficial outcomes.

Those who do not believe that non-abusive physical discipline is associated with
negative child outcomes assert that physical discipline could be effective under some
circumstances: when it is administered by emotionally supportive parents; when it is used
sparingly and non-violently, and when it is used conditionally in response to defiance
(e. g., Larzelere, 2000; Larzelere & Kuhn, 2005; Paolucci & Violato, 2004). Findings
from a meta-analysis conducted by Larzelere and Kuhn (2005) suggest that conditional
physical punishment is more effective than alternate discipline strategies at reducing non-
compliance and antisocial behavior, especially when it is used to reinforce milder
discipline tactics and when the physical punishment is not severe. This finding supports
the results of Larzelere’s (2000) study, which found that non-abusive spanking of

children between the ages of two and six years is effective when it is used afier other

17

discipline methods failed. Additionally, Larzelre (2000) pointed out that detrimental
outcomes had been found for every alternative disciplinary tactic when investigated with
similar analyses.
Correlates of Physical Discipline

Gender

Child characteristics such as gender and age appear to influence whether children
are physically punished and the relations among physical discipline and subsequent
behaviors. Some studies suggest that males tend to receive more physical punishment
than females (Smith & Brooks-Gunn, 1997; Straus & Stewart, 1999). The reason for this
difference may be due to different parental expectations for boys’ and girls’ behavior, or
because boys tend to exhibit more aggression than girls (Gershoff, 2002). Hughes,
Deater—Deckard, and Cutting (1999) examined the relations among young children’s
understanding of mind, parental emotional expression, and disciplinary style, along with
gender differences in these relations. Compared with parents of males, parents of females
showed less negative affect and more positive affect, but also strict discipline.
Additionally, parental affect was found to be especially salient for understanding of mind
in females while discipline was more salient for males.
Age

Physical discipline may have different effects on children of different ages, in part
because a child’s age determines his or her level of cognitive functioning, which in turn
relates to his or her ability to understand punishment (Gershoff, 2002). Physical
discipline is primarily used with children under five years-old (Straus & Stewart, 1999).

The fi'equency of spanking peaks between the ages of three and four, when approximately

18

94% of children are spanked (Straus & Stewart, 1999). Thus, the negative effects of
severe and prominent physical punishment may be greater for younger children
(Larzelere & Kuhn, 2005).

Despite the risks to cognitive and emotional development associated with physical
discipline of very young children, research indicates that nearly 20% of mothers believed
that it was okay to spank infants who are younger than 12 months old (Socolar & Stein,
1995). According to Wissow (2001), the results of a survey conducted by the Common
Wealth Fund reported that 11% of parents had spanked an infant between the ages of six
and eleven months; 36% had spanked an infant between the ages of 12 and 17 months;
and 59% reported spanking a toddler between the ages of 18 and 23 months.

Brenner and Fox (1998) reported that among children under the age of five years,
parental discipline accounted for more than 13% of the unique variance in behavior
problems, even after controlling for family demographic variables. Other studies,
however, have found that conditional physical punishment appears to be more effective
and less strongly associated with negative outcomes in younger children (Gershoff, 2002),
and even when there is an association between physical punishment and behavior
problem, only a small number of children are affected. For example, Slade and Wissow
(2004) found that only 15% of non-Hispanic White children under two years-old who
were spanked five times in a week-long period had behavior problems that could be
considered clinically significant.

Parental Warmth
The impact of any kind of discipline on child development is dependent upon a

number of factors including what parents do (physical punishment or reasoning) and how

19

they do it (predictable or out of anger) (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Parents differ in the
way they use physical discipline: the fi'equency and severity of physical discipline, their
emotional arousal when they administer punishment, and whether they combine the
physical punishment with other techniques (Gershoff, 2002). One parental factor that
appears to moderate the relations among physical discipline and children’s outcomes is
parental warmth (Gershoff, 2002). Persistent harsh discipline and lack of maternal
warmth were associated with a lower IQ in females (Smith & Brooks-Gunn, 1997).
McLoyd and Smith (2002) found that maternal emotional support moderated the link
between spanking and children’s behavior problems. Though spanking was likely to
increase behavior problems over time in the context of low levels of emotional support,
this was not the case in the context of high levels of emotional support. Similarly, the
relation between harsh parenting and children’s externalizing behavior was strongest
when the mother-child relationship lacked warmth, and this result was consistent whether
the mother and children were genetically related (Deater-Deckard, Ivy, & Petrill, 2006).
Ethnicity

To date, examinations regarding the moderating role of cultural context on the
influence of physical discipline have received much attention. Some studies suggest that
different parenting styles may be more adaptive in different ethnicities (e. g., Deater-
Deckard, Dodge, & Sorbring, 2005). Nonetheless, studies that examine the influence of
physical discipline in different race/ethnicity samples have produced conflicting findings.
Amato and Fowler (2002), using data fiom the National Survey of Families and
Households, reported that parenting practices did not interact with parents’ race, ethnicity,

family structure, education, income, or gender in predicting child outcomes. Whiteside-

20

Mansell, Bradley, Owen, Randolph, and Cauce (2003) also found that the relations
between harsh, intrusive and responsive parenting and children’s behaviors were similar
across Afiican American and Caucasian groups. McLoyd and Smith (2002) found the
importance of maternal emotional support in understanding the relation between physical
punishment and children’s behavior problems, but no differences were found among
Caucasian, Afiican American, and Hispanic families.

On the other hand, several studies found ethnic differences in the relations of
physical discipline and children’s externalizing behaviors. Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates,
and Pettit (1996) showed a significant interaction between ethnicity and discipline. Four
hundred sixty-six Caucasian and one hundred Afiican American children fiom a broad
range of socioeconomic levels were followed from kindergarten through third grade.
They found that harsher discipline was associated with higher externalizing problems in
the school setting, but the association was found only for Caucasian children. There was
no relation between teacher and peer-rated externalizing problems and the harshness of
physical discipline for African American children, and there was actually a trend
whereby Afiican American children receiving harsh physical punishment had lower
levels of aggression and externalizing behaviors. Lansford, Deater-Deckard, Dodge,
Bates, and Pettit (2004) followed 585 children from ages five through sixteen, and found
ethnic differences in the long-term influence of physical discipline on externalizing
behavior problems; the experience of physical discipline at each time point was related to
higher levels of externalizing behaviors for European American adolescents but lower
levels of externalizing behaviors for Afiican American adolescents. Similarly, Polaha,

Larzelere, Shapiro and Pettit (2004) reported the group difference by ethnicity in the

21

relation between parental use of physical discipline and children’s externalizing behavior
problems. The greater use of physical discipline was found to be associated with lower
levels of externalizing problems, but only for teachers’ reports about African American
males. Furthermore, Gunnoe and Mariner (1997) examined the data from the National
Survey of Families and Households utilizing structural equation modeling, and found that
spanking did not predict aggressive behaviors among children ages four to eleven years.
The association between physical discipline and subsequent aggression for African
American children was primarily negative.

Although most studies which investigate the influence of ethnicity compare
Caucasian and African American families, Cardona, Nicholson, and Fox (2000)
examined group difference between Caucasian and Hispanic families. They found
Hispanic mothers used a higher frequency of punishment and a lower frequency of
nurturing with their very young children compared to Caucasian mothers. In addition,
Hispanic mothers with higher levels of income reported higher levels of punishment and
lower levels of nurturing than did Caucasian mothers and Hispanic mothers with lower
levels of income.

Finally, a recent study advanced the field using a cross-cultural design trying to
understand why between-country differences arise in the use of physical discipline and
children’s outcomes. The group of researchers in the US, China, India, Italy, Kenya, the
Philippines, and Thailand reported that physical discipline was less strongly associated
with adverse child outcomes in conditions of greater perceived normativness of physical
discipline, but physical discipline was also associated with more adverse outcomes

regardless of its perceived normativness. Countries with the lowest use of physical

22

discipline showed the strongest association between mothers’ use of physical discipline
and children’s behavior problems, but in all countries, higher use of physical discipline
was associated with more aggression and anxiety (Lansford, Chang, Dodge, Malone,
Oburu, Palmerus, Bacchirri, Pastorelli, Bombi, Zelli, Tapanya, Claudhary, Deater-
Deckard, Manke, & Quinn, 2005)
Community

The influence of neighborhood contexts on parenting and child outcomes has
been well documented to date. McLoyd (1990) posits that the detrimental effects of
poverty on children’s development are mediated through the effects of poverty on
parenting, and that economic hardships and disadvantage relate to harsh parenting, which
in turn influences children negatively. Her study found that single, economically
disadvantaged mothers who reported higher levels of economic difficulty were more
likely to hit and scold their children more frequently. Ceballo and McLoyd (2002)
examined how stressful enviromnental conditions influence the relations between
mothers' social support and parenting strategies. They found that the positive influence of
social support on parenting behaviors was strained and attenuated in poorer, high-crime
environments. In low-income neighborhoods, the positive relation between emotional
support and mothers' nurturant parenting was decreased, and the negative relation
between instrumental social support and physical punishment was stronger in more
affluent neighborhoods. Similarly, no association between physical punishment and
children’s behavior problems was found in the communities where physical discipline
was prevalent although there was a positive relation in the communities where physical

discipline was seldom used (Simons, Lin, Gordon, Brody, Murry & Cogner, 2002).

23

Psychological Discipline

Most literature regarding psychological discipline comes from the area of
psychological / emotional maltreatment or abuse because most prior studies in the area of
parenting and socialization have focused on physical discipline not psychological
discipline. The findings fi'om research examining the influence of psychological
maltreatment on children suggest the relations between psychological maltreatment and
children’s outcomes including: insecure attachment, aggression, delinquency,
oppositional behaviors, low self-esteem, internalizing problems, and poor academic
achievement (e.g., Morimoto & Sharma. 2004). Furthermore, it appears that the use of
psychological maltreatment is prevalent.

Using a longitudinal study which followed 267 children fi'om high risk families,
Egeland, Sroufe, and Erickson (1983) examined the influence of different patterns of
maltreatment on children’s outcomes. They found that at age 42 months, the children
whose mothers were verbally abusive showed the highest levels of anger and were the
most avoidant of their mothers. Webb, Heisler, Call, Chickering, and Colburn (2007)
studied the relations among shame and guilt, symptoms of depression, and psychological
maltreatment. They found that psychological maltreatment was positively correlated with
depression and shame. Moore and Pepler (2006) also examined the relation between
different forms of maternal verbal aggression and children’s adjustment. Mothers from
violent and non-violent families were compared on their use of verbal aggression, and it
was found that the mothers fiom both groups used threats and insults with comparable

frequency. In addition, they found that insults were predictive of children’s adjustment,

24

and the children from violent homes were more poorly adjusted than those from
nonviolent homes.

Vissing, Straus, Gelles, and Harrop (1991) examined the data from a nationally
representative sample of 3,346 American parents with a child under 18 living at home,
and found that 63% of parents reported one or more instances of verbal aggression, such
as swearing and insulting the child. Children who experienced frequent verbal aggression
from parents exhibited higher levels of physical aggression, delinquency, and
interpersonal problems, based on a parent’s report, than other children. In addition,
children who experienced both verbal aggression and severe physical violence exhibited
the highest rates of aggression, delinquency, and interpersonal problems.

One of the difficulties that many studies regarding psychological maltreatment
face is that most studies confounded psychological aggression with other types of
maltreatment (V issing, Straus, Gelles, & Harrop, 1991). Moreover, there seems to be a
problem defining and assessing psychological abuse. In part, this is because most
children occasionally experience some of these acts (Claussen & Crittenden, 1991).
Nevertheless, more studies have attempted to overcome these obstacles. Claussen and
Crittenden (1991) examined if psychological maltreatment would be present in almost all
cases of physical maltreatment. They found that psychological maltreatment could occur
alone, and that psychological maltreatment and children’s outcomes were related
negatively. Solomon and Serres (1999) made an effort to distinguish the influence of
verbal violence from the influence of physical punishment, and investigated whether
parental verbal violence had a negative influence on children’s self-esteem and academic

achievements. The results showed that parental verbal violence alone, as separate and

25

distinct fi'om physical punishment, contributed to lowering children’s self-esteem and
school achievements. Ney, Fung, and Wickett (1994) studied the impact of various kinds
of abuse and neglect on the children’s perceptions of themselves and their future. They
found that a combination of physical neglect, physical abuse, and verbal abuse had the
greatest negative impact on children. An early age of onset for verbal abuse and
emotional neglect was significantly associated with greater severity and frequency of
mistreatment.

Further, recent studies have attempted to examine the correlates or processes of
psychological maltreatment. For example, Morimoto and Shanna (2004) examined the
long-term influence of parental verbal aggression as it related to possible protective
factors. An association existed between verbal aggression and negative outcomes;
however, family cohesion was found to be a better predictor of psychological adjustment
than verbal aggression alone. In addition, a history of verbal aggression was more likely
to be related to negative outcomes in females, although overall psychological adjustment
and available protective factors were found to be similar for males and females. Caughy
and Franzini (2005) studied variations in attitudes regarding discipline by race/ethnicity
and by characteristics of the residential neighborhoods. They found that the endorsement
of psychological discipline, such as yelling and threatening, was related to neighborhood
conditions, but the use of physical discipline was not.

Extemalizing Behavior: Trajectories and Reciprocal Relations

Extemalizing behavior has been the topic of a great amount of research in child
development. The study of aggression and antisocial behaviors encompasses a variety of

theoretical perspectives and methodologies. In this section, the literature regarding

26

trajectories of externalizing behavior and its reciprocal relations to parents’ behaviors is
presented.
Trajectories

The findings from prior studies emphasize the importance of examining children’s
early behaviors because early externalizing behavior is likely to play a crucial role in
determining pathways of persistent conduct problems. Environmental factors, such as
parenting and peers, also appear to play a role in shaping the trajectories. The literature
review conducted by Campbell, Shaw, and Gilliom (2000) discusses the stability of early
externalizing behavior and the diverse pathways that young children, who have early-
emerging problems, might follow. Based on a number of studies, it was suggested that
the small subgroup of males with multiple risk factors, including high levels of early
hyperactivity and aggression, and high levels of negative parenting and family stress, are
most likely to indicate evidence of continuing behavior problems at school entry. They
argue that many young children show behaviors similar to symptoms of Attention Deficit
/ Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (e.g., over activity, restlessness, difficulty in waiting
turns), and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) (e.g., noncompliant); however, most
children who show these behaviors, either in isolated form or for a short time in
toddlerhood or as preschoolers, would not meet the criteria for any of these disorders by
school entry. Nonetheless, some children, who show some of these behaviors at higher
levels in early childhood and have risk factors in the family, will continue to have
problems in middle childhood and beyond.

For example, Shaw, Gilliom, Ingoldsby, and Nagin (2003) followed 284 male

children from low-income families to model developmental trajectories of conduct

27

problems from ages two to eight. Based on the data fiom those children, they identified
four developmental trajectories: a persistent problem trajectory, a hi gh-level desister
trajectory (higher level of aggression than moderate-level desister trajectory), a moderate-
level desister trajectory, and a persistent low problem trajectory (chronically low level of
aggression), and found that the children who were more fearless and whose mothers
reported higher levels of depressive symptoms during toddlerhood were more likely to be
in the persistent problem or hi gh-level desister groups than in the moderate-level desister
or persistent low problem groups. The children who remained in the persistent problem
group had higher levels of fearlessness and received rejecting parenting when they were
two years old. Those who showed initially higher levels of behavior problems but later
desisted did not have high levels of fearlessness or receive rejecting parenting.

Other studies provide evidence of two typologies: childhood-onset antisocial
behaviors and adolescent-onset antisocial behaviors suggesting that conduct problems
have different etiologies and outcomes for the two types across the adult life course (e.g.,
Caspi & Moffitt, 1995). The literature suggests that life-course conduct problems
originate early in life when the difficult behaviors of young children are exacerbated by
risk factors in the environments such as harsh discipline and maternal depression. On the
other hand, adolescent-limited conduct problems are considered as common, relatively
temporary, and normative because these youth’s prior development is healthy, and most
young people who become adolescence-limited delinquents are able to divert from crime
when they become more mature.

Denham, Workman, Cole, Weissbrod, Kendziora, and Zalm-Waxler (2000)

examined whether parental emotions and behaviors contributed to continuity and change

28

in preschool children’s externalizing behaviors. They found that externalizing behavior
problems showed strong continuity two and four years later. Proactive parenting such as
supportive presence, clear instruction, and limit setting predicted fewer behavior
problems over time after controlling for initial behavior problems. On the other hand,
parental anger predicted continuation of problems over time. It was found that parenting
behaviors were most influential for children whose initial problems were in the clinical
range.

However, most earlier studies examined only males because males are more likely
to have higher levels of externalizing problems. Yet, gender differences began to be
included in examining the trajectories of conduct problems. Moffitt and Caspi (2001)
compared childhood risk factors of males and females who exhibit childhood-onset and
adolescent-onset antisocial behaviors using a longitudinal data set collected in Dunedin,
New Zealand. They found that childhood-onset delinquents had childhoods with
inadequate parenting, neurocognitive problems, difficult temperament, and behavior
problems while adolescent-onset delinquents at ages 13 and 18 years old did not have
these difficulties. The gender comparison revealed a male-to-female ratio of 10:1 for
childhood-onset delinquency, but only 1:1.5 for adolescent-onset-delinquency. The
females in the group of childhood-onset delinquents had childhoods with high risks,
similar to males, but adolescent-onset females did not have these difficulties.
Reciprocal Relation

The examination of reciprocal relations between a child and parent is not new in
developmental psychology. A control system model, which contends that both parent and

child have hierarchically organized repertories from which behavior is elicited in a

29

predictable way by the behavior of the other was proposed about three decades ago (Bell,
1971). To date, there are several theories which involve reciprocal relation and studies
which examine this relation empirically.

Shaw, Bell and Gilliom (2000) examined mothers and their infants fiom low-
income families, and found that from ages one to eight, child and parenting variables
contributed additively and interactively to an escalation in children’s conduct problems,
distant and rejecting parenting, and coercive parent-child relationships. In addition,
parental and sibling conflicts were likely to increase child and parenting risk factors in an
additive and interactive manner by reinforcing children’s patterns of disruptive behaviors
and conflictual relations with adults and peers.

Patterson (1982) developed coercion theory which describes the conflictual
patterns of interaction exhibited by children and their families. In coercion theory, parent
and child behave in a way that is aversive to the other to control the other’s behaviors. As
the child becomes increasingly disruptive, the parent escalates the use of force, and these
cycles eventually lead to the child’s behavior problems. Further, a dynamic systems
model was proposed based on coercion theory, and discusses the importance of time and
change of this reciprocal relation (Grarric & Patterson, 2006). Some recent studies have
provided support for these models as statistical methodologies advanced. For example,
Snyder, Crarner, Afrank, and Patterson (2005) conducted a longitudinal study including
134 males and 132 females and their families during kindergarten and first grade. Four
hours of parent- child interaction were coded to obtain parent discipline practices, and
structured interviews were used to assess maternal attributions about children’s behaviors.

The findings show that maternal ratings of children’s conduct problems at kindergarten

30

entry reliably predicted the mothers’ subsequent hostile attributions concerning children’s
misbehaviors and the use of ineffective discipline strategies. Ineffective maternal
discipline and the interaction of ineffective discipline and hostile attribution predicted an
increase in children’s conduct problems at home during kindergarten and first grade.
They found that changes in teacher-reported and observed children’s conduct problems at
school during kindergarten and first grade were predicted by the growth in conduct
problems at home and by the interaction between ineffective discipline and hostile
attributions.

Smith, Calkins, Keane, Anastopoulps, and Shelton (2004) examined the stability
and continuity of early-identified behavior problems and the factors associated with
stability. Mothers’ reports of children’s externalizing behaviors and laboratory
observations of children’s noncompliance were found to be stable from ages two to four.
Although the mothers’ reports of children’s externalizing behaviors decreased over time,
children’s noncompliance in the laboratory did not. Moreover, maternal controlling
behavior was related to increases in behavior problems when children exhibited higher
levels of prior noncompliance and maternal control, and children’s noncompliance was
predictive of increases in maternal controlling behavior over time.

Temperament

It has been a long time since temperament first began to be considered as an
important factor for our understanding of children’s behaviors. Thomas and Chess (1977)
noted that approximately 10% of children in their study were considered diflicult children
who tended to show negative withdrawal responses to new stimulus, less adaptability to

change, and intense mood expression which were frequently negative. They also reported

31

that there were some children who occasionally exhibited behavior problems despite the
presence of positive parenting, based on the findings from the New York Longitudinal
Study. They explained that children’s temperament and their rearing environment can
match, creating goodness of fit, or repel, creating poomess of fit, which may influence
children’s behaviors negatively (Thomas & Chess, 1977). Prior to this, many theorists
believed that parents were fully responsible for the children’s behavior problems. Since
then, however, a great amount of research on temperament has been conducted using
both community and clinical samples. Temperament has been discussed in many
parenting books. These books try to help those parents who have difficult children to deal
with their child’s challenging behaviors by offering a variety of strategies and practical
solutions (e. g., Dobson, 2007; Kurcinka, 1998). Simultaneously, many studies have
attempted to examine exactly how temperament relates to behavior problems.

Many scholars believe that children’s temperament influence parenting and
socialization processes, which in turn, influence child development (e.g., Belsky, 1984).
They are more likely to focus on the relations among difficult temperament,
environmental factors, and externalizing behavior, in particular the moderating or
mediating role of family and environmental factors. Some are more likely to view
negative emotionality or difficult temperament as an in-bom or constitutional feature of
the child, and consider it as one of the origins of conduct problems (e.g., Caspi, Henry,
McGee, & Moffitt, 1995; Rothbart & Bates, 1998) suggesting temperament is basically a
subclirrical manifestation of psychopathology (N igg, 2006).

Temperament, Environmental Factors, and Extemalizing Behavior

32

Belsky (1984) proposed a model on the determinants of parenting identifying
three main determinants of parental behaviors: the personality and personal resources of
the parent, characteristics of the child, and contextual sources of stress and support. In his
model, child’s temperament is an important factor as a characteristic of the child. For
example, Clark, Kochanska, and Ready (2000) examined the relations among mother’s
personality, its interaction with infant’s negative emotionality, and parenting behavior,
using a longitudinal, multimethod investigation. The mothers were asked to complete
personality self-reports, and infants’ negative emotionality was observed in both
laboratory and home settings when the infants were eight to ten months old. When the
infants were 13 to 15 months old, two aspects of parenting -- power assertion, and
maternal responsiveness -- were observed. They found that maternal personality alone
and also in interaction with child emotionality were predictive of later maternal power
assertion.

Belsky, Hsieh, and Cmic (1998) investigated how infant negative emotionality
and parenting during the toddler years were related to children’s externalizing behaviors
and inhibited behaviors when the children were three years old in the sample of 125 first-
born Caucasian males. They found no relations between infants’ negative emotionality
and externalizing behaviors or inhibition when infants’ negative emotionality was
measured by observations, rather than parents’ report. Also, parenting was found to be a
significant predictor of externalizing behaviors and inhibition in the case of children who
had higher levels of negative emotionality as infants. The findings fiom this study
suggest that infant temperament moderates the effect of parenting; the infants who have

higher levels of negative emotionality are more likely to be susceptible to rearing

33

influence. Subsequently, they proposed the differential susceptibility hypothesis arguing
that infants with high level of negative emotionality or with difficult temperament are
most developmentally responsive to parenting with respect to the development of
behavior problems.

To test the differential susceptibility hypothesis, Bradley and Corwyn (2008) used
the data from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and examined the interactions
among three aspects of parenting (harshness, sensitivity, productive activity) and
temperament as they related to teachers’ reports of externalizing behaviors in first grade.
The results indicated stronger relations between maternal sensitivity and behavior
problems as well as relations between opportunities for productivity and behavior
problems for children with difficult temperament. Morris, Silk, Steinberg, Sessa,
Aveneboli, and Essex (2002) investigated whether the detrimental effect of negative
parenting was heightened among children with difficult temperament. They found that
maternal hostility was associated with externalizing problems among children with high
level of irritable distress, and that maternal hostility was associated with externalizing
behaviors among children with poor effortful control.

Direct Link between Temperament and Extemalizing Behavior

Others have attempted to examine more direct relations between children’s
difficult temperament and externalizing behavior problems. Nigg (2006) discusses the
link between temperament and psychopathology by reviewing the findings from previous
studies. In his review, he notes that low fear response, and either high incentive approach

or high anger reactivity are related to Conduct Disorder, and that extremely low effortfirl

34

control and strong approach are related to Attention Deficit / Hyperactivity Disorder
(ADHD).

Caspi, Henry, McGee, Moflitt, and Silvia (1995) found temperamental
dimensions at ages three and five years old were related to behaviors problems at ages
nine, eleven, thirteen, and fifteen years old. Lack of control was more strongly related to
later externalizing behavior problems. Martel and Ni g (2006) investigated the relations
of mother-rated temperament traits, including reactive control, effortful control, and
negative emotionality, with domains of parent and teacher-rated ADHD and antisocial
behavior in a sample of children with ADHD and controls ages seven to thirteen. They
found relations between low reactive control and hyperactive-impulsive symptoms and
between negative emotionality and oppositional behaviors after removing overlapping
items.

Neighborhood Influence and Extemalizing Behaviors

There is evidence that children who live in urban areas are exposed to high rates
of community violence, and the deleterious influence of exposure to community violence
on child development is well documented (e.g., Osofsky, Wewers, Hann, & Pick, 1993;
Richters & Martinez, 1993). Eighty percent of youth from economically disadvantaged
inner-city neighborhoods in Chicago reported some exposure to community violence
during their lifetime, and 65% in the past year. In addition, these youth were exposed to
many different kinds of violence; more than half (54%) of the males reported that they
had seen someone beaten up, and approximately 20% reported that they had seen

someone shot or killed (Gorman-Smith & Tolan, 1998).

35

However, not all children exposed to commtmity violence become aggressive or
delinquent. Some recent studies have attempted to examine the relations among exposure
to community violence, family environment, and children’s behaviors, although the
evidence is limited. Gorman-Smith and Tolan (1998) investigated the relations among
exposure to violence, family relationship characteristics and parenting practices, and
aggression and depression in children using the data from the Chicago Youth
Development Study (CYDS). They found that the level of exposure to violence in the
community was not predicted by family relationships and parenting characteristics, but
the exposure to community violence in the past year was related to higher levels of
aggressive behaviors and depression among children over a one-year period, even after
controlling for previous aggression and depression. Moreover, the relations of community
violence to both aggression and depression were moderated by family structure, including
levels of organization and support within the family, suggesting that family structure
could be a protective factor for the children who are exposed to violence.

The subsequent data from the CYDS were used to investigate the risk of exposure
to community violence, its relation to violence perpetration, and the role of family
functioning among a sample of 263 African American and Latino males in inner-city
neighborhoods (Gorman-Smith, Henry, & Tolan, 2004). It was found that the youth from
struggling families that used poor parenting practices and had lower levels of emotional
cohesion were more likely to be exposed to community violence, and exposure to
violence was related to later violence perpetration among adolescents. The youth who
were exposed to high levels of community violence, but living in families functioning

well across multiple dimensions of parenting and family relationship characteristics, were

36

less likely to perpetrate violence than similarly exposed youth from less well-functioning
families.

Most investigations regarding exposure to community violence examine
adolescents, but there are a few studies which examined younger children. The study
conducted in Washington DC by Richters and Martinez (1993) indicated that 72% of
early elementary school children from low-income neighborhoods had witnessed some
type of community violence. Miller, Wasserman, Neugebauer, Gorman-Smith, and
Karnboukos (1999) investigated the longitudinal relations among children’s self-report of
witnessing community violence, family environment, and parents’ report of children’s
antisocial behavior in a sample of six to ten years old urban males. The participants
reported high rates of lifetime exposure to community violence, and their witnessing
community violence was significantly positively related to changes over 15 months in
children’s antisocial behaviors, even after controlling for the family environment
including parent-child conflict, involvement, and monitoring. In families with low
conflict, higher levels of witnessed violence predicted an increase in antisocial behaviors
over time. In families with relatively high levels of parent-child conflict, high-witnessed
violence had no additional influence on antisocial behaviors. A study conducted by
Fitzgerald, McKelvey, Schiffrnan, and Montanez (2006) involved a national sample of
preschoolers and their fathers from low-income families. They examined the relations
between neighborhood violence and fathers’ antisocial behaviors, and found that the
children who were exposed to higher levels of neighborhood violence and father’s
antisocial behaviors were more likely to have poorer emotion regulation.

Summary

37

It is evident that there is still considerable debate regarding the effects of physical
discipline on children. As a result of recent studies, it is now known that there are several
factors that influence the relation between harsh discipline and children’s externalizing
behaviors, and the findings from these studies are based on diverse samples and measures,
which might also contribute to conflicting results. While there are many studies regarding
physical discipline, little is known about the influence of psychological discipline on
children’s behaviors. Some studies have shown that children are likely to experience both
types of discipline. Thus, it is important to simultaneously examine each influence on
children’s externalizing behaviors.

Moreover, previous studies have repeatedly emphasized the need for longitudinal
designs because they enable researchers to examine the relations of interest while
controlling for child behaviors at an earlier time point. Another methodological problem
in some previous studies is lack of agreement regarding how to measure physical
discipline; some scholars have warned that it is crucial to distinguish non-abusive
physical discipline, which does not result in injuries, from severe physical discipline,
which could be considered physical abuse. Thus, the current study used a longitudinal
data set including data collected at three time points. In addition, the measure of physical
discipline was clearly distinguished from abusive discipline because the subscale of
severe assault / physical maltreatment was not included.

Other studies have shown that in addition to physical discipline, exposure to
violence in community and children’s temperamental characteristics influence
externalizing behaviors, including their trajectories and change. Also, the prior studies

have provided evidence that primary caregiver’s exposure to violence in community

38

influence parenting at home, which in turn influences child development. However, these
factors have been examined separately. Thus, it is necessary to examine these factors
simultaneously in order to view children fi'om an ecological perspective and expand our
understanding of externalizing behaviors.

In summary, this study attempted to fill gaps identified in the literature by
simultaneously examining the influence of psychological discipline and physical
discipline on externalizing behavior, while following the recommendations of other
investigators regarding research design in this area — that is, using a longitudinal design
to examine the relations among variables over time, and limiting the measure of physical
discipline to acts that are not typically considered abusive. Moreover, this study included
other factors that may be important for understanding the relation between harsh
discipline and children’s externalizing behavior, such as children’s exposure to violence

in the community and children’s temperament.

39

CHAPTER 3
METHODS
Research Design

This study used restricted data fi'om the Project on Hmnan Development in
Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN). The PHDCN is an interdisciplinary study of how
families, schools, and neighborhoods influence child and adolescent development. It was
designed to advance our understanding of the developmental pathways of both positive
and negative behaviors. The PHDCN includes a variety of factors in the environment that
relate to these behaviors

The project's design consisted of two major components. The first was an
intensive study of Chicago's neighborhoods, particularly the social, economic,
organizational, political, and cultural structures and the dynamic changes that take place
in the structures over time. The second component, the Longitudinal Cohort Study, was a
series of coordinated longitudinal studies that followed over 6,000 randomly selected
children, adolescents, and young adults to examine the changing circumstances of their
lives and the personal characteristics that might lead them toward or away fi’om a variety
of behavior problems. In this current study, the data from the Longitudinal Cohort Study
data set was used with permission from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data
(N ACJ D).

The Longitudinal Cohort Study used a stratified probability sample method. The
project collapsed eight hundred forty seven census tracts in the city of Chicago into 343
neighborhood clusters based on seven groupings of racial/ethnic composition and three

levels of socioeconomic status. Eighty of 343 neighborhood clusters were sampled fiom

40

the 21 strata (seven racial/ethnic groups by three socioeconomic levels) in order to
represent the 21 cells as equally as possible to eliminate the confounding between
race/ ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Block groups were selected at random within
each of the sample neighborhoods. A complete listing of dwelling units was collected for
all sampled block groups. Pregnant women, children, and young adults in seven age
cohorts (birth, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 years) were identified through in-person screening
of approximately 40,000 dwelling units in the 80 neighborhood clusters. The screening
response rate was 80 percent. A total of 8,347 participants were identified through the
screening. Of the eligible study participants, 6,228 were interviewed in the Wave 1 data
collection; 5,338 were interviewed in the Wave 2 data collection, and 4,850 were
interviewed in the Wave 3 data collection (PHDCN, 2007).

Data Collection

Data collection for Wave 1 was completed between 1994 and 1997, and for Wave
2 was completed between 1997 and 2000. The data collection for Wave 3 began in 2000
and ended in 2002.

For all age cohorts except 0 and 18, primary caregivers as well as the focal child
were assessed. The primary caregiver was the person found to spend the most time taking
care of the child. The primary caregiver interviews and child interviews were
administered separately. The primary method of data collection was face-to-face
interviewing, although participants who refirsed to complete the personal interview were
administered a phone interview. An abbreviated telephone interview was conducted for
the primary caregivers in the cohorts 0-15 and cohort 18 study participants in Wave 3

who lived outside the nine-county metropolitan area to which research assistants were

41

able to travel for interviews. The participants who refused to complete the two-hour in-
person interview were administered the phone interview.

The participants were paid between $5 and $20 per interview depending on the
age and wave of data collection. Other incentives such as free passes to museums, the
aquarium, and monthly drawing for prizes, were also included.

There were participants in Wave 1 who spoke a language other than English.
Hence, the complete protocol was translated into Spanish in Wave 3. For those who did
not speak English in Waves 1 and 2 and English or Spanish in Wave 3, an abbreviated
version of the primary caregiver's protocol was administered, and the research assistant
arranged for someone in the household to translate on the spot (PHDCN, 2007).

Participants

The Longitudinal Cohort Study includes seven age cohorts: birth, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15,
and 18 years. This study used the data from Waves 1, 2, and 3 of the age 3 cohort group
which includes 1001 children and their primary caregivers.

Of the primary caregivers in the sample, 45.5% were Hispanic, 16.8% were
Caucasian, 34.7% were African American, 94.2% were female, and 5.8% were male in
Wave 1. Fifteen percent of primary caregivers completed less than a high school
education, 26.8% had some high school education, 15.1% had completed high school,
and 32.9% had more than a high school education. Approximately 10% of primary
caregivers had a bachelor’s degree or beyond. When the Wave 1 data were collected, the
primary caregivers ages ranged fi'om 15 to 68 years (M = 30.6 years, SD = 7.6). Of the
focal children in the sample, 50.1% were male and 49.9% were female. The yearly

income per capita ranged from $454.55 to $32,500.00 (M = 5743.64, SD = 5105.08). For

42

the sample, the median per capita income was $3,750.00. The mean yearly income per
capita was: $4,575.85 (SD = $3,815.48) for Hispanics, $4,851.47(SD = $4,817.35) for
Afiican Americans, and $10,470 (SD = $5,904.69) for Caucasians. The average per
capita income for this sample was well below the average for the greater Chicago area
($25,728.00), including the Chicago suburbs, in 1994 when Wave 1 data were collected
(Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2008). However, as noted above, neighborhoods were
selected to obtain a sample that was ethnically diverse and included a range of incomes
within each ethnic group so that the effects of income and ethnicity could be examined
separately. In Wave 2, more than half of the primary caregivers (56.2%) were married,
23.9% were single, 6.2% were separated, and 4.3% were divorced.

Missing Data

Although the original sample size of the age 3 cohort group was 1001, the sample
size for each analysis differed. The demographic information described above was based
on the full sample size of 1001 children and their primary caregivers. For preliminary
analyses, only Hispanic, Afiican American, and Caucasian children and primary
caregivers were included and the participants in other ethnic groups were excluded in
order to examine group differences among the three major ethnic groups in the sample.
Thus, the sample size for the preliminary analyses was 972.

For specific research questions and hypotheses, a maximum likelihood estimator
was used to test each model. A maximum likelihood estimator requires complete data set
without missing data. Therefore, listwise deletion was used to create the complete data
set for each analysis, and the sample size varied for—analyses addressing each research

question: 1) for research question 1, the sample size was 737; and 2) for research question

43

2, it was 227. Also, the sample size for the research hypotheses varied: 1) for the full
model, there were 431 cases; 2) for the multiple sample analysis by gender, there were
466 cases; 3) for the multiple sample analysis by ethnicity, there were 457 cases; and 4)
for the multiple sample analysis by income level, there were 504 cases. Because more
than 10% of the data were missing, a full information maximum likelihood estimator was
not used.

Furthermore, the attrition rate was examined. Of the sample: 1) 66.5%
participated in Waves 1 through 3; 2) 12.2% participated in Waves 1 and 2 only; 3)
12.1% participated in only Wave 1; and 4) 7.9% participated in Waves 1 and 3. One-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine the per capita income of these four
groups; however, there was no significant group difference between the groups on per
capital income. Crosstabs was used to examine the association between attrition pattern
and ethnicity, and a significant association )(2 (6, N = 936) = 21 .23,p < .05 was found
suggesting that the attrition pattern was significantly related to ethnicity. Of the sample:
1) 68.1% of Hispanics, 66.8% of Afiican Americans, and 69.9% of Caucasians
participated in Waves 1 through 3; 2) 13.0% of Hispanics, 11.4% of African Americans,
and 13.5% of Caucasians participated in Waves 1 and 2 only; 3) 13.9% of Hispanics,
9.3% of African Americans, and 12.3% of Caucasians participated in only Wave 1; and
4) 5.0% of Hispanics, 12.6% of Afiican Americans, and 4.3% of Caucasians participated
in Waves 1 and 3.

Measurements
Harsh Discipline: The latent construct of harsh discipline was measured by using

two observed variables: physical discipline and psychological discipline. These observed

44

variables were assessed by the Conflict Tactics Scale for Parent and Child (CTSS). The
primary caregivers completed the CTSS when a child was 3-, 6-, and 9-years old. The
CTSS is a derivative from the original Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) developed by Straus
in 1979. The CTSS was designed to measure psychological and physical maltreatment
and neglect of children by their primary caregiver as well as nonviolent modes of
discipline. It was also designed to measure the extent to which a primary caregiver
carried out specific acts of physical and psychological aggression, regardless of whether
the child was injured. The CTSS includes four subscales: Nonviolent Discipline,
Psychological Aggression, Physical Assault, and Severe Assault. In this study, the
observed variable of physical discipline was assessed with the Physical Assault subscale,
and psychological discipline was assessed with the Psychological Aggression subscale.
Although detailed information for the CTSS is not available, Straus (1979) reported that
the coefficients of reliability for psychological aggression ranged from .77 to .88, and for
physical assault ranged from .62 to .88 in the CTS.

There are thirty four items in the CTSS. For each item, primary caregivers were
asked how many times they had used the behavior during the past year when their child
did something wrong or made them upset or angry. There are three items for the Physical
Assault scale in Waves 1 and 2, and these are: Threw something at him or her; Pushed,
grabbed, or shoved him or her; and Slapped or spanked him or her. In Wave 3, the
revised CTS was used. There are five items for the Physical Assault scale, and these are:
Spanked him/her on the bottom with your bare hand; Slapped him or her on the hand,
arm, or leg; Hit him or her on the bottom with something hard; Shook him or her; and

Pinched him or her. In Waves 1 and 2, there are seven items for the Psychological

45

Aggression scale: Insulted or swore at him or her; Sulked or refused to talk about an
issue; Stomped out of the room or house or yard; Cried; Did or said something to spite
him or her; Threatened to hit or throw something at him or her; and Threw or smashed or
hit or kicked something. In Wave 3, there are five items: Swore or cursed at him or her;
Shouted, yelled, or screamed at him or her; Called him or her dumb or lazy or some other
name like that; Threatened to spank or hit him or her but did not actually do it; Said you
could send him or her away or kick him or her out of the house.

In Waves 1 and 3, responses ranged from category 0 (never) to 6 (more than 20
times). The CTSS is scored by adding the midpoints for the response categories chosen ,
by the primary caregiver. The mid points are the same as the response category numbers
for categories 0, 1, and 2. For category 3 (3 - 5 times) the midpoint is 4, for category 4 (6
— 10 times) it is 8, for category 5 (11 — 20 times) it is 15, and for category 6 (more than 20
times) it is suggested to use 25 as the midpoint. Higher total scores indicate higher levels
of harshness for each type of discipline. In Wave 2, responses were dichotomous Yes (1)
or No (0).

These variables needed to be adjusted in order to use them in this study
consistently because there were differences in the number of items and type (ordinal for
Waves 1 and 3 and dichotomous for Wave 2). The physical discipline measure at Wave 1
used the mean score of four items, and Cronbach’a alpha was .51. The physical discipline
measure at Wave 3 used the mean score of five items, and Cronbach’s alpha was .66. The
psychological discipline measure at Wave 1 used the mean score of seven items, and
Cronbach’s alpha was .54. The item “Said you would send him or her away or kick him

or her out of the house” was excluded when computing the physical discipline measure at

46

Wave 3 because it seemed to represent psychological abuse rather than psychological
discipline, and Cronbach’s alpha was lowered if this item was included. Thus, the
psychological discipline measure at Wave 3 used the mean score of four items, and the
reliability coefficient was. 69.

For the physical discipline measure at Wave 2 and psychological discipline
measure at Wave 2, the item scores (0 or I) were summed and divided by number of
items in order to obtain a mean score. It was necessary to use the same scales across time
points for the cross-lagged model analysis used to address research question 2. Therefore,
physical discipline2 and psychological discipline2 at Wave 3 were created by
transforming the ordinal scale to a dichotomous scale, and the same procedure was used
for computing a total score.

In summary, the physical discipline and psychological discipline measures from
Wave 1 were used to address research question 1 described in Figure 2 on p. 8. The
physical discipline and psychological discipline measures from Waves 2 and 3 that used
dichotomous response scales were used to address research question 2 described in
Figure 3 on p. 9. The physical and psychological discipline measures from all three

Waves were used to examine each specific hypothesis depicted in Figure 4 (See Table 1).

47

Table 1

Harsh Discipline Measures Used for Each Analysis

 

 

Physical Discipline Psychological Discipline
Research h'al"' hl'al"1‘ W
Question] P ysrc Drscrplme (Wave 1) Psyc o ogre Drscrp rne( ave 1)
Research Physical Discipline (Wave 2) Psychological Discipline (Wave 2)
Question 2

Physical Discipline 2(Wave 3) Psychological Discipline2 (Wave 3)

Physical Discipline (Wave 1) Psychological Discipline (Wave 1)
Hypotheses Physical Discipline (Wave 2) Psychological Discipline (Wave 2)

Physical Discipline (Wave 3) Psychological Discipline (Wave 3)

 

Extemalizing Behavior: Extemalizing behavior was assessed by the primary
caregiver’s report on the broad-band score of externalizing behavior of the Achenbach
System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA) Child Behavior Checklist for Ages
2-3 (CBCL/2-3) and the Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 4-18 (CBCL/4-18). CBCL/2-
3, which was used in Wave 1, consists of approximately 100 items which measure six
narrow-band (or syndrome) subscales: Social Withdrawal, Depressed, Sleep Problems,
Somatic Problems, Aggressive, and Destructive. The combined Aggressive and

Destructive scales comprise the externalizing broad-band score.

48

The PHDCN used 68 items fiom the CBCL/4-18 in Waves 2 and 3, which
measure eight narrow-band subscales: Social Withdrawal, Anxious/Depressed, Somatic
Complaints, Social Problems, Attention Problems, Delinquent Behavior, Thought
Problems, and Aggressive Behavior. The externalizing behavior score is derived from the
Delinquent and Aggressive subscales (Achenbach, 1991).

The primary caregivers were asked to report on a 3-point scale how true these
behaviors are for their children (0 = not true, 1 = somewhat or sometimes true, and 2 =
very often true). Sample items include: Gets in many fights; Hits others; Physically
attacks people; Doesn’t seem to feel guilty after misbehaving; Quickly shifts from one
activity to another; Can’t sit still, restless, or hyperactive. A higher score indicates that a
child displays higher levels of externalizing behaviors. The data fi'om the PHDCN do not
include t-scores for the externalizing behaviors in Waves 2 and 3. Additionally, the
number of items in Wave 1 is different from Waves 2 and 3. However, raw score were
used in this study. Achenbach (1991) reported that researchers could use raw scores from
both the preschool and school-age instruments for correlational, regression, and structural
equation modeling analyses because correlational statistics were not affected by possible
differences in the magnitude of the earlier vs. later scores.

Achenbach (1991) reported that the means of Cronbach’s alpha, the coefficient of
one-week test-retest reliability, and the coefficient of inter-parent agreement were. 96, .95,
and .76 respectively across all scales for the CBCL/4-18. The means of Cronbach’s alpha
and the coefficient of one-week test-retest reliability were .96 and .91 respectively across

all scales for the CBCL/2-3. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha for externalizing behavior

49

assessed at each of the three time points (Wave 1 — Wave 3) were .90, .86, and .87
respectively.

Child Temperament: The latent construct of child temperament was measured by
using two observed variables: Activity and Emotionality. These were assessed by the
Emotionality, Activity, Sociability, and Irnpulsivity Temperament Survey (EASI)
developed by Buss and Plomin (1975). It was completed by primary caregivers to assess
a child’s temperamental dispositions. Activity refers to the total amount of energy
expended by a person. It is measured by the mean score of 5 items: Is off and running on
waking up; Prefers quiet, inactive games (reverse coded); Is always on the go; Is very
energetic; and Usually moves slowly (reverse coded). Emotionality refers to the
individual's intensity of reaction to a given set of circumstances. It is measured by the
mean score of 5 items: Cries easily; Tends to be somewhat emotional; Often fusses and
cries; Gets upset easily; and Reacts intensely when upset. Responses ranged from 1
(uncharacteristic) to 5 (characteristic), and the scores of each scale ranged from 1 to 5
with higher scores suggesting that the particular trait was more characteristic of the child
being observed. Buss and Plomin (1975) reported that test-retest reliabilities ranged
from .75 to .91 across scales, with an average of .82. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha for
emotionality and activity were .7 7 and .47 respectively.

Based on the findings from the existing literature, sociability is less likely to relate
to children’s externalizing behavior than other aspects of temperament. The construct of
impulsivity is related closely to the Destructive subscale in the CBCL which was used to

measure externalizing behavior; thus there may be some overlap in content among the

50

items from the two measures. Therefore, the Sociability and Irnpulsivity subscales were
not be used in this study.

Child’s Exposure to Violence in the Neighborhood: My Child’s Exposure to
Violence measure was completed by the primary caregivers to assess the child’s exposure
to different types of violent acts in Wave 2. My Exposure to Violence (Subject), or ETVS,
is a child’s self-report instrument, and it was administered in Wave 3 to obtain
information regarding the child’s exposure to violent events in the past year.

Child’s exposure to violence in the neighborhood in Wave 2 was assessed by the
mean score of 24 items in the My Child’s Exposure to Violence scale. Sample items are:
How many times has your child seen someone shoved/kicked/punched in the past year;
How many times has your child seen someone attacked with a weapon, like a knife or bat
in the past year; How many time has your child heard a gun shot in the past year; and
How many times has your child seen someone shot in the past year. These items were
rated on a 4-point scale (1 = once, 2 = 2 or 3 times, 3 = 4 to 10 times, and 4 = more than
10 times). Prior to answering each item, the primary caregivers were asked if each event
had happened to their child in the past year. For example, “Has your child been attacked
with a weapon, like a knife or bat in the past year?” The caregiver answered yes or no to
each item, and if the response was yes, indicated how often the child experienced this
type of violence on a 5—point scale: 0 = never, 1 = once, 2 = 2 or 3 times, 3 = 4 to 10
times, and 4 = more than 10 times. Child’s exposure to violence (primary caregiver’s
report) in Wave 2 was measured by computing the mean score of 24 combined items;
higher scores mean that a child was exposed to higher levels of violence based on the

primary caregiver’s perceptions.

51

The mean score of 23 combined items in the My Exposure to Violence (child’s
self report) was used to assess the level of child’s exposure to violence in the
neighborhood in Wave 3. Sample items in the My Exposure to Violence measure include:
How many times have you seen someone shot at (not hurt) in the past year; How many
times have you found out that someone you knew got shot in the past year; How many
times have you been hit, slapped, punched, or beaten up in the past year; and How
many times have you seen someone get attacked with a weapon. The same procedure
discussed above was used to create the mean score.

These PHDCN versions of the Exposure to Violence scale were adapted fiom the
most widely used measure of exposure to violence, the Survey of Children's Exposure to
Community Violence. Thus, there is no specific information regarding the psychometric
properties of the PHDCN versions. However, Richters and Saltzrnan (1990) reported that
the original version of the Survey of Children’s Exposure to Community Violence
obtained an internal consistency estimate of .84. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha for the
child’s exposure to violence (primary caregiver’s report) in Wave 2 was .84, and the
alpha for the child’s exposure to violence (self report) in Wave 3 was .77.

Primary Caregiver ’s Exposure to Violence in the Neighborhood: The primary
caregiver completed the My Exposure to Violence to measure the primary caregiver’s
experience of exposure to different types of violent acts during the past year in Waves 2
and 3. The same procedure discussed above was used for 24 combined items; Cronbach’s
alpha for the primary caregiver’s exposure to violence in Waves 2 and 3 were .84 and .83

respectively.

52

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

The result section is divided into six parts. The first part presents the procedures
used to analyze the data. The second part presents the findings. fi'om preliminary analyses.
Next, the findings for research question 1 are presented, followed by the findings for
research question 2. The fifth part presents the findings from the tests of specific research
hypotheses. The last part summarizes the findings.

Data Analysis Overview

As preliminary analyses, descriptive statistics, correlations, T-Tests, and ANOVA
were computed using SPSS. T-tests and one-way ANOVA were conducted to examine
group differences by child’s gender, ethnicity, and income level for all continuous
variables. For specific research questions and hypotheses, multivariate analyses including
latent growth curve, cross-lagged model, and path analysis using structural equation
modeling were employed using MPlus.

When the initial models were inadmissible due to negative variance and / or mis-
specification, these solutions were used: 1) observed variables were used instead of latent
constructs (research question 1 and 2); 2) some paths were removed in order to gain
degrees of freedom and the fit of the model was re-examined (research question 2); and
3) some variables were removed from the model due to negative variance (research
hypotheses). These decisions were made based on the theories, the findings from existing
literature, and the results from preliminary analyses.

Preliminary Analyses

53

T-Tests and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to obtain
descriptive statistics and examine group differences by child’s gender, ethnicity, and
income level for the measures of emotionality and activity at Wave 1, children’s
externalizing behaviors, physical discipline, and psychological discipline at Waves 1, 2,
and 3, and children’s exposure to violence and primary caregiver’s exposure to violence
at Waves 2 and 3. Second, the correlations among all of the continuous variables were
computed to examine the relations among them.

Descriptive Statistics and Group Diflerences

First, the skewness and kurtosis were examined by obtaining descriptive statistics
for each continuous variable. The results assured that each of them had a normal
distribution which was a necessary condition for computing T-Tests and ANOVA. The
results of the T-Tests and ANOVA are presented in Tables 1, 2, and 3. For ethnicity, the
post-hoe tests were conducted to investigate specifically where the significant differences
existed among groups when there were significant group differences. Specifically, Tukey
HSD was used for the variables which were assumed to have equal variances among the
groups, and Tamhane’s T2 was used for the variables which were not assumed to have
equal variances among the groups.

There were significant group differences by child’s gender for several variables.
These variables include: externalizing behaviors at Wave 1 (T (l, 986) = 2.25; p <. 05),
Wave 2 (T(1, 798) = 2.77;p <. 05), and Wave 3 (T(1, 754) = 3.16;p <. 05); physical
discipline (T (l, 979) = 2.68; p <. 05) and psychological discipline at Wave 1 (T( 1, 975) =
2.42; p <. 05); physical disicpline2 at Wave 3 (T (1, 660) = 2.19; p <. 05); and children’s

exposure to violence (self-report) (T ( 1, 710) = 2.19; p <. 05) at Wave 3. The male

54

children scored significantly higher on the measures of externalizing behaviors than the
female children at all three time points. The male children experienced significantly
higher levels of physical and psychological discipline at age three and physical discipline
at age nine compared to the female children. In addition, the males indicated that they
were exposed to significantly higher levels of violence than the females at age nine (See

Table 2).

55

Table 2
T -T est: Mean Scores by Gender

 

Variable Aid (2.116) ) $135,215: T
Temperament
Emotionality 3.18 (1.12) 3.20 (1.14) .31
Activity 4.31 (.65) 4.27 (.72) .88
Children’s Extemalizing Behaviors
CBCL Extemalizing (Wave 1) 16.13 (9.48) 14.81 (9.02) 2.25*
CBCL Extemalizing (Wave 2) 9.21 (6.22) 8.03 (5.89) 2.77*
CBCL Extemalizing (Wave 3) 8.10 (6.39) 6.74 (5.41) 3.16*
Harsh Discipline
Physical Discipline (Wave 1) 1 3.26 (4.18) 2.59 (3.70) 268*
Physical Discipline (Wave 2)2 .17 (.24) .16 (.23) .86
Physical Discipline (Wave 3) l 1.88 (2.84) 1.62 (2.74) 1.18
Physical Discipline2 (Wave 3) 2 .33 (.27) .29 (.26) 2.19*
Psychological Discipline (Wave 1) l 2.01 (3.06) 1.58 (2.49) 2.42*
Psychological Discipline (Wave 2) 2 .12 (.18) .13 (.20) .51
Psychological Discipline (Wave 3) I 5.01 (4.76) 4.48 (4.71) 1.50
Psychological Discipline2 (Wave 3) 2 .50 (.28) .46 (.26) 1.85
Exposure to Violence in the Neighborhood
girlgdl’esziilxposure to Violence (PCG Report) .22 (.27) .22 (.2 6) .00
8:112:53lixposure to Violence (Self Report) .25 (.21) .22 (.21) 478*
Primary Caregiver’s Exposure to Violence (Wave 2) .22 (.27) .22 (.26) .00
Primary Caregiver’s Exposure to Violence (Wave 3) .17 (.23) .16 (.22) .16

 

Note: PCG refers to primary caregiver; ' ranges 1-6; 2 ranges 0-1; *p < .05; **p < .01.

56

Moreover, significant group differences by ethnicity were found for several
variables. These include: emotionality (F (2, 932) = 5.32; p <. 05) and activity level (F (2,
932) = 3.78; p <. 05) at Wave 1; externalizing behaviors at Wave 1 (F (2, 933) = 3.50; p
<. 05) and Wave 3 (F (2, 710) = 8.03; p <. 001); physical discipline at Wave 1 (F (2, 926)
= 11.25; p <. 001), Wave 2 (F (2, 792) = 9.68;p <. 001) and Wave 3 (F (2, 620) = 8.49; p
<. 001); psychological discipline at Wave 1 (F (2, 922) = 4.44; p <. 05), Wave 2 (F (2,
783) = 3.23; p <. 05), and Wave 3 (F (2, 668) = 20.28; p <. 001); physical disicpline2 (F
(2, 621) = 15.63; p <. 001) and psychological disicpline2 (F (2, 670) = 30.33; p <. 001) at
Wave 3; the children’s exposure to violence (primary caregiver’s report) at Wave 2 (F (2,
750) = 57.12; p <. 001); the children’s exposure to violence (self-report) at Wave 3 (F (2,
672) = 58.68; p <. 001); and the primary caregivers’ exposure to violence at Wave 2 (F (2,
752) = 57.67; p <. 001) and Wave 3 (F (2, 656) = 50.48; p <. 001).

The children in the African American group showed significantly higher levels of
emotionality than the children in the Hispanic and Caucasian groups, and the children in
the Hispanic group showed significantly higher levels of activity than the children in the
African American group. The Hispanic children showed significantly higher levels of
externalizing behavior than the Caucasian children at age three, and the Afiican
American children showed significantly higher levels of externalizing behavior than the
Hispanic and Caucasian children at age nine.

The Afiican American children experienced significantly higher levels of physical
and psychological discipline than the Hispanic children at age three. When they were six
years old, the Afiican American and Caucasian children experienced significantly higher

levels of physical discipline than the Hispanic children, and the Caucasian children

57

experienced significantly higher levels of psychological discipline than the Hispanic
children. The Afiican American children experienced significantly higher levels of
physical discipline and physical discipline2 than the children in other groups when they
were six and nine years old. The African American and Caucasian children experienced
significantly higher levels of psychological discipline than the Hispanic children at age
six. For the psycholgocia12 measure, the Afiican American children experienced
significantly higher levels of psychological discipline than the Caucasian children who
experienced significantly higher levels than the Hispanic children at age nine. Moreover,
the African American children and their primary caregivers indicated that they were
exposed to significantly higher levels of violence than other groups when they were six

and nine years old (See Table 3).

58

Table 3
One Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA): Mean Scores by Ethnicity

 

 

Hispanic African Caucasian
Variable American F
M(SD) M (SD) M(SD)
Temperament
Emotionality 3.13 (1.17)" 3.36 (1.12)B 3.06 (.95)" 5.32*
Activity 4.35 (.65)" 4.22 (.71)B 4.32 (.69)"B 3.78*
Children’s Extemalizing Behaviors
CBCL Extemalizing (Wave 1) 15.94 (9.54)" 15.83 (9.18)"B 13.79 (8.49)B 350*
CBCL Extemalizing (Wave 2) 8.53 (6.56) 9.16 (5.73) 8.07 (5.65) 1.60
CBCL Extemalizing (Wave 3) 7.02 (5.68)" 8.51 (6.73)B 6.16 (4.50)" 8.03**
Harsh Discipline
Physical Discipline (Wave 1) ‘ 2.36 (3.52)" 3.70 (4.44)B 2.88 (3.59)"3 11.25**
Physical Discipline (Wave 2)2 .12 (.23)" .19 (.25)B .21 (.22)B 9.68**
Physical Discipline (Wave 3) ' 1.38 (2.52)" 2.33 (3.30)B 1.37 (2.12)" 8.49**
Physical Discipline2 (Wave 3) 2 .28 (.27)" .38 (.28)B .23 (.19)" 15.63**
33:33:?“ DiSCipline 1.58 (2.50)" 2.16 (3.32)B 1.62 (2.21 )"B 444*
iiafjgglzggical Discjplme .11 (.18)" .12 (.18)"B .15 (.23)B 323*
E’fig‘é’gfica‘l Discipline 3.55 (4.36)" 6.04 (5.11)'3 5.18 (4.41 )B 20.28**
ffifigfigical DiSCiplinez 40 (.28)" .57 (.25)B .48 (.22)C 30.33**
Exposure to Violence in the
Neighborhood
giggitfgifimmii’ifme .15 (.21)" .34 (.31)B .12 (.17)" 57.12**
Effffiegzfismaoamfm .17 (.17)" .34 (.22)B .18 (.18)" 58.68**
523213533335 EXPOS‘“ ‘0 .15 (.21)" .34 (.31)B .12 (.17)" 57.67**
Sflgfiavfigjzgv EXPOS‘m’ ‘0 .10 (.17)" .26 (.27)B .08 (.13)" 50.48**

 

Note: Means that do not share the same superscript are significantly different; PCG refers
to primary caregiver; ' ranges 1-6; 2 ranges 0-1; *p < .05; **p < .01.

59

Furthermore, significant group differences by income level were found for these
variables: emotionality (T (1, 900) = 2.48; p <. 05); externalizing behaviors at Wave 1 (T
(1, 925) = 3.29;p <. 05), Wave 2 (T(1, 738) = 2.60;p <. 05), and Wave 3 (T(1, 701) =
3.69; p <. 001); psychological discipline at Wave 1 (T (1, 920) = 2.36; p <. 05);
psychological disicipline2 at Wave 3(T (1, 662) = 2.61 ; p <. 05); children’s exposure to
violence (primary caregiver’s report) at Wave 2 (T (1, 736) = 5.54; p <. 001), children’s
exposure to violence (self-report) at Wave 3 (T (1, 659) = 3.29; p <. 05), and primary
caregivers’ exposure to violence at Wave 2 (T(1, 738) = 5.51;p <. 001) and Wave 3 (T(1,
643) = 3.50;p <. 001).

The children in the lower income group (below the median) showed significantly
higher levels of emotionality at age three and externalizing behaviors at all three time
points than the children in higher income group (above the median). The children in the
higher income group experienced significantly higher levels of physical discipline than
the children in lower income group at age six. In contrast, the children in the lower
income group experienced significantly higher levels of psychological discipline than the
children in the higher income group at age three. However, the children in the higher
income group experienced significantly higher levels of psychological discipline2 than
the children in the lower income group at age nine. The children and their primary
caregivers in the lower income group indicated that they were exposed to significantly
higher levels of violence than the children and primary caregivers in the higher income

group (See Table 4).

60

Table 4
T -T est: Mean Scores by Income

 

 

Below Above
Variable Median Median T
M (SD) M (SD)
Temperament
Emotionality 3.29 (1.13) 3.10 (1.12) 2.48*
Activity 4.26 (.73) 4.33 (.65) 1.47
Children’s Extemalizing Behaviors
CBCL Extemalizing (Wave 1) 16.70 (9.81) 14.68 (8.68) 3.29*
CBCL Extemalizing (Wave 2) 9.41 (6.77) 8.21 (5.51) 2.60”“
CBCL Extemalizing (Wave 3) 8.35 (6.59) 6.65 (5.32) 3.69M
Harsh Discipline
Physical Discipline (Wave 1) l 2.95 (4.19) 2.95 (3.81) .28
Physical Discipline (Wave 2)2 .14 (.23) .19 (.24) 2.61*
Physical Discipline (Wave 3) ' 1.72 (2.76) , 1.81 (2.84) .41
Physical Discipline2 (Wave 3) 2 .30 (.27) .31 (.25) .58
Psychological Discipline (Wave 1) I 2.09 (3.23) 1.63 (2.46) 2.36*
Psychological Discipline (Wave 2) 2 .11 (.18) .14 (.19) 1.94
Psychological Discipline (Wave 3) ‘ 4.30 (4.73) 5.00 (4.65) 1.89
Psychological Discipline2 (Wave 3) 2 .45 (.29) .51 (.24) 246*
Exposure to Violence in the Neighborhood
(Oil/giszlixposure to Violence (PCG Report) .28 (.31) .17 (.22) 5.54"
E$gg;s3l_;lxposure to Violence (Self Report) .2 6 (.23) .21 (.18) 329,,
Primary Caregiver’s Exposure to Violence (Wave 2) .28 (.31) .17 (.22) 5.51 **
Primary Caregiver’s Exposure to Violence (Wave 3) .20 (.27) .13 (.18) 3.50"

 

Note: PCG refers to primary caregiver; 1 ranges 1-6; 2 ranges 0-1; *p < .05; **p < .01.

61

Overall, there were several group differences on all of the continuous variables. These
findings suggested the need for multiple-sample analysis for the specific research
hypotheses in order to examine the possible moderating effects of child’s gender,
ethnicity, and income level on the relations described in Figure 4 on p. 10.
Correlations

Pearson correlations were computed to examine the relations among all
continuous variables in order to determine if all variables were related in the expected
directions. Overall, the variables were significantly correlated in the expected directions.
The variables of children’s externalizing behaviors at Waves 1, 2, and 3 were positively
and significantly correlated with most predictor variables. However, the correlation
between activity and children’s externalizing behaviors at Wave 3 was not significant.
The correlation between children’s exposure to violence (primary caregiver’s report) and
primary caregivers’ exposure to violence at Wave 2 was 1.00. This is likely due to the
fact that the mothers completed the same measures for themselves and their children (See

Table 5).

62

$25.23 8. v a ... essence a. v a r.
quwBeo 225.5 8 2&8 002 6:22:86
Eomwogonoxmm 3 2&2 D Sam "221286 33232 8 2&8 Q 55 22223 wag—22585 8 2&8 .me momo ”N3 n 2 ”262

 

 

55 8:265
:S. :2. :2. :2. :2. :2. :_ 2. :2. :2. :8. :2. 8.- :2. :2. :2. :2. 8 2385 aboa— .2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 23v 8:265
t aamm. 2.8.— **VN *amm “In—N aamm taw— nimm nim— aaw— we in: flow *aom SEN ow Ouzmoaxm FOUL .0—

23 832262

- . 3S”. aim. :2. same. “as. if. :3. co. co. 5.- .1; fl. EON. :2. 1:. coco—OCV
OH Eamoaxm— EEO .m—

. 55 cocoa 002

.. l . 32%. 3mm. 3:. nan—N. :2. :mm. :2. 1:. v.0. :2. SVN. 1me .33. coco—ctr
3 osmoaxm 220 .2
t i - . *aNc. item. SEN. anon. *amm. 3mm. anvm. 0o. .2; _. :Nm. Snow. 3,2. AME/v NO Sam .m~
- - - - - :2. :2. :2. :2. :2. :2. :2. :2. :2. :2. :2. 55 a one .2
- i - l - . :Nm. :Nm. 3mm. aamn. fawn. we. 33—. “BEN. atom. SEN. ANBV D .smwm .:
t l l l i .. . ENN. :2. aaNN. “ea—c. *1 ~. «*MN. aamN. from. .39». 33v Q imam A:
i i t l t - - 1 Ice. newm. 1mm. co. 1.2. 3.5m. :f. If. AMBV N9 .55 d
- - - - - - - - - :2. :2. 8. :2. :2. :2. :2. 22¢ a .22 .w
- - - - - - - - - - :2. co. :2. :2. :2. :2. 2% a .2: s
l l - l l l l - i t - aamfi. SLN. SON. aahN. :mm. 22C D Sam .0
.. l - i - l t - l i i . VO. #0. name. Snow. :26 5m>30< .m
- - - - - - - - - - - - - :2. :2. :2. :5 $8265 .4
t l - - - t - l .. t l - - . aawm. :mv. Ami .uxm AUmU .m
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :2. 23V .uxm homo .m
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SE .5 homo .2

©_ 2 w; mfi N— : A: o m N. o m v m N fl

 

thflfimkfik M2053 WQQNNQNNKKQU :QMLQWAN

m 035.

63

Research Question 1
Initial Model

A latent growth curve model was employed to address research question 1: What
is the developmental trajectory of externalizing behaviors in relation to temperament and
harsh discipline? For this analysis, a latent construct of temperament was measured by
emotionality and activity which are observed variables, and another latent construct of
harsh discipline was measured by physical and psychological discipline at Wave 1. Next,
the initial model described in Figure 2 on p. 8 was tested to examine how temperament
and harsh discipline relate to the initial level and overall individual change in children’s
externalizing behaviors over time.

A maximum likelihood estimator was used to test the initial model, and a level-
and-shape (LS) model analysis was employed to test a latent basis model of externalizing
behaviors over time by examining the initial status at the beginning of the investigation
(Wave 1), which is referred to as a level factor, and the overall change at the end of the
investigation (Wave 3), which is referred to as a shape factor. The LS model requires that
all of the unstandardized loadings from the level factor (initial level) be fixed at 1
because the level factor is analogous to the intercept in a regression model. In addition,
the loading from the shape factor (overall change) to externalizing behaviors at Wave 1
was fixed at 0, and the loading to externalizing behaviors at Wave 3 was fixed at 1 in
order to specify a linear trend.

The results of the initial model yielded the following fit indices: )(2 (l 1, N = 737)

= 105.899,p < .001;)(2 / (If: 9.63; CFI = .867; TLI = 746; and RMSEA = .108. These

64

findings indicated a poor fit of the initial model. Thus, the model was modified to
improve the fit.
Modified Model

Due to the poor fit of the initial model, the variables of emotionality, activity,
physical discipline, and psychological discipline were used as observed predictors rather
than constructing latent variables of temperament and harsh discipline. The modified
model is described in Figure 5. The results indicated: X2 (6, N = 737) = 5.3, p < .001; x2
/ df= 5.30; CFI = .956; TLI = 889; and RMSEA =. 076 with the 90% confidence
interval .052 - .103. The )(2 statistics, TLI, and RMSEA did not support a good fit;
however, the CF I suggested an acceptable fit.

The estimate of covariance between the level and shape factors was -45.62 (p
< .05). The path coefficients fiom emotionality, activity, and physical discipline to the
level factor were positive and significant. On the other hand, the path coefficients from
emotionality, activity, and physical and psychological discipline to overall change were
negative and significant. R2 for the level factor was 16, and R2 for the shape factor
was .14.

These findings suggest that the children with higher levels of externalizing
behaviors at age three showed a sharper decline in externalizing behaviors over time than
children with lower initial levels of externalizing behavior. More specifically, the
children who had higher scores on emotionality and activity, and experienced more
physical discipline showed higher initial levels of externalizing behaviors at age three.
However, the children who had higher scores on emotionality and activity and

experienced more physical and psychological discipline at age three showed greater

65

decreases in externalizing behaviors over time than other children. The emotionality,
activity, and physical and psychological discipline measures explained 16% of the
variance of the initial level of externalizing behaviors at age three, and these predictor
variables accounted for 14% of the variance in the decrease in rate of externalizing
behaviors over time. In particular, emotionality and physical discipline showed stronger
relations.

Figure 5

Model I Latent Growth Curve Model — Modified Model (N = 73 7)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
  

Emotionality Activity Phys. D Psy. D
A99 3 Age 3 Age 3 Age 3
.52 (.15)* “9’3"
7 .0
.9)
K ‘50
9 .
9.. /- 79),, -.2s (-.25)*
-.16 (-.15)*

      

Initial Level Overall Change

1 1
0 .80 (1.00)*

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extemalizing Extemalizing Extemalizing
Behavior Behavior Behavior
Age 3 Age 6 Age 9
R2 = .81 R2 = .55 R2 = .47

 

 

 

 

 

Note: Phy. D refers to physical discipline; Psy. D refers to psychological discipline;
*
p <.05.

66

Research Question 2
Initial Model

A cross-lagged model was built to address research question 2: How do harsh
discipline and externalizing behaviors relate reciprocally and longitudinally? To address
this question, a latent construct of harsh discipline at Wave 2 was measured by two
observed variables: physical and psychological discipline. Similarly, a latent construct of
harsh discipline at Wave 3 was measured by two observed variables: physical and
psychological discipline2. The initial model described in Figure 3 on p. 10 was tested to
examine if the latent constructs of harsh discipline at Waves 2 and 3 are related to the
levels of children’s externalizing behaviors at Waves 2 and 3 reciprocally and
longitudinally.

A maximum likelihood estimator was used to test the initial model; however, the
initial model was inadmissible due to negative variances involving the observed variables
of physical and psychological discipline and externalizing behaviors at Wave 3. This
might be due to the measurement errors of these variables. Thus, the variables of physical
and psychological discipline were used as observed variables instead in two separate
models illustrated in Figures 6 and 8 on pp. 69-70.

Modified Model: Physical Discipline

The saturated (just identified) model of physical discipline was tested using a
maximum likelihood estimator. It was found that path coefficients from physical
discipline and externalizing behaviors at Wave 2 to physical discipline at Wave 3 were
not significant. Thus, the auto regression path from physical discipline at Wave 2 to

Wave 3 was removed, which enabled the model to gain one degree of freedom, and the fit

67

of the modified model was examined. The modified model of physical discipline is
described in Figure 7.

The results indicated: 12 (1, N = 227) = .587,p > .05; X2 / df= .587; CFI = 1.000;
TLI = 1.051; and RMSEA = .000, and these findings suggested a good fit of the modified
model of physical discipline. The path coefficients from externalizing behaviors and
physical discipline at Wave 2 to externalizing behaviors at Wave 3 were found to be
significant indicating that prior externalizing behaviors and physical discipline were
significantly predictive of externalizing behaviors at Wave 3. R2 for the externalizing
behaviors at Wave 3 was .17.

These findings suggested that the children who displayed higher levels of
externalizing behaviors and experienced more physical discipline at age six were likely to
show higher levels of externalizing behaviors at age nine, and 17% of the variance of
externalizing behaviors at age nine was explained by physical discipline and
externalizing behaviors at age six. There was no reciprocal relation because the relation
between externalizing behaviors at age six and physical discipline at age nine was not
significant. Although physical discipline and externalizing behaviors at age six were

significantly related to each other, this relation was not found at age nine (See Figure 7).

68

Figure 6

Model 2 Physical Discipline — Saturated Model (N = 22 7)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

.98

 

 

 

 

fig,

-.02 (-.02)

 

 

Physical 1 .3 7(.06) Physical
Discipline Discipline
Age 6 Age 9
R2=.02
.04 (.58)*
1.56 (.07) .19 (.27)*
Extemalizing Extemalizing
Behavior Behavior
Age 6 ’ Age 9
.14 (.20)* R2217

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 7

Model 2 Physical Discipline — Modified Model (N = 22 7)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-<«5.3

-.02 (-.02)

 

 

Physical Physical
Discipline Discipline
Age 6 Age 9
R2=.01
.04 (.57)*
2.33 (.11) .19 (.27)*
Extemalizing Extemalizing
Behavior Behavior
Age 6 > Age 9
.14 (.20)* R2=-17

 

 

 

<52

 

 

 

69

.83

Modified Model: Psychological Discipline

The same procedure used for physical discipline was employed for psychological
discipline. The saturated model of psychological discipline, illustrated in Figure 8, was
tested using a maximum likelihood estimator. The auto regression path between the
externalizing behaviors at Waves 2 and 3 was found to be significant; however, the auto
regression path between the psychological discipline variables at Waves 2 and 3 was not
significant. Hence, the path between the psychological discipline variables at Waves 2
and 3 was removed, which enabled the model to gain one degree of freedom, and the
model fit was re-examined. The results found the following fit indices: x2 (1 , N = 213) =
3.228,p > .05; )(2 / df= 3.228; CFI = .909; TLI = .544; and RMSEA = .102, and
suggested a poor fit of the model although the 12 was not significant. Because of the poor
fit of the model, the path coefficients were not reported.
Figure 8

Model 2 Psychological Discipline — Saturated Model (N = 213)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.98
Psychological .00 (.12) Psychological
Discipline Discipline
Age 6 Age 9
R2=.02
.19 .13 -.00 -.O4
( ) .06 (.07) ( )
.00 (.07)
Extemalizing Extemalizing
Behavior Behavior
Age 6 ' Age 9
.21(.31) R2211
.89

70

Research Hypotheses
Initial Model

Path analysis using structural equation modeling was employed to test all five
hypotheses described in Figure 9. As a first step, the initial model was tested using a
maximum likelihood estimator. The results indicated a good fit of the model: )(2 (74, N =
431) = 108.78,p < .05; x2 / df= 1.47; CFI = .976; TLI = 968; and RMSEA = .033 with
the 90% confidence interval .018 - .046. Although the x2 is significant, the lower x2/df
ratio (< 3) is evidence of a reasonable fit (Kline, 2005). In addition, the x2 statistics is
likely to be influenced by sample size and the value of T from the large sample is less
likely to be reliable (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2006). Therefore, other fit indices were
examined, and CFI, TLI, and RMSEA suggested a good fit of this model. This means that
these observed estimates in the model from this sample are less likely to vary fiom the
expected estimates in the population. Most path coefficients were found to be significant
and in the expected directions. However, the path fi'om externalizing behaviors at Wave 2
to harsh discipline at Wave 3 was found to be significant and negative. Additionally, the
path from harsh discipline to externalizing behaviors at Wave 1 was not found to be
significant.

According to the findings, the null hypotheses of hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 were
rejected. The children with challenging temperamental characteristics at age three, as
indicated by higher levels of activity and emotionality, were likely to experience more
harsh discipline and show higher levels of externalizing behaviors at age three. The
primary caregivers who were exposed to higher levels of violence in the neighborhood

were more likely to use harsh discipline when their children were six and nine years old.

71

In addition, the children who were exposed to higher levels of violence in the
neighborhood were likely to show higher levels of externalizing behaviors when they
were six and nine years old.

The null hypotheses of hypotheses 4 and 5 were partially rejected. The children
who experienced higher levels of harsh discipline, as indicated by higher levels of
physical and psychological discipline, were likely to show higher levels of externalizing
behaviors when they were six and nine years old. However, at age three, the harsh
discipline that the children experienced did not predict the level of externalizing
behaviors that they showed. Although the children who showed higher levels of
externalizing behaviors at age three were likely to experience more harsh discipline at
age six, the children who showed higher levels of externalizing behaviors at age six were
less likely to experience harsh discipline at age nine.

The results of the preliminary analyses showed that there were significant group
differences by child’s gender, ethnicity, and income level. Hence, in the following section,
multiple-sample analyses were employed to investigate the possible moderating effects of

ethnicity, child’s gender, and income level on these relations.

72

 

.Acoumwfiucfimv 002030283: 2m 22205000 ”202

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o om< o om<
€028 bomv 92028 00%
8:205 8:205
9 osmomxm FEED 9 2:8me FEED
_ _
:33 2... 22.0 man
+ +
Sink :33 um. Sank :83 «N. ENE
a ow< Smifiom o ow< hogfiom 1 m om< SEEQm
wE2EE0§m wfimzmfiouxm A 9:235me
a 8:205 coco—02> 52—MMOHMWEW
1mg 2.. 02 2309mm 8 0:50qu . .
poem room 33 2.:
\ . . \ . . a.
22.0 22 L2 0 E 2 L20 2. :8 V 2 m owe. _
258802502:
EEO

                    

              

12$ 2...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

  

    
 

           

 

23: mark .2: a. 2.”..2 . .
o ow< w ow< m ow< Lv~ V n—
osaewa 8:285 8:385 . . /
new: 22: 2.... 22m: 22.0 S. 53$ 22 0 8 N
8J2
_ 233

  

 

_

  

Ln; 3..

   

            
 

         

     

                

               

  

 

       

 

 

 

 

     

:33 E.

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L53 m_.~ 2
Kim Siam 2J2 2J2 2J2 2J2
00:33.5 02:26me 002385 053620 22:30me 22:30me
_mo_m0_0:o>mm .8532 33335022 22232 32%—0:022 32232
SQ: n 2» 3205132 3.55 m 320: o enema

 

 

73

Multiple-Sample Analysis: Moderating Eflect of Gender

A multiple-sample analysis was used to examine group difference by child’s
gender in the relations among the variables. As a first step in the multiple-sample analysis,
all of the paths and factor loadings were constrained forcing males and females to have
the same path coefficients and factor loadings. Because the constrained initial model was
inadmissible due to negative variances and / or mis-specification of the model, the
variables of primary caregivers’ exposure to violence at Waves 2 and 3 were removed
creating the modified model. The results of the constrained modified model indicated: x2
(134, male n = 229, female n = 237) = 218.244,p < .001;x2 / df= 1.63; CFI = .946; TLI
= 938; and RMSEA = .052 with the 90% confidence interval .039 - .064. As a second
step, all of the path coefficients and factor loadings were fieed. The results of the free
modified model indicated: )(2 (116, male n = 229, female n = 237) = 189.95, p < .001 ; )(2
/ df= 1.64; CF I = .953; TLI = 937; and RMSEA = .052 with the 90% confidence
interval .038 - .065.

The difference in fit between the constrained and free modified models was tested
using x2 statistics. The results showed: 12 (218.244 — 189.95) = 28.29; df (134 - 116) =
18; p =. 06. This indicated that the improvement in fit was approaching significance. The
path coefficients for the male subsample are presented in Figure 10 and the ones for the
female subsample are presented in Figure 11. In the female subsample, the loading to
activity from temperament was found to be significant but it was not significant in the
male subsample. The path coefficient from children’s exposure to violence (self report) to
externalizing behaviors at Wave 3 was found to be significant in the male subsample but

not in the female subsample. These results indicated that the moderating effect of gender

74

was found in two relations: the factor loading of activity fiom temperament, and the
predictive relation of children’s exposure to violence (self report) to the level of
externalizing behaviors at Wave 3.

The female children with challenging temperamental characteristics at age three,
as indicated by higher levels of activity and emotionality, were likely to experience more
harsh discipline and display higher levels of externalizing behaviors at age three.
Similarly, the male children with challenging temperamental characteristics at age three
were likely to experience more harsh discipline and display higher levels of externalizing
behaviors at age three; however, challenging temperamental characteristics was not
indicated by higher levels of activity in the male subsample.

The children who were exposed to higher levels of violence in the neighborhood
were likely to show higher levels of externalizing behaviors at age six in both subsamples.
Similarly, the children who were exposed to higher levels of violence were likely to show
higher levels of externalizing behaviors at age nine in the male subsample but not in the
female subsample. In both subsamples, the children who experienced higher levels of
harsh discipline, as indicated by higher levels of physical and psychological discipline,
were likely to show higher levels of externalizing behaviors when they were six and nine

years old.

75

.3365?va 0053005055. 000 05055000 ”0:02

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

    
   
          

                

   
      
            

      
              

 

   
    

o 0w< o 0w<
€000: bomv 0:03.: 00.5
00:20; 00:203/
0: ohswomxm $250 8 chamomxm FEED
_ :
inn.» 38 12.02:
+ +
SJ: L50 3. SJ: .63 8. ENE
o 0w< 0030;0m l o 03: 530:3.— l m 03: :0_>0:0m
35:2:me wEEEESxm 35:050me
a SEE
520003051”:
1mm; 3..
. . . . «GS 02:
Eon—EamEfl.
El 8.- _ u
meM aflnNN STE 2.: . .
8:385 2:985 2:585 A .0 . x
:03: L03 2.: fie: :03: .. 0m 8 N Sr x
IN
3350::

 

 

       
     

 

 

 

 

 

 

153 maé g :30; En _
/ M / .838. />
owns: . SJ: Qua: won”: $.J: 3.4:
05:85 05:35 8:335 2:385 2:585 2:385
fiomwofisozmm 30:93.: EofiBonommm 505:3 :momwofiaozmm €07.55

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

am: u 20 2:53:30 03: .553: 2:25:32 m 38:: S 2:05

76

$36528me cofiEmccfimas 2m BEEF—woo 682

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

            

  

     

               

                  

                  

                         

 

  
       

      

 

 

    

       
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a ow< o ow<
0.5%: :vmv Atom—0.: 00nd
8520; 8:20?»
8 Eamonxm FEED 2 chamomxm FEED
_ _
83 2a 883 S...

+ +

:wuk 53 am. esz Lang 2. tank
m %< 532%: o ow< 5330mm m ow< 5355m—
wc_N=mE2xm A wENszBKm A $.5szme
a SJ:
bzmcosoEm
:3; on.
. . . . 18.5mm:—
868 a : :8 V mm m 8:. 5
50550553.
El 8.- _ 0

SEN: 8wa E: 8. wank 2.: £3 3.
o ow< o 03.. m %< 8

8:385 8:385 8:385 A .V . w
:88: 85: a: 5.8:: 5.5 2. :88: 8 3 mm _ mowmx

53:3:
:
1mm; wad _ Long a. _
/ K / Law: an. />
QMMNK mv.n-~ mm.n-~ MWHNM funk mnnmx
8:385 8:385 8:385 8:385 8:385 8:385
Eflwo—ofimmm 523:8: ioEEofiimm 32938: 305.20:ng 3293,:
Q mm H E mN £3534 mNuEmk ..u..2bu=w\ 33:34-33: m Ewe: I DSME

77

Multiple-Sample Analysis: Moderating Eflect of Ethnicity

The same procedure used for the examination of gender difference was employed
for the examination of group difference by ethnicity. First, the variables of primary
caregivers’ exposure to violence at Waves 2 and 3 were removed from the initial model
so that this model was consistent with the model that was used to examine gender
differences. All of the paths and factor loadings were constrained forcing all groups to
have the same path coefficients and factor loadings. The results indicated: )(2 (186,
Hispanic n = 220, African American n = 157, Caucasian n = 80) = 357.583, p < .001;12 /
df= 1.92; CFI = .894; TLI = 868; and RMSEA = .078 with the 90% confidence
interval .066 - .090, and suggested a poor fit of the model. Second, the path coefficients
were fieed. Constraints on the factor loadings remained because the model was
inadmissible when all of the factor loadings and path coefficients were freed; It might be
due to measurement errors and / or mis-specification of the model. Therefore, this
analysis examined the difference between the constrained and partial invariant modified
models. The results showed: )(2 (184, Hispanic n = 220, Afi’ican American n = 157,
Caucasian n = 80) = 321.15,}: < .001;)(2 / df= 1.75; CFI = .915; TLI = 894; and RMSEA
= .070 with the 90% confidence interval .057 - .083.

The difference in fit was tested using x2 statistics. The results showed: )(2
(357.583 — 321.15) = 36.43; df(186 - 184) = 2;p < .001, and indicated that the
improvement in fit was statistically significant suggesting that there were significant
group differences by ethnicity in this model. The path coefficients for the Hispanic,
Afi‘ican American, and Caucasian groups are reported in Figures 12, 13, and 14

respectively. In the African American group, the path coefficients fiom children’s

78

exposure to violence (primary caregiver’s report) to externalizing behaviors at Wave 2
and from children’s exposure to violence (self report) to externalizing behaviors at Wave
3 were found to be significant. In the Hispanic group, the path coefficient fi'om children’s
exposure to violence (primary caregiver’s report) to externalizing behaviors at Wave 2
was found to be significant but it was not significant at Wave 3. In the Caucasian group,
neither of these path coefficients was found to be significant. Furthermore, in the
Caucasian group, the path coefficient from externalizing behaviors at Wave 2 to harsh
discipline at Wave 3 was significant but it was not significant in the Hispanic and Afiican
American groups. These results indicated that moderating effects of ethnicity were found
for three relations: the predictive relations of children’s exposure to violence to the levels
of externalizing behaviors at Waves 2 and 3; and the predictive relation of externalizing
behaviors at Wave 2 to harsh discipline at Wave 3.

The African American children who were exposed to higher levels of violence in
the neighborhood were likely to show higher levels of externalizing behaviors when they
were six and nine years old. Similarly, the Hispanic children who were exposed to higher
levels of violence in the neighborhood were likely to show higher levels of externalizing
behaviors at age six but they were not at age nine. For the Caucasian children, the levels
of violence in the neighborhood that they were exposed to did not relate to their levels of
externalizing behaviors. Moreover, the Caucasian children who showed higher levels of
externalizing behaviors at age six were likely to experience more harsh discipline at age
nine, but the Hispanic and African American children were not. For all groups, the
children with challenging temperamental characteristics at age three, as indicated by

higher levels of activity and emotionality, were likely to experience more harsh discipline

79

and display higher levels of externalizing behaviors at age three. The children who
experienced higher levels of harsh discipline, as indicated by higher levels of physical
and psychological discipline, were likely to display higher levels of externalizing

behaviors when they were six and nine years old.

80

.90~€.mc=3$ 005080.880: 0... 30205000 ”0.02

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a 0w< c 0m<
0.000. :0le 0.0.3.. 005
80205 02.205
0. 8.809%. FEED 8 0.30me FEED
_ _
8358 86:23.
+ +
New... L80 mm. 3.4: Li... a. chum:
o 0w< .0333. t e 0m< Hogfiom m 0w< .0_>m:0m
@525..me wcfizafiouxm $52.5..me
«Chord.
«8.33.0
*3"; and 3.: av.

           

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

              

  

      

                    

 

 

 

                      
 

  

        

       

 

8.“...

32985005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.8.0:..-
3.”... ”TE 0: 8. 2.“... . .
a om< c ow< m om< L: 0 2
8:385 8:385 n8:885 . .0 . x

38$. 18.08.: $.82 .088. :83. .. 3. 2.. SJ:

03:3.
_ in”. 1...
/ K /
8.“... 8r... 3%: 8.”... on“... 8.“...
8:385 8:385 8:385 8:385 8:385 8:385
Bowwofioaozmm Romans: .moE0_0no>mm 606.3“: Eomwofifiyhmm Eomwznm
08 n .6 .8 583. 388$ 8838: 83.8-8.8 m .88: N. 838.

81

 

 

.Acofivgmwcmumv onEmczfimzs 0.5 wEfloEooU $82

 

 

a 34 o om<
€82 bomv 0.5%: 00%
ooflBOCV Duane—Ctr
8 Esmomxm FEED 8 2309mm FEED

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      

       

    
             

_
iv: amé in: we...
+ +
Sank Lam; E. chk Lem; .2. ENE

o ow< SSEQm L c ow< “Egaom m ow< 8320mm
wqfizmfiouxm wENMEEme winznfiouxm

a cmwk

bzmcozofim
*3: vm.
. . . . 33 3&—
ENZ: :38 no? _
“55838:
EEO

                     

               

a: 3.- m .
m 4: .53 E.

           

 

 

   

 

 
    
   

 

  
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SJ: 2J2
o a? o om< m om<
2:36me “WE—£85 2:385 A .V . w
£55 3.3 2:. £32 swam .. 8. n» N S." x
N
$32
of: mnnwx Six N7“: monk monk
25385 0:25:85 oEEBflQ 25385 2:36me 051385
Eowwofizoxmm EoEEm Romwflonoxmm Rough fiflwofizozmm EoEEm
R 2 H 2» mafia?” 23.2wEV =8th “MEANEV 3&5:h-.£=~< m 33: m— Pawwm

 

 

82

 

.QQNESESWV 6363:5533 2m 32205000 ”802

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a %< o ow<
Atom»: “:09 Atom»: 003
Doflofiomxr 00¢D~Om>
8 858me 9230 8 chamomxm FEED
_ _
E: S: 5: :3.
+ +
ENE :33 an «ink: :63 2. aux:
a om< 8330mm x m ow< Hogmnom x m ow< 5323:
352:8me 3555.:me 35szme
a NYME
bzmcosofim
me.v 3.—
123 3.:
L8: 2.2 $3 5. m ow< _
505$ng051
EEO

        

 

     

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      

 

    

  

 

  
  
          

     

    
               

   

 

         

    

       

 

     

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13:5.
an”: Sum: 53 8. can»: . .
a Dw< c ow< m ow< «.2: V v—
MU9:985 . 8:935 0::935 A .: . y.
:53: 875:- 55¢ 532.. as: ., mv ma _ SJ:
5533:
_
*cv.m : *mw. : *E‘.
$.an 3J2 SJ: awn”: gum: film
2:935 0£985 2:985 2:985 8:985 8:985
Eflwo—onohmm $0653 Eomwgonozmm 52935 Gamma—ocozmm 52.935
Sm. n E mEEufizm. 59:69:39 ..u..a.bu:V mifiuhéEE m 33: 3 253m

 

83

Multiple-Sample Analysis: Moderating Eflect of Income

A multiple-sample analysis was attempted to examine group difference by income
level. Although the constrained model was admissible and showed a good fit, the free
models were inadmissible due to negative variances in several variables. This may be due
to measurement errors and / or mis-specification of the model. Thus, the multiple-sample
analysis was not conducted and no results regarding group difference by income level are
reported.

Summary

The purpose of this study was to investigate longitudinally the relation between
harsh discipline and externalizing behaviors in children. Several interesting findings
emerged fi'om the analyses addressing research question 1, research question 2, and the
specific research hypotheses. First, research question 1 is concerned with how the
temperamental characteristics and experiences of physical and psychological discipline
relate to the initial level and the change over time in externalizing behaviors. The
children showed a decrease in externalizing behavior over time from ages three to nine,
and the rate of decrease was predicted by children’s temperamental characteristics and
the physical and psychological discipline that they experienced at age three. More
specifically, the children who had higher scores on emotionality and activity and
experienced more physical discipline were likely to show higher levels of externalizing
behaviors at age three. However, the children who had higher scores on emotionality and
activity and experienced more physical and psychological discipline at age three showed
a sharper decline in externalizing behaviors at subsequent assessments than their peers

with lower scores on the temperament and discipline measures at age three. Second,

84

research question 2 examined the relations among externalizing behaviors and physical
discipline at ages six and nine. The children who showed higher levels of externalizing
behaviors and experienced more physical discipline at age six were likely to show higher
levels of externalizing behaviors at age nine.

Third, specific research hypotheses were tested in order to investigate
longitudinally the relations among children’s temperamental characteristics and
externalizing behaviors, physical and psychological discipline, and children’s and their
primary caregivers’ exposure to violence in the neighborhood. The children with
challenging temperamental characteristics were likely to experience more harsh
discipline and showed higher levels of externalizing behaviors at age three. Furthermore,
the children who experienced higher levels of harsh discipline were likely to show higher
levels of externalizing behaviors, which related to the level of harsh discipline
experienced at later time points. More specifically, the children who showed higher levels
of externalizing behaviors at age three were likely to experience more harsh discipline at
age six; however, the children who showed higher levels of externalizing behaviors at age
six were less likely to experience harsh discipline at age nine. Additionally, the primary
caregivers who were exposed to higher levels of violence in the neighborhood were more
likely to use harsh discipline, and the children who were exposed to higher levels of
violence in the neighborhood were likely to show higher levels of externalizing behaviors.

Further analyses revealed groups differences by gender and ethnicity in these
relations. The activity level that the children exhibited was related to higher levels of
externalizing behaviors and harsh discipline for the female children, but these relations

were not found for the male children. The level of exposure to violence in the

85

neighborhood at age six was related to higher levels of externalizing behaviors for the
Hispanic and African American children, but this relation was not found for the
Caucasian children. At age nine, the level of exposure to violence in the neighborhood
was related to higher levels of externalizing behaviors for the Afiican American children,
but this relation was not found for the Hispanic and Caucasian children. Also, this
relation was found for the male children, but it was not for the female children. The
Caucasian children who showed higher levels of externalizing behaviors at age six were
likely to experience more harsh discipline at age nine, but this relation was not found
among the Hispanic and Afiican American children. Regardless of gender or ethnicity,
the children who experienced higher levels of harsh discipline were likely to show higher

levels of externalizing behaviors at ages six and nine

86

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The discussion section has four parts. The first part presents a discussion of the
findings. The second part discusses the limitations of the study. The third section
suggests directions for future research. The fourth section discusses the implications.
Finally, the conclusions are presented.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to use an ecological perspective to investigate
longitudinally the relation between harsh discipline, which consists of physical and
psychological discipline, and externalizing behaviors in children. There are four points
which need to be discussed. First, the findings show that psychological discipline had a
significant relation with children’s externalizing behaviors. Second, the relation between
harsh discipline and externalizing behaviors was found for the children at ages six and
nine; however, the expected reciprocal relation between them was not found. Third, this
study suggests the importance of including possible correlates which relate to harsh
discipline and children’s externalizing behaviors. More specifically, the children who
were exposed to more violence in the neighborhood were likely to show higher levels of
externalizing behaviors, and the primary caregivers who were exposed to more violence
in the neighborhood were likely to use more harsh discipline. Fourth, this study showed
the moderating effect of ethnicity on the relation between exposure to violence in the
neighborhood and externalizing behaviors, and the moderating effect of gender on the
relations among temperament, harsh discipline, and externalizing behavior.

Psychological Discipline

87

Overall, the children showed a decrease in their levels of externalizing behaviors
while the levels of physical discipline that the children experienced decreased and the
levels of psychological discipline increased over time. When the children were three-
years-old, physical discipline had a significant relation with the levels of externalizing
behaviors, but psychological discipline was unrelated to externalizing behavior. However,
in the longitudinal analysis, psychological discipline had strong and significant relations
with the levels of externalizing behaviors at ages six and nine. Thus, physical discipline
appeared to have a stronger relation with externalizing behaviors when the children were
younger, and psychological discipline appeared to have a stronger relation when the
children were older.

Possible explanations for these differences by age include children’s levels of
cognition (Gershoff, 2002) and language. For example, the children might not be able to
understand what the primary caregivers imply by threatening and yelling at them or
calling names when they are three years old. However, the pain they receive from
spanking is a more concrete experience requiring little cognitive or language processing.
The older children may be able to cope with the temporary pain from physical discipline,
yet they can be affected more by psychologically harsh words and the emotional climate
created by their primary caregivers. Needless to say, it is necessary to replicate the
findings of this study and to investigate these possible explanations regarding age
differences. Most importantly, this study established that there is a link between
psychological discipline and externalizing behavior much like prior research established a
link between physical discipline and externalizing behavior.

Harsh Discipline, Extemalizing Behaviors, and Age

88

Regardless of gender or ethnicity, the children who experienced more harsh
discipline, including physical and psychological discipline, were more likely to display
externalizing behaviors at ages six and nine. The children with challenging
temperamental characteristics were likely to receive more harsh discipline and display
higher levels of externalizing behaviors, but the harsh discipline they received did not
have a relation with their externalizing behaviors at age three.

The relation changed as the children grew older in this study. According to Straus
and Stewart (1999), the overall prevalence of physical punishment rate was 94% for
children ages three and four and the rates decreased as the children became older.
Because they are less likely to experience harsh discipline at ages six and nine, it might
be that the relation between harsh discipline and externalizing behaviors becomes more
significant if they experience it beyond the preschool years. For older children, harsh
discipline might be perceived as a non-normative experience. When children feel that the
harsh discipline they receive is unfair or that the discipline they receive is excessive
relative to what other children their age and culture experience, harsh discipline can be a
risk factor for behavior problems. How older children experience harsh discipline may
also depend on other parental behaviors (e. g., warmth) and how children interpret
parental discipline. Children who receive harsh discipline may be less likely to show
problem behavior if they perceive their parents are disciplining them out of concern for
their welfare; although the children may take issue with the method, if they understand
the reasons for their parents’ methods and perceive the discipline as motivated by the
parents’ desire to provide guidance, the harsh discipline may not be associated with

problematic outcomes in children. This explanation has been used to explain positive

89

outcomes in Chinese American children who have relatively strict parents (Chao, 1994).
However if the harsh discipline is interpreted as an angry parent’s way of making the
child atone for his transgressions, the children may engage in similar aggressive behavior
with peers when peers do something to make the child angry (Snyder, Crarner, Afrank, &
Patterson, 2005). Older children are better than younger children at judging the intentions
of another person, and this ability to judge the intent of an action may influence how
children are affected by harsh discipline over time (Crick, & Dodge, 1994; Gershoff,
2002). Further research is needed to understand children’s thinking about the discipline
they receive and how their interpretations of parental discipline change with age.
Nonetheless, these findings provide support for Bronfenbrenner’s Process-Person-
Context-Time (PPCT) model because the effect of hash discipline, the proximal process
variable in this study, on children’s externalizing behaviors, depended on characteristics
of the person (age) and the context (neighborhood violence) over time.

It is also important to examine the role culture plays in children’s interpretation of
discipline. Although there is the perception that American parents use physical discipline
more than parents in other countries (with European countries often being used for
comparison), in some parts of the world, American parents may be viewed as relatively
lenient by comparison. For example, the Sudanese refugees, known in the media as the
Lost Boys of Sudan, were surprised that American teachers were not allowed to cane
disrespectfiil and disruptive students and generally viewed corporal punishment as
important for positive character development (T. Luster, personal communication,

August 12, 2008). In the Sudanese cultural context, children are likely to interpret

9O

parental use of corporal punishment differently than many American children because of
cultural consensus about the merits of physical punishment.

The possible reciprocal relation between harsh discipline and externalizing
behavior was also examined in this study. Patterson (1982, 2002) argued that inconsistent
but frequent harsh discipline creates a coercive reciprocal pattern in family interactions.
However, the expected reciprocal relation was not found in this study. It might be that the
way harsh discipline was measured in this study was not able to capture the reciprocal
interactions precisely. In order to test coercion theory, it may be necessary to measure
multiple points of immediate interactions between a child and primary caregiver using
observation techniques of microgenesis.

Exposure to Violence in the Neighborhood

The findings for research question 2 indicated that there also must be other
variables that explain individual differences in externalizing behaviors. Although the
children who experienced higher levels of harsh discipline and showed more
externalizing behaviors at age six were more likely to show externalizing behaviors at
age nine, these two variables explained only 17% of the variance in externalizing
behaviors. Subsequently, the longitudinal model found that the children who were
exposed to more violence in the neighborhood were more likely to show externalizing
behaviors and the primary caregivers who were exposed to more violence in the
neighborhood were more likely to use harsh discipline.

These findings are consistent with some earlier studies. When primary caregivers
are exposed to violence in the neighborhood, they are likely to be more reactive or
responsive to the neighborhood violence and become more authoritarian. In other words,

they are less likely to tolerate children’s disobedience because violence in the

91

neighborhood could endanger children’s safety; thus, they are more likely to use harsh
discipline (McLoyd, 1990). Another possible explanation involves elevated stress due to
exposure to violence in the neighborhood. Violence in the neighborhood may create
higher levels of parental emotional distress, such as anxiety and depression, which in turn,
are likely to affect parenting behaviors (e. g., Belsky, 1984; McLoyd, 1990). Furthermore,
several studies provide support for the conclusion that children who are exposed to higher
rates of community violence are more likely to show behavior problems due to the
deleterious influence of exposure to violence (e. g., Osofsky, Wewers, Harm, & Pick,
1993; Richters & Martinez, 1993).

These findings highlight the importance of an ecological perspective in examining
the relation between harsh discipline and externalizing behaviors; the context in which
parents and children are interacting may influence their transactions. The children usually
have more microsystems as they grow older and spend more time outside of the home
(Bronfenbrenner, 2005). Therefore, it is necessary to consider factors beyond the family
environment that may significantly influence development. Moreover, as Bronfenbrenner
argued, proximal processes in the home may also be influenced by contextual factors
such as the level of violence in the neighborhood.

In this study, when the relations among harsh disciplineand externalizing
behaviors were examined at ages six and nine, only 17% of the variance in externalizing
behaviors was explained by these variables at age nine. However, 43% of the variance in
externalizing behaviors was explained by harsh discipline, their prior externalizing
behaviors, and children’s exposure to violence. Harsh discipline and exposure to violence

in the neighborhood, key aspects of children’s experiences in two different microsystems,

92

were related to externalizing behaviors. In addition, parental exposure to violence, an
aspect of the children’s exsosystem, was significantly predictive of the primary
caregivers’ practice of harsh discipline, which in turn, related to children’s externalizing
behaviors. In other words, the effect of harsh discipline, a proximal process, on a child’s
outcome, was influenced by the environment in which the process occurs. Therefore,
these findings are consistent with Bronfenbrenner’s model of human development and his
PPCT model.

Moderator Variable -- Ethnicity

This study examined the possible moderating effect of ethnicity in the relations
among temperament, harsh discipline, externalizing behavior, and exposure to violence in
the neighborhood. The level of exposure to violence was related to higher levels of
externalizing behaviors for the African American children at age nine, but this relation
was not found for the Hispanic and Caucasian children. The Afiican American children
and their primary caregivers indicated that they were exposed to significantly higher
levels of violence than other groups.

It might be that exposure to violence in the neighborhood is confounded with the
influence of income because people with lower incomes may have few alternatives to
living in areas with higher rates of violence. In this study, the mean yearly per capita
income for African Americans ($4,851.47) was less than half of Caucasians ($10,470).
However, the mean per capita income for Hispanics ($4,575.85) was lower than the mean
for Afiican Americans. Per capita family income was modestly correlated with the
primary caregivers’ exposure to violence (r = -.l7, p < .05) and the children’s exposure to

violence (r = -.15, p < .05) when the children were nine years old; families with high

93

levels of income tended to be exposed to less violence. Gorman-Smith, Henry, and Tolan
(1998) found that the relation between neighborhood violence and aggression was
moderated by family structure, referring to the level of organization in the home and the
support family members provide for each other. Their findings suggested the relations
among income, neighborhood violence, and externalizing behavior depend on family
processes that occur in these high-risk contexts.

This study found the African American children were more vulnerable to the
effects of neighborhood violence than the Caucasian and Hispanic children. Researchers
reported that in Illinois, African-American children were five times as likely as
Caucasian children to live in poverty and Hispanic children were three times as likely to
live in poverty in 1995. Moreover, African-American children were more than eight
times as likely and Hispanic children three times as likely as Caucasian children to die as
a result of violence in 1998 (Goerge, Lee, Bilaver, Dilts, Harden, Moore, Perry, Peters,
Ray, Reidy, Weir, & Wurr, 2001). However, why Afiican Americans were more likely to
be exposed to violence in the neighborhood and why Afiican American children appeared
to be more vulnerable to the violence they witnessed remain unclear. Further research is
needed to disentangle the relations among ethnicity, income, neighborhood violence, and
family characteristics.

Some earlier studies support the notion that the physical discipline is associated
with more externalizing behaviors among Caucasian children but not among African
American children because physical discipline is a more normative socialization practice
among African Americans (e. g., Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1996; Gunnoe

& Mariner, 1997). Moreover, Afiican Americans are more likely to endorse the use of

94

spanking as an appropriate method of discipline (e.g., Deater-Deckard, Dodge, &
Sorbring, 2002; Deater-Deckard, Lansford, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 2003). In this study,
the moderating effect of ethnicity was not found. The relation between harsh discipline
and externalizing behaviors was found for all ethnic groups. However, the effect was
strongest for the Caucasian group, and smallest for the Afiican American group.
Additionally, exposure to violence in the neighborhood showed a stronger relation to
children’s externalizing behaviors than harsh discipline among African American
children.

This finding does not necessarily contradict earlier findings regarding ethnic
group difference in the relation between harsh discipline and externalizing behaviors
entirely. Rather, this study emphasizes the importance of considering both group
differences and individual differences within groups. McLoyd, Kaplan, Hardaway, and
Wood (2007) examined whether maternal endorsement of physical discipline moderated
the relation between spanking fiequency and child depressive symptoms among Afiican
American families. They found that the relation between spanking fi'equency and child-
reported depressive symptoms was stronger for the children of the mothers who did not
endorse physical discipline than for the children of the endorsing mothers. It indicates
that there is within-group variation in Afiican American mother’s attitudes toward
physical discipline. While there are group differences by ethnicity, there are also
individual differences within the group. It may be an oversimplification if we examine
the moderating effect of ethnicity without considering how attitudinal differences within
the group also affect the relation between parental discipline and externalizing behavior.

Therefore, it is important for future studies to investigate both cultural-level influences

95

and individual-level influences on the relation between harsh discipline and externalizing
behaviors.
Moderator Variable -- Gender

The activity level that the children exhibited was related to higher levels of
externalizing behaviors and harsh discipline for the female children; yet, these relations
were not found for the male children. Previous literature found that males tend to be more
active than females, and that gender differences in activity level increase with age (e. g.,
Campbell & Eaton, 1999; Else-Quest, Hyde, Goldsmith, & Van Hulle, 2006). Campbell
and Eaton (1999) argued that the early gender difference in activity level is biologically
based; however, socialization processes, such as gender-differentiated expectations and
experiences, in conjunction with further biological development, expand the gender
difference. Therefore, higher levels of activity might be a risk for females because
females may be expected to show lower levels of activity; it might evoke more harsh
discipline from primary caregivers and make them rate their female children’s behaviors
higher on externalizing behaviors when females are more active. While the higher
activity level was a direct risk for females at age three, it might have been an indirect risk
for males at age nine. The level of exposure to violence was related to higher levels of
externalizing behaviors for the males but this relation was not found for the females at
age nine. It may be that very active males were more likely to be exposed to violence in
the neighborhood because of their characteristics. However, this study did not examine
activity level at age nine, and further research is necessary to test this explanation.

Limitations

96

There are some limitations of this study. First, harsh discipline was measured by
the primary caregivers. Thus, there was no way to verify that what they reported reflects
what they actually did; in fact, it would be difficult to measure exactly what happened in
the families with most approaches available to researchers. However, Bennett, Sullivan,
and Lewis (2006) examined the relations between maternal report of discipline practices
using the Conflict Tactics Scale and observations of mother-child interactions; they found
that parental report, using the Conflict Tactics Scale, may be useful in assessing parental
discipline because the observations of parental behaviors were consistent with the
responses on the Conflict Tactics Scale. Yet, as they suggested, socially desirable
responses still can be a problem.

Second, most measures used in this study were based on the reports made by the
primary caregivers. Thus, a concern is shared variance method. It would be better to use
multiple measures and multiple sources of information; however, this is one of the
limitations of secondary data analysis. Other sources of information were not available in
the data set for the variables of interest. Another limitation was a low level of internal
consistency for the measure of activity. Cronbach’s alpha for activity was .48, and thus
caution is warranted in interpreting the results regarding activity. Lastly, no causal
relations can be determined from this study because the findings from the latent growth
curve, cross-lagged, and path analysis of structural equation models usually do not allow
for causal inferences. Therefore, the findings must be interpreted with appropriate caution.

Implications
There are two implications that can be drawn from this study. However, these

recommendations need to be interpreted with caution because this study used a

97

correlational design and no causal relations could be determined. First implication can be
made at a social policy level. Currently, there are twenty three countries which have
adopted policies and laws that ban the use of corporal punishment at home and school. In
the US, this debate continues among the public, within academia, and among policy
makers. Gershoff and Bitensky (2007) proposed programs and policies to reduce the use
of corporal punishment by both parents and school personnel in the US. after reviewing
research findings and explaining the changes that have happened in Sweden since
corporal punishment was banned in 1977. In Sweden, the use of corporal punishment,
parents’ endorsement of corporal punishment, and children’s injmies from assaults
declined markedly after the ban (Durrant, 1999). Furthermore, Gracia and Herrero (2008)
found lower acceptance of physical punishment of children among people in the
European Union when they lived in a country where corporal punishment had been
banned. Also, they found that lower acceptance of physical punishment was related to a
lower number of child maltreatment deaths. However, there is no guarantee that the same
changes would happen in the US. because the US. is culturally different and more
diverse than Sweden and most other countries in Europe. Therefore, educating the public
through a national campaign on effective discipline strategies, which is one of the
suggestions made by Gershoff and Bitensky, might be a more acceptable approach to
policy makers across the political spectrum than criminalizing harsh discipline. Although
the research findings regarding the effects of harsh discipline are inconsistent, all things
considered, the negative effects appear to outweigh the benefits of corporal punishment.
Reducing the use of harsh discipline may decrease the potential negative effects on

children and the risks for child abuse.

98

The same message need to be included in parenting education or intervention
programs at the community level by promoting the benefits of using other discipline
techniques, such as reasoning, discussion, and positive reinforcement, which teach
children how to behave rather than punishing them. There are also forms of punishment
that do not require physical force, such as time-outs and taking away privileges. In order
to succeed in promoting this idea in parenting or intervention programs, instructors or
clinicians need to be aware of cultural differences and consider other contextual factors
which might explain why some parents use harsh discipline. Acknowledging the cultural
and individual difference and teaching alternative techniques may work better than
condemning the use of harsh discipline. Parent educators also need to work with parents
to use other strategies effectively; otherwise parents may doubt the efficacy of these
alternative strategies and revert to practices, such as spanking, that seemed to lead to
children’s compliance at least in the short term.

Directions for Further Research

This study examined the construct of harsh discipline which was measured by
physical and psychological discipline. It would be interesting if we could include positive
or non-harsh aspects of discipline creating the construct of discipline rather than harsh
discipline. This addition makes it possible to explore what types of discipline have
detrimental effect on development, while determining if positive or non-harsh discipline
buffers the negative effects of harsh discipline. Although the revised Conflict Tactics
Scale has a subscale of non-harsh discipline, there seems to be a need for more items to

measure positive aspects of discipline. It would be beneficial to further develop a

99

measure which assesses a variety of discipline strategies as well as measures parental
warmth and concern, which may also buffer the effects of coercive disciplinary tactics.

The exposure to violence in the neighborhood was found to have a significant
relation to the levels of externalizing behaviors. It is important to include other contextual
factors, which might relate to harsh discipline and externalizing behaviors, using an
ecological perspective. One of these contextual factors could be peer relations. For
example, it would be useful to investigate if having peers with higher levels of
externalizing behaviors is related to an increase in children’s externalizing behaviors over
time.

Thus far, we have a great amount of information regarding the effect of physical
discipline on children’s development; however, evidence regarding the effects of
psychological discipline is very limited. It is hoped that there will be more studies
examining psychological discipline so that our understanding of the effects of
psychological discipline would eventually be comparable to the knowledge that we have
regarding physical discipline. Although it has been debated, most investigators make a
distinction between physical discipline and physical abuse. However, the line between
psychological discipline and emotional abuse is still unclear. With some agreements
about this distinction, it seems likely that more investigations would be conducted.

This study found that psychological discipline is related to externalizing behavior
much like physical discipline is related to externalizing behavior. This raises other
questions such as: How do each of them relate to other behavior problems in children,
such as anxiety? Which would have a more detrimental effect given a certain situation, if

indeed there is a causal relation? The answer may vary depending on children’s

100

characteristics — such as, temperamental characteristics, age, or level of cognition — or the
children’s context. Additional research is required to advance our understanding of
moderating variables that affect the extent to which harsh discipline is related to
children’s behavior problems. Hence, many questions still remain.
Conclusion

The findings from this study indicate that harsh discipline including physical and
psychological discipline, challenging temperamental characteristics, and exposure to
violence in the neighborhood have significant relations with externalizing behavior in
children over time. While this study replicated the finding that physical discipline is
associated with higher levels of externalizing behavior, it also showed that psychological
discipline is associated with higher levels of externalizing behavior. Challenging
temperamental characteristics were associated with an increase in harsh discipline and
higher levels of externalizing behaviors. Moreover, exposure to violence in the
neighborhood was related to increases in harsh discipline and externalizing behavior.
Further analyses showed, in particular, that exposure to violence was a risk for the
Afiican American children, and higher level of activity was a risk for females. In sum,
this study highlights the importance of an ecological perspective to examine the effects of
parental discipline on children’s externalizing behavior by providing support for
Bronfenbrenner’s (2005) proposition that the effects of a proximal processes on a child’s
development depend on child’s characteristics, such as age, and environmental

characteristics, such as neighborhoods with high levels of violence.

101

REFERENCES

Achenbach. T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 and 1991
profile. Burlington: University, of Vermont. Department of Psychiatry.

Amato, P. R., & Fowler, F. (2002). Parenting practices, child adjustment, and family
diversity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 703-716.

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. (2004). Retrieved January 15,
2008 from http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/discipline.

Baumrind, D. (1997). Necessary distinctions. Psychological Inquiry, 8, 176-182.

Baumrind, D., Larzelere, R. E., & Cowan, P. A. (2002). Ordinary physical punishment: Is
it harmful? Comment on Gershoff (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128 (4), 580-
589.

Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2008). Regional economic account. Retrieved August 8,
2008, from http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/bearfacts

Bell, R. Q. (1971). Stimulus control of parent or caretaker behavior by offspring.
Developmental Psychology, 4, 63-72.

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

Belsky, J ., Heieh, K., & Cmic, K. (1998). Mothering, fathering, and infant negativity as
antecedents of boys’ externalizing problems and inhibition at age 3 years:

Differential susceptibility to rearing experience? Development and
Psychopathology, 1 0, 301 -3 l 9

Bennett, D. S., Sullivan, M. W., & Lewis, M. (2006). Relations of parental report and
observation of parenting to maltreatment history, Child Maltreat, I I (1), 63-75.

Bradley, R., & Corwyn, R. (2008). Infant temperament, parenting, and externalizing
behavior in first grade: A test of the differential susceptibility hypothesis. The
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry ,49 (2), 124-131.

Brenner, V. & Fox, R. A. (1998). Parental discipline and behavior problems in young
children. The Journal of Genetic Psychology 159(2), 251-256.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

102

Bronfenbrenner, U. (2001). The bioecological theory of human development. In N. J.
Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds), International encyclopedia of education (2“d ed.,
Vol. 3, pp. 1643-1647). Oxford, UK: Pergarnon / Elsevier.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on
human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Bronfenbrenner, U. & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In
W. Damon (Series Ed.) & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., pp. 993-
1028). New York: John Wiley.

Buss, A., & Plorrrin, R. (1975). A temperament theory of personality development. New
York: A Wiley-Interscience Publication.

Campbell, D. W. & Eaton, W. O. (1999). Sex differences in the activity level of infants.
Infant and Child Development, 8, 1-17.

Campbell, S. 8., Shaw, D. S. & Gilliom, M. (2000). Early externalizing behavior
problems: Toddlers and preschoolers at risk for later maladjustment. Development
and Psychopathology, 12, 467-488.

Caspi, A., Henry, B., McGee, R. 0., Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1995). Temperamental
origins of child and adolescent behavior problems: From age three to age fifteen.
Child Development. 66, 55-68.

Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (1995). The continuity of maladaptive behavior: From
description to explanation in the study of antisocial behavior. In D. Chicchetti &
D. Cohen (Eds), Developmentalpsychopathology (V 01. 2, pp. 472-511). New
York: Wiley.

Caughy, M. 0., & Franzini, L. (2005). Neighborhood correlates of cultural differences in
perceived effectiveness of parental disciplinary tactics. Parenting: Science &
Practice, 5 (2), 119-151.

Ceballo, R., & McLoyd, V. C. (2002). Social support and parenting in poor, dangerous
neighborhoods. Child Development, 73 (4), 1310-1321.

Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond Parental Control and Authoritarian Parenting Style:
Understanding Chinese Parenting Through the Cultural Notion of Training. Child
Development, 65 (4), 1111-1119.

Clark, L. A., Kochanska, G., & Ready, R. (2000). Mothers’ personality and its interaction

with child temperament as predictors of parenting behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (2), 274-285.

103

Claussen, A. H., & Crittenden, P. M. (1991). Physical and psychological maltreatment:
Relations among types of maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 15, 5-18.

Convention on the Rights of Children (2006). Retrieved August 24, 2006 fi'om
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/ae2cb0fd0052e4a6c1257181003 81 f6c/$FILE/
G0642001 .pdf

Cordona, P. G., Nicholson, B. C., Fox, R. (2000). Parenting among Hispanic and Anglo-
American mothers with young children. The Journal of Social Psychology, 140
(3), 357-365.

Crick, N., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-
processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin,
115, 74-101.

Darling, N. & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as a context: An integrative. model.
Psychological Bulletin. 11 (3), 487-496

Deater-Deckard, K., & Dodge, K. A. (1997). Extemalizing behavior problems and
discipline revisited: Nonlinear effects and variation by culture, context, and
gender. Psychological Inquiry, 8 (3 ), 161 -1 75.

Deather-Deckard, K., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S. (1996). Physical discipline
among Afiican American and European American mothers: Links to children’s
externalizing behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32 (6), 1065-1072.

Deater-Deckard, K. Dodge, K. A. & Sorbring, E. (2005). Cultural differences in the
effects of physical punishment. In M. Rutter & M. Tienda (Eds), Ethnicity and
Causal Mechanisms (pp. 204-226). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Deater-Deckard, K., Ivy, L., & Petrill, S. (2006). Maternal warmth moderates the link
between physical punishment and child externalizing problems: A parent-
offspring behavior genetic analysis. Parenting: Science and Practice, 6 (l ), 59-
78.

Deater-Deckard, K., Lansford, J. E., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2003).
The development of attitudes about physical punishment: An 8-year longitudinal
study. Journal of Family Psychology, 1 7, 351-360.

Denham, S. A., Workman, E., Cole, P. M., Weissbrod, C., Kendziora, K. T., & Zahn-
Waxler, C. (2000). Prediction of externalizing behavior problems from early to
middle childhood: The role of parental socialization and emotion expression.
Development and Psychopathology, 12, 23-45.

Dobson, J. C. (2007). The new strong-willed child. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House
Publishers, Inc.

104

Durrant, J. E. (1999). Evaluating the success of Sweden’s corporal punishment ban. Child
Abuse &. Neglect, 23, 435-448.

Egeland, B., Sroufe, A., & Erickson, M. (1983). The developmental consequence of
different patterns of maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 7, 459-469.

Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., H., & Goldsmith, H., & Van Hulle, C. A. (2006). Gender
differences in temperament: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132 (1), 33-
72.

Fitzgerald, H. E., McKelvy, L. M., Shciffrnan, R. F., & Montanez, M. (2006). Exposure
of low-income families and their children to neighborhood violence and paternal
antisocial behavior. Parenting: Science and Practice, 6 (2), 224-258.

Global lrritiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children. (2008). States with full
abolition. Retrieved August 8, 2008, from http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org

Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors
and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin.
128(4), 539-579.

Gershoff, E. T., & Bitensky, S. H. (2007). The case against corporal punishment of
children: Converging evidence from social science research and international

human rights law and implications for US. public policy. Psychology, Public
Policy, and Law, 13 (4), 231-272.

Goerge, R. M., Lee, B. J ., Bilaver, L. M., Dilts, J ., Harden, A., Moore, J ., Perry, T.,
Peters, G, Ray, B., Reidy, M., Weir, M., & Wurr., J. (2001). The State of the
Child in Illinois: 2000. Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of
Chicago.

Gorman-Smith, D., & Tolan, P. H. (1998). The role of exposure to community violence
and developmental problems among inner-city youth. Development and
Psychopathology, 1 0, 1 01-1 16.

Gorman-Smith, D., Henry, D. B., & Tolan, P. H. (2004). Exposure to community
violence and violence perpetration: The protective effects of family functioning.
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33 (3), 439-449.

Gracia, E., & Herrero, J. (2008). Is it considered violence? The acceptability of physical
punishment of children in Europe. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70 (l ), 210-
21 7.

Granic, I., & Patterson, G. R. (2006). Toward a comprehensive model of antisocial
development: A dynamic systems approach. Psychological Review, 113 (1), 101-
1 3 l .

105

Gunnoe, M. L., & Mariner, C. L. (1997). Toward a developmental-contextual model of
the effects of parental spanking on children’s aggression. Archives of Pediatrics
and Adolescent Medicine. 151 (8), 768-775.

Hughes, C., Deater-Deckard, K., Cutting, A. L. (1999). ‘Speak roughly to your little boy?
Sex differences in the relations between parenting and preschoolers’
Understanding of mind. Social Development, 8 (2), 143-160.

Hughes, C. & Ensor, R. (2006). Behavioral problems in 2-year-olds: Links with
individual differences in theory of mind, executive function and harsh parenting.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(5), 448—497.

Kazdin, A. E., & Benjet, C. (2003). Spanking children: Evidence and issues. Current
Directions In Psychological Science, 12 (3), 99-103.

Kolko, D. J ., Kazdin, A. E., & Day, B. T. (1996). Children’s perspectives in the
assessment of family violence: Psychometric characteristics and comparisons to
parent reports. Child Maltreatment, 1 (2), 156-167.

Kurcinka, M. S. (1998). Raising your spirited child: A guide for parents whose child is
more intense, sensitive, perceptive, persistent, energetic. New York: Harper
Paperbacks.

Lansford, J ., Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K., Bates, J ., & Pettit, G. (2004). Ethnic
differences in the link between physical discipline and later adolescent
externalizing behaviors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45 (4), 801 -
812.

Lansford, J ., Dodge, K., Malone, P., Bacchini, B., Zelli, A., Chaudhary, N., Manke, B.,
Chang, L., Oburu, P., Palmerus, K., Pastorelli, C., Bombi, A., Tapanya, S.,
Deater-Deckard, K., & Quinn, N. (2005). Physical discipline and children’s
adjustment: Cultural normativeness as a moderator. Child Development, 76 (6),
1234-1246.

Larzelere, R. E. (2000). Child outcomes of nonabusive and customary physical
punishment by parents: An updated literature review. Clinical Child and Family
Psychology Review, 3, 199-221. .

Larzelere, R. E. & Kuhn, B. R. (2005). Comparing child outcomes of physical
punishment and alternative disciplinary tactics: A meta-analysis. Clinical Child
and Family Psychology Review 8 (1 ), 1-37

Larzelere, R. E., Kuhn, B. R., & Johnson, D. (2004). The intervention selection bias: An

underrecognized confound in intervention research. Psychological Bulletin, 130,
289-303.

106

Martel, M., & Nigg, J. T. (2006). Child ADHD and personality/temperament traits of
reactive and effortful control, resiliency, and emotionality. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry. 4 7 (l l), 1 175-1 183

McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on Black families and children:
Psychological distress, parenting, and socioemotional development. Child
Development, 61, 311-146.

McLoyd, V. C., Kaplan, R., Hardaway, C. R., & Wood, D. (2007). Does endorsement of
physical discipline matter? Assessing moderating influences on the maternal and
child psychological correlates of physical discipline in Afiican American
families. Journal of Family Psychology, 21 (2), 165-17

McLoyd, V. C. & Smith, J. (2002). Physical discipline and behavior problems in African
American, European American, and Hispanic children: Emotional support as a
moderator. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 40-53

Miller, L. S., Wasserman, G. A., Neugebauer, R., Gorman-Smith, D., & Karnbroukos, D.
(1999). Witnessed community violence and antisocial behavior in highOrisk,
urban boys. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28 (1), 2-11.

Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2001). Childhood predictors differentiate life-course
persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial pathways among males and females.
Development and Psychopathology, 13, 355-375.

Moore, T. E., & Pepler, D. J. (2006). Wounding words: Maternal verbal aggression and
children’s adjustment. Journal of Family Violence, 21 (1), 89-93.

Morimoto, Y., & Sharma, A. (2004). Long-term outcomes of verbal aggression: The role
of protective factors. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 4 (2), 71 -99.

Morris, A. 8., Silk, J. S. Sessa, F. M., Avenevoli, S., & Essex, M. J. (2002).
Temperamental vulnerability and negative parenting as interacting predictors of
child adjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 461-471.

Ney, P. G., Fung, T., & Wickett, A. R. (1994). The worst combinations of child abuse
and neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 18(9), 705-714.

Ni gg, J. T. (2006). Temperament and developmental psychopathology. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 47 (3/4), 395-422.

Osofsky, J. D., Wewers, S., Hann, D. M., & Fick, A. C. (1993). Chronic community
violence: What is happening to our children? Psychiatry, 56, 36-45.

107

Paolucci, E. 01, & Violato, C. (2004). A meta-analysis of the published research on the
affective, cognitive, and behavioral effects of corporal punishment. The Journal
of Psychology, 138 (3), 197-221.

Patterson, G. (1982). Coercive family processes. Eugene, OR: Castalia.

Patterson, G. (2002). The early development of coercive family process. In J. Reid, G.
Patterson, & J. Snyder (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: A
developmental analysis and the Oregon model for intervention (pp. 25-44).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Pinderhuges, E. E., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., Petit, G. S., & Zelli, A. (2000). Discipline
response: Influence of parents’ socioeconomic status, ethnicity, beliefs about

parenting, stress, and cogrritive-emotional processes. Journal of Family
Psychology, 14 (3), 380-400.

Polaha, J ., Larzelere, R. E., Shapiro, S. K., & Pettit, G. S. (2004). Physical discipline and
child behavior problems: A study of ethnicity group differences. Parenting:
Science and Practice, 4 (4), 339-360.

Richters, J ., & Martinez, P. (1993). The NIMH community violence project: 1. Children
as victims of and witnesses to violence. Psychiatry, 56, 7-21.

Richters, J ., & Saltzrnan, W. (1990). Survey of exposure to community violence: self
report version. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.

Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (1998). Temperament. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N.
Eisenberg (V 01. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and
personality development (vol. 3, pp. 105-176). New York: Wiley.

Shaw, D. 8., Bell, R. Q., & Gilliom, M. (2000). A truly starter model of antisocial
behavior revisited. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 3 (3), 15 5-1 72.

Shaw, D. S., Gilliom, M., Ingoldsby, E. M. & Nagin, D. S. (2003). Trajectories leading to
school-age conduct problems. Developmental Psychology, 39 (2), 189-200.

Simons, R.L., Lin, K-H., Gordon, L., Brody, G. H., Murry, V., & Conger, R. D. (2002).
Community differences in the association between parenting practices and child
conduct problems. Journal of Marriage & Family, 64, 331-345.

Slade, E. P., & Wissow, L. S. (2005). Spanking in early childhood and later behavior

problems: A prospective study of infants and young toddlers. Pediatrics. 113
(5), 1321-1330.

108

Smith, C. L., Calkins, S. D., Keane, S. P., Anastopoulos, A. D., & Shelton, T. L. (2004).
Predicting stability and change in toddler behavior problems: Contributions of
maternal behavior and child gender. Developmental Psychology, 40(1), 29-42.

Smith, J. R., & Brooks-Gum, J. (1997). Correlates and consequences of harsh discipline
for young children. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 151 (8), 777-
786

Snyder, J ., Crarner, A., Afrank, J ., & Patterson, G. R. (2005). The contributions of
ineffective discipline and parental hostile attributions of child misbehavior to the
development of conduct problems at home and school. Developmental

Psychology, 41 (1), 30-41.

Socolar, R. R. S., & Stein, R. E. K. ( 1995). Spanking infants and toddlers: maternal belief
and practice. Pediatrics, 95 (1).

Solomon, C. R. & Serres, F. (1999). Effects of parental verbal aggression on children’s
self-esteem and school marks. Child Abuse and Neglect, 23 (4), 339-351.

Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafarnily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics
(CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41 (1), 75-88.

Straus, M. A. & Kantor, G. K. (1994). Corporal punishment of adolescents by parents: A
risk factor in the epidemiology of depression, suicide, alcohol abuse and wife
beating. Adolescence, 29, 543-561.

Straus, M. A., & Stewart, J. H. (1999). Corporal punishment by American parents:
national data on prevalence, chronicity, severity, and duration, in relation to child
and family characteristics. Clinical child and family psychology review, 2 (2), 55-
70.

The Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhood (2007). Retrieved
November 20 2007 from http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/PHDCN/about.htm1.

Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. New York: Brunner/
Mazel.

Vissing, Y. M., Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J ., & Harrop, J. W. (1991). Verbal aggression by
parents and psychosocial problems of children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 15, 223-
238.

Webb, M., Heisler, D., Call, S., Chickering, S., & Colburn, T. (2007). Shame, guilt,

symptoms of depression, and reported history of psychological maltreatment.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 1143-1153.

109

Weiss, B., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., &Pettit, G. S. (1992). Some consequences of early
harsh discipline: Child aggression and a maladaptive social information
processing style. Child Development, 63, 1321-1335.

Whiteside-Mansell, L., Bradley, R., Owen, M., Randolph, S., & Cauce, A. (2003).
Parenting and children’s behavior at 36 months: Equivalence between Afiican
American and European American mother-child dyads. Parenting: Science &
Practice, 3 (3), 197-234.

Wissow, L. (2001). Ethnicity, income, and parenting: contexts of physical punishment in

a national sample of families with young children. Child Maltreatment, 6, 118-
129.

110

 

 

‘91-’91
111

Am.
‘1