Social Class and Corporal Punishment in Childrearing:

8/14/2019 Social Class and Corporal Punishment in Childrearing:

1/19

Social Class and Corporal Punishment in Childrearing: A ReassessmentAuthor(s): Howard S. ErlangerSource: American Sociological Review, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Feb., 1974), pp. 68-85Published by: American Sociological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2094277

Accessed: 25/01/2010 19:38

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

American Sociological Review.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2094277?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asahttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2094277?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/19

SOCIALCLASS AND CORPORALPUNISHMENT IN CHILDREARING:A REASSESSMENT*

HOWARDS. ERLANGERUniversity f Wisconsin,Madison

American Sociological Review 1974, Vol. 39 (February): 68-85In 1958, in his review of available iteratureon socializationand socialclass, Bronfenbrennerconcludedthat workingclass parents more often use physicalpunishment,while the middleclassresortsto psychological echniquesof punishment.Thepresentpaperupdates hisanalysisdrawing n morerecentpublished tudiesand on secondary nalysisof a national urvey; t alsoexamines he magnitudeof class differencesratherthan only theirstatistical ignificance.Thisanalysis uggests hat, althoughvarious tudieshave ound a statistically ignificant elationship,the relationship s weak. Analysisby type of indicatorof punishment,qualityof sample,age ofchildren,or year of study does not alter this conclusion. However, none of the studies isdefinitive,andsuggestions reofferedabout topicsto bepursued nfutureresearch.Besides their direct relevance o the study of socialization nd socialclass, the data reviewedhere suggest that several more general inferencesdrawn rom earlierstudies are at presentempiricallyunsubstantiated.These include the hypotheses thatphysicalpunishment eads to"working lass authoritarianism;"hat childhood punishmentexperiencesexplainthe greaterprobability hat workingclassadults, as opposed to middleclassadults, will commithomicide;thatgeneraluse of corporalpunishment s a precursor o child abuse;and that use of corporalpunishment s partof a subcultural ositiveevaluationof violence.

For over a decade, the mostcomprehensiveand influential work in the field of socialclass and socialization has beenBronfenbrenner's1958) reviewpaper,"Social-ization and Social Class Through Time andSpace," which has been widely reprinted inanthologies on social stratification and oftenquoted in texts. Bronfenbrenner'spaper re-viewsfifteenpublishedandunpublished tudiesof childrearing onducted between 1932 and1957 and reaches important conclusionsabout variations in such aspects ofchildrearing as demand feeding, weaning,toilet training,permissivenessowardimpulseexpression, freedom of movement, and

techniques of discipline.A major conclusionin the paper was that in general, in thepost-war period the middle class has beenmore permissive than the working or lowerclass n its childrearing ractices.In his analysis of techniques of discipline,Bronfenbrenner had to rely on only sixstudies: a large-scalenational sample taken in1932, a sample of one hundred mothers inChicago in 1943, and samples taken in theperiod 1950-53 in Detroit, Eugene (Oregon),and the Boston area,with N's rangingfrom115 to 372. Review of these studies led himto the conclusionthat:

The most consistent finding documented[in the areaof techniquesof discipline] isthe more frequent use of physical punish-ment by workingclassparents.Themiddleclass, in contrast,resort to reasoning, sola-tion, and. . . "love oriented" disciplinetechniques 1958:419).This conclusion is based on the finding of astatistically significant difference by socialclassin at least some aspectof discipline(e.g.,

*Of the many people who read the manuscriptand offered valuablesuggestions, would especiallylike to thank MelvinL. Kohnand DavidMechanic.am also indebted to H. H. Winsborough or hismethodologicaladvice and to Irene W. Rodgers orher very capableresearch ssistance.The research e-ported here was supported n part by funds grantedby the National Institute of Mental Health and byfunds granted o the Institute or Research n Pover-ty at the Universityof Wisconsinby the Office ofEconomicOpportunity ursuant o the provisionsofthe EconomicOpportunityAct of 1964. The authorretainsresponsibilityor the analysisand conclusion.68


3/19

CLASSANDPUNISHMENTN CHILDREARING 69use of physical punishment, reasoning, sola-tion, or "love-orientedechnique") n three ofthe six samples available; no analysis ofpercentage point differences or measures ofassociationwas made. Bronfenbrenner rguedthat the class difference has persisted overtime, although he found some evidence tosuggest that the working class might bemoving oward the middle class pattern.Since the publicationof Bronfenbrenner'sarticle, at least three more major studies ofdiscipline techniques have been reported inthe literature: Washington, D.C. in 1956(N=313), the State of California in 1956(N=809, with an additional 812 from ContraCosta County), and the Boston area in 1959(N=260). The California study is especiallyimportant because it is based on a largecarefullydrawnsample,and because, exceptfor the 1932 national sampleand some itemsfrom a national survey in 1968 (to be re-ported below), it has the only data based onmore than a single metropolitan area. Re-grettably, it is also the most obscure of thestudies; insofar as I can determine it isavailable only as a pamphlet from theCaliforniaDepartmentof PublicHealth.

Updating Bronfenbrenner'sanalysis withdata from the more recent studies, and ex-aminingthe magnitudeof classdifferences naddition to statistical significance of dif-ferences, I was led to a different conclusionabout the relationshipbetween social classand the use of physical punishment.ChartIsummarizes he findings from all previouslyreported studies which could be located,' andsuggests that, although various studies havefound a statistically significant relationship,

the relationshipbetween social class and theuse of spanking s relativelyweak. Examina-tion of the percentagedifferencesshows arange of +6 ("middleclass"more likely to usecorporal punishment)to -41 ("working"or"lower" class more likely) with a mode ofaround-16 and a meanof about -12 (modeand mean computedby sample,not row).Secondary analysis of retrospective datafrom a national survey taken for the Na-tionalCommission on the Causes and Pre-vention of Violence gives results compatiblewith this conclusion. The survey instrumentwas designed by several sociologists andpolitical scientists under the general super-vision of Sandra Ball-Rokeach; the actualdata collection was done by Louis HarrisAssociates. The sample included 941 whitesand 195 blacks over age eighteen, in onehundred clusters in all parts of the UnitedStates(40 other nonwhiteswereomittedfromthe analysis).The individual o be interviewedwas specified in advance, but no call-backswere made. Preliminaryanalysis of some ofthe data reportedon here may be found inBakerand Ball (1969), andStark andMcEvoy(1970). The latter authorsdo not control for

age and thus underestimate the extent ofinvolvement n andapprovalof someformsofphysical aggression by persons with lowincome or education.Adultrespondentswereasked,"As a child?were you spanked frequently, sometimes,ornever?"; and class of originwas estimatedbyasking, "What classici would you say yourfamily was when you were growingup-middle class or working class?" Thedifficulties with these items areobvious,andneed not be outlined. What is noteworthy,however, is that cross tabulation of theseitems (Table1) gives frequencies andpercentagepoint differenceswhich are quiteconsistent with those reported in Chart I.Surprisingly,controlling for sex or age ofrespondentdoes not affect the finding.Table2 is a multiple classificationanalysis(MCA), which shows the net effect ofavailable variables that can probably beassumedto be priorto or contemporarywiththe spanking experience. (MCA s one of themany kinds of analyses deriving from thegeneral linear model [Cohen, 1968]. In thismethod, membershipin each category of a

'In addition, Eron,et al., in a study done inColumbiaCounty, New York, in 1960, found thatparentsdid not differby occupational roup n theiruse of psychological r physicalpunishment or directaggression n their children 1971:128). A study ofseventh grade childrenliving mainly in the urbanareas of Central Ohio and CentralNorth Carolinawas undertakenby Elder and Bowerman 1963) in1960. The sample includesover 1,200 cases, fairlyevenly divided between boys and girls and the"middle" (white collar) and "lower" (blue collar)classes. The data on physical punishmentare notincluded in the chart because the collapsingof thephysicalpunishment ndicator imited its usefulness,but data on the useof symbolicrewardare presentedbelow. The study, primarily concerned with theeffects of family size, found a relationshipbetweenclass and the use of corporalpunishment omparableto those reported n the chart.


4/19

70 AMERICAN OCIOLOGICALEVIEW? UZ 'HO

UZ;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C4oe 40 -LuHLL C-4 + U)

(HLLu -4 vZULU 0 oH .O 0 -C

Z0; E- \ - ~ - o .H . o H)U- ; q V . 0; o o

a) a4u _ H (H ) 0) LfC4)

U) ~~~~~~~~~H0~~~~~~~ '- ~ 'CTS la)-LU '-'CO '-~~~~~~~~~~~~~3--I)0U '-'40)0C ~ A '-40 4- \' 00 A t

HC s4 H CO HObo

rL) -CO LO )l)P CO 4J) LI) OHz I-- (I) 4-~~) U F- ~ )4 4 -,U4 H 0) 0) 0 FH g v H 0- 0 i U> ~ ~ ~~C n FJ~)Hv o? CO

cd; V)oiul H u) H d) O ) H 0)I)Z 1 "-.0) 4J 0)-II)qH) U1 HX ~ ~ - CO,-O 0 0 CO O) 0) F CO

c) :g: ? S Q H a)O1 0-j 40),-D 4C-) C/rC CO 0 HO

0 00 u 00 4~C 00-H0Z tnH :CA4-) U) Ln 04-H 0)0) 0 'O V0) I'd0 00LH 00 00 0 - P, '-0)n V)h O C )H 0 U "U4 '0 '-' -' -c '4 - 0Z 1w:4 1- 4-)h- h P. > H>

~~~) I~~~~~-l4 C/C CO-H 4=' 4='CO0) 1) 004- 0) -4 4=' COX LU FY00 v_ O &O W a 'CO' C0 .CO h 00Y

0 > ') d0 LI) C C/CH Hn P O

:= tn :=> YP n t >.

CO '0 0) )H 0)0

H;~~~~~~~~-4t c) 1 U Id (1 1Or-4 ^ 0)H OLIII F" -4

-4 ** ,* A t h-4 >P. O OU) Z; F- F- 4 *H D -F- '0 ~ 'FO '0F-I0

dX P4 00:) gCt O0 .0 0 0000 d bOPi4-1 4-10 U U 4-)E H4-1 H4-)1I -H4-q10 O0H3 Oc cdO I CdO-H c* O C 0) cdC S qF uH-4 )4H FIHH0 F-H -10)0 ZI) 0 : 0) 01) - 0 ' 0oH v 11 h . .. ~~~ ~ .. .. >~:$.. 1 T .

CO $ o 041'rS O O O0 OEbM P wWH O CO -HOwHW.HI--IO 0

0 0 CO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.d Cdr4= 4COOO Co 0 40CzZ z

0. 00 00LUP h CO ,- h -4 0H cd 0

4 O PO 0 00

? U) *H0 U1 0)0 00)0 O

UO 4-~~~~-4H'-4~~C1 00- r4 -4CO C 0 0)OC 0)

LU~~ ~~~~

u-C '-- I

H ~~ ~ ~ C CO COn B B

V) 4 cd ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -4~'-U?CO LI 0) 0) I)D 0hU t FH 0) Ot i l > X U w rZ 0 0 Cd C 0) COc/C'-O CO CO- Z ,-z0n

ns~~~~~CCn- . COLU_ wH COO- 'Hw 0)- CO- *H


5/19

CLASSAND PUNISHMENTN CHILDREARING 71? Z

;g4 U~~~ .> a) un tn tnu t tw C)* * 0) ) 0 )

(n 000) 0:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OStI

t 0 ) 00 tr- =) 0) CZ)0) ) e' CD 00 ct g~ )Z0) N 410) H) -1 t ) 0 4)0 0)

b0)0 to W H e 4--n W L)W b)41 0 00H= 0)) L L )Ia)Io Lo) 0 )-4a) c0).H1 0)0)H )S U?) S00a 0) 0)H 0 0) cd o Ouz~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~u uu U- I- M)ZC/) 50)0 ;; 0) 0)0)t ) 00) ) 0)la o4 4-: H-I tQHH ) -4ri * Oi 0 ) 0)0t) 0))0 ) - 40)0 )00Z rY 4-) -4--10 -4 -) t0; oOo0? hH0). h t0)0d . 4 44 -4 0 H 40)

a., 0))0 - 0) 0>4-.) ) 0)uCd 4) 0)0) 0 S0)H0n0

C)U OH 0 U

H0)4)0H) HI ff 0) 0):O O

t t Z ;: t_- h 4 IH 0) h )) 0) 0)) . H0))-0) -4 4 H 0 t-.A0 )r4a - 0 ) - 4IH) s : \- L( ) a - N - 1 C e h,) 0 cdU 1.H0) U '- 0H 4 -' - . - 00 o ) 001 0,1 a)0)O HhZ0) *H-Z H~0) '-< /-00 h 1f- Qgg40)0I 0)

::) o= -4 H04D < t )-4 ;1h o-Hh 0~ o-HhOo- = 0)C0)0)LO CCu O O :2: -1 4 la) 4 u)n CZ 0 00,o "-i)t 7ol) 00 ;-H ) um gU > 0) 4-J 0) Lf) 4-I I4I- )04-I. 0)-0~~~~~~~00) 0)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~) 0)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4-I)0)01 )U > = O w P < m p t U t w n = = w eHO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,c


6/19

72 AMERICAN OCIOLOGICALEVIEWz

z $~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4.[5 E-. .

z ux04

" O

U 014 C1. .4.)

44u 1. v$

00

dP dP

E-40~~~~~

z $4f; * Lr

N I^

0 4.,? ~~~> bcj~~~~~~U) $4- ^ h h - 1 00 0 004 _1 _1 w

CJ C Cd_ CddP 0 0Utt_t0 t

0 dP dP OU -_4Dn tn A u ~0i t) UUO00~~~~~~~~~h h Q *~~~~-1

4444 4-

~.U) Cd0P e 00) h4i) 4.)

,=-0< 42~


7/19

CLASSANDPUNISHMENTN CHILDREARING 73Table 1. Percent Spanked as a Child

By Race, Sex, and Parents' Social ClassWHITE BLACKMiddle Working WorkingClass Class Total Class Total

MEN Never 2 4 4 3 3Sometimes 77 61 65 51 52Frequently 20 35 31 46 45

(N) (124) (321) (455) (87) (101)WOMEN Never 8 7 7 5 5

Sometimes 67 59 62 52 53Frequently 25 34 30 43 42

(N) (165) (265) (443) (75) (87)

have the most marked effect, with Baptistsbeing most likely to report that they werespanked often as a child. Tables I and 2 alsopresent data for blacks; limited though theyare, they are just about the only data avail-able. Of the studies reviewedabove, almost alluse samplesof whitesonly, andnone presentsseparatecross tabulationsby race.In addition to these data on experiences,secondary analysis of data on parents' atti-tudes toward the use of spanking undervarious circumstancessuggests that approvaldoes not vary much by social class. In theViolence Commission survey, respondentswere asked first whether they approvedofspanking n general,andif they did, were thenaskedabout four specific instances n whichaparent might strike a child. The items werethese: (a) Are there any situations that youcan imagine n which you wouldapproveof aparent spankinghis or her child, assuming hechild is healthy and over a year old? If yes:(b) Would you approve if the child: (1) wasnoisy and getting on the parents'nerves; 2)had been disobedient all day; (3) had beenexpelled from school; (4) had broken a law?In each case, the respondent could reply"Yes,"1 No," or "Not sure."Conceptually,two quite different types ofexamples were presented. Two instances dealwith situations which may commonly arise

around the home, and to which responseislikely to be immediate. The other two areunusual situations which involve outsideagents and in which discipline is likely tocome after a longer lapse of time and after amore explicit decision as to the appropriatetype of punishment. Becauseof the concep-tual differences, wo indiceswere constructed.An index of approvalof spanking n everydaysituationswas constructedby scoring tem(a)and items (b-l) and (b-2) 0 for a reply of"No," I for "Not sure,"and2 for "Yes." Theresulting ndex has a rangeof 0-6. An index ofapprovalof spanking n unusualsituationswasconstructed in an analogous manner usingitems (a), (b-3), and (b-4). Extended analysisof the separate indices and of a combinedindex usingall items revealedno major varia-tions among them; therefore, only the first("index of approvalof spanking n every daysituations")willbe presented n detail.Contrary to popular belief, among whitespoorly educatedparentshave the highest rateof outright rejection of spanking.Sixteen per-cent of parentsin this group, as comparedtono more than five percent of parents at anyother level of education score "0" on the in-dex (see row 1 in Table 3). The distributionofindex scores for adultswithout children (notshown) is similar.The highestrate of rejectionof spanking or any college educatedsubgroup


8/19

74 AMERICAN OCIOLOGICALEVIEWTable 2. Differentials in ChildhoodSpanking Experiencea by gelect-ed Demographic VariablesTable shows deviation from grand mean(2.26) controlling for other variablesin the table. N=1136.

N DeviationSEXMale (578) +,02Female (550) -.02RACEWhite (941) - .01Black (195) +.08CHILDHOOD ESIDENCE"Farm" (351) +.03"Town"t ( 3 14) - .01"Small City" (164) 4.02"Big City" (291) - .04PARENTS' SOCIAL CLASS"Middle Class" (315) -.05"Working Class" (768) +.02CURRENTRELIGIONBaptist (283) +.13Methodist (135) - .07Lutheran ( 69) - . 12Episcopalian ( 38) +.01Other Protestants (213) - .00Catholic (279) -.03AGE18-25 (154) +.0026-35 (232) 4.0336-45 (230) -.0346-60 (282) +.03Over 60 (238) -.03aMultiple Classification (Dummy Vari-able Regression) Analysis. Spankingexperience is scored: 1=Never, 2=Some-times, 3=Ftequently.bBlacks weighted .53, but unweightedN's are shown. Missing data wereassigned the modal value if a variablehad a clear mode. If not, missingdata were included in the regressionas a separate category but are notshown in the table. In such cases N'sdo not add to 1136 and all categoriesshown could deviate from the grandmean in the same direction.

is for non-parentswith post-graduateeduca-tion, but even for this smallgrouponly ninepercentrejectspanking.Onemayquestionthevalidityof this findingby askingwhetherper-sons with highereducationwerenotjust beingmore "objective,"realizing hat theremustbesome instances in which they would approveof spanking.To examinethis issuefurther,wecan combine the respondentswho said theywould never approveof spankingwith thosewho gave approval to the general question,

but then disapproveof spankingn eachof thefour situations. However, this combinationdoes not affect the relationship.Even if onewere to make the hostile assumptionthat allpeople who answered "No" to item (a) didnot know what they were talking about andshould be dropped from the analysis,the re-sulting percentagesdo not change the thrustof the analysispresented n this paper.At the high end of the approval ofspanking cale, for whites with children thereis wide variationby education but no clearre-lationship (Table 3). The difference betweenthe grade-school educated and the highereducated groups in approval of spanking isnarrowed,but grade-schooleducated parentsstill score relativelylow. Paradoxically, hoseleast likely to score high on spanking arecollege drop-outs,while those most likely toscore high are those who graduated fromcollege. For whiteswithout children datanotshown), the patternis similar,althoughthereis less variationamong the college educated.Cross tabular analysis of income, age, sex,regionof residence,andreligionrevealedsomepatternsof interest,2but had no effect on thegeneralfinding of no fundamentaldifferencesamongwhite parentsof differentsocial classesin their approvalof spanking.Unfortunately,occupationaldata were not coded by the con-tractor, and this indicatorof classcould notbe analyzed.The data for blacks are considerablymoreconsistentwith conventional notions than arethose for whites; they arealso consistentwiththe data on actual experiences reportedearlier.Table 4 shows a cleardownwardpro-gression n approvalof spankingby educationfor black parents, and for respondents whohave not at least graduated romhigh school,the percentagescoring high on the index issubstantially higher than those for the com-parablewhite groups. However, the 79 per-cent figure for the grade-schooleducated is

2Males are generallymore approvingthan fe-males,and youngerparentsare more approvinghanolder ones, especially at higher levelsof education.Analysis by region and area of residence revealedlittle variation, except that the South (especiallyurbanareas) had a higherrate of approval 52 per-cent as compared o an averageof 36 percent forother regions).The effects of religionare not easilysummarized, ut in generalBaptistsarehigh and de-vout Catholics ow.


9/19

CLASSANDPUNISHMENTN CHILDREARING 75Table 3. Percent Who Would Approve of Spanking in Everyday Situations

By EducationFor White Parents With Children Under 18SomeGrade High High Some College Post

Score on Index School School School College Graduate Graduate0 16 5 3 4 0 4

1-2 LOW 9 6 7 3 11 63-4 MED 35 43 49 60 39 505-6 HIGH 40 46 41 33 50 40

(N) (43) (89) (193) (92) (36) (28)

based on a quite small N andis unstable;thefigure for grade-schooleducatedblacks with-out children is lower (65 percent, N = 45).For blackswith collegeexperience, he rateofapproval is lower than that of whites withsimilarexperience.(The percentage or collegegraduateswith children s unstable,but sincethat for persons without children [notshown] is similar,it lends confidence to the31 percent figure.)Again,the distributionsbyincome and for adults without childrenaresimilar,and extensive additional analysisdidnot changethe general indingsreportedhere.Table5 is a multipleclassificationanalysis(MCA), showing the net effect of variousdemographicvariableson the two spanking

indices. All blacks and whites in the sampleare included in this analysis.The results arenot fully consistentwith the precedingdiscus-sion because the MCA programused, likemost standardregressionprograms,uppressesinteractioneffects. In particular he MCA nTable5 shows a tendency for respondentswith post graduate education to be low inapprovalof spanking,and for educationandincome to have opposite effects on approval.DIFFICULTIES IN INTERPRETINGTHE STUDIES

Although there have been about ten sur-veys on punishmentpractices,each is limitedeither by the narrowrangeof its items or byTable 4. Percent Who Would Approve of Spanking in Everyday Situations

By EducationFor Black Parents With Children Under 18SomeGrade High High SomeScore on Index School School School College+

0 0 0 3 231-2 LOW 0 5 7 03-4 MED 21 32 43 465-6 HIGH 79 63 47 31

(N) (14) (41) (30) (13)aaPercentages based on such a small number of cases are unreliable.


10/19

76 AMERICAN OCIOLOGICALEVIEWTable 5. Differentials in Indies of Approval of Spankinga by SelectedDemographic Variables

Table shows deviation from grand mean, controllingfor other variables in the table. (Grand means:index A=4.34, index B=4.27; N=1136)

DeviationA. Index B. Indexof Everyday of UnusualN Situations SituationsSEXbbMale (578) .01 02bFemale (550) .01 .01RACEWhite (941) -.04 -.05Black (195) .39 .43CHILDHOODRESIDENCE"Farm" (351) .08 .10"Town" (314) .00 -.11

"Small City" (164) -.16 -.17"Big City" (291) -.02 .07PARENTS' SOCIAL CLASS"Middle Class" (315) .03b -.01"Working Class" (768) .04 .05EDUCATIONGrade School (243) . 07 .17Some High School (233) .04 -.05High School (352) .06 .08Some College (182) -.14 -.23College ( 72) - .02 .05Post Graduate ( 54) -.33 -.33CURRENTRELIGIONBaptist (283) .12 .29Methodist (135) .10 -.16Lutheran ( 69) .07 .26Episcopalian ( 38) -.23 -.07Other Protestants (213) -.04 -.15Catholic (279) -.03 -.06CURRENTREGIONOF RESIDENCENortheast (312) -.03 -.03South (319) .22 .21Midwest (322) -.23 -.15West (183) .11 -.03CITY SIZESMSA (316) -.00 .06Suburb (291) -.10 -.10Town: 10-50,000 (128) .04 -.20Town: Less than 10,000 (118) -.39 -.13Rural (283) .24 .19CURRENT NCOMEOF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLDC$ 1-2 999 (178) -.33 - .193-4,999 (169) -.23 -.145-6,999 (197) .06 .017-9,999 (298) .08 .0710-14,999 (205) .24 .0915-19,999 ( 57) .40 .34

20,000 and over ( 32) .48 .44


11/19

CLASSANDPUNISHMENTN CHILDREARING 77DeviationA. Index B. Indlexof Everyday of UnusualN Situations SituationsAGE18-25 (154) .03 .0226-35 (232) .42 .31

36-45 (230) .19 -.0346-60 (282) - .22 -.03Over 60 (238) -.34 -.25CHILDRENUNDER6Have Children Under 6 (322) -.11All Children Between 7 and 18 (252) -.12No Children Under 18 (562) .12TEENAGERSHave Teenage Children (212) -.09All Children Under 13 (362) .01No Children Under 18 (562) .03

aMultiple Classification (Dummy Variable Regression) Analysis. Range on indexA and B is 0 - 6. Content of indices discussed in text.bBlacks weighted .53, but unweighted N's are shown. Missing data were assignedthe modal value if a variable had a clear mode. If not, missing data wereincluded in the regression as a separate category but are not shown in thetable. In such cases N's do not add to 1136 and all categories shown coulddeviate from the grand mean in the same direction.cIt was assumed that respondents for whom income of head of household was notrecorded had only one wage earner in the family and family income was substi-tuted. If family income was also missing, the mean income for the respondent'seducational group was assigned.

some aspect of its sample. In addition, thefact that the time periods of the surveysarenot comparable introduces an additionalsource of variability,although it also opensthe possibility for a trend analysis. Thissectionwill considereachof these aspectsandattempt to assess their implications for anestimate of the relationshipbetween socialclassand the use of corporalpunishment.

Natureof the IndicatorsAll of the studies are limited by theirreliance on self-reportedsurvey data, almostalways involvinga report of customaryprac-tices or of likely responseto a hypotheticalsituation.Few studiesaskaboutthe actualuseof spanking n the previousweek or month.More generally,previousstudies tell us littleabout what might be called the "punishmentatmosphere,".e., the particularway in whichdifferent methods are combinedby differentparents,the harshnessof discipline, he condi-tionsunderwhich the childis punished,or theway punishmentis perceivedand interpretedby the parent and the child (cf. Johnston,

1972; Parke, 1970; Solomon, 1964). Evenifthe "usual" method of punishment is thesame for all strata, the term is vagueenoughfor a wide variationin the extent to whichpsychological techniques are used. Theseproblemsaboutwhichthe presentanalysiscando nothing; however, they do point to theneedfor furtherresearchbeforea firmconclu-sion on social classvariationscan be reached.For the studies available, regroupingbydifferent indicatorsdoes not affect the con-clusions above. Although the indicatorsdovary, most of them are concerned with thefrequentuse of spanking.When the few thatare different are separatedout, the relation-ship looks no stronger. In addition,many ofthe studies contain some items which dealspecificallywith psychologicalmethods;thesecan be used to supplementthe presentationabove. Theory and conventional wisdom

would predict that a much largerpercentageof middle and upper class parents wouldreport using such methods as "reasoning"with the child who has acted improperlyandextensive use of rewardor praise for proper


12/19

78 AMERICAN OCIOLOGICALEVIEWbehavior.Hereagain, althoughthe data oftenshow the expected relationship, the findingsare not uniform and the relationshipsareoften very weak. Anderson's 1932 data showthe relationshipclearly enough:73 percentofClass I, versus43 percent of ClassVII usedreasoning; and 44 percent versus 19 percentused deprivation of pleasure. However, in1943, Davis and Havighurstfound that 57percent of their working class respondents,versus 53 percent of the upper-middleclassrespondents, thought that reasoning was asuccessful way to get childrento obey. (Therelationship in that study was significantlyreversed,however, on the question of use ofrewardor praise, in which the upper-middleclass gave 78 percent approval, while theworking class gave only 53 percent.) InEugene, Oregon, in 1950, Littman, et al.,found very little difference between themiddle and lower class parents n their sampleon the use of reasoning,scolding, deprivationof privileges or possessions, isolation, orignoringor distractinghe child.Searset al. in1951, found virtuallyno differences betweenthe upper-middleand upper-lowerclasses onthe extent of use of reward,praise, isolation,reason, scolding statements involving with-drawal of love, or deprivationof privileges(Maccobyand Gibbs, 1954). Heinstein's1956California urvey,which asked mothersopen-endedly about their "usualmethod of punish-ment" showed "apparentlylittle use of so-called constructivemethods" (1964:64); butthis findingwas partlyattributed o the youngage of the childrenstudied. The 1960 studyby Elder and Bowerman(see note 1 above)found only about a five percentage pointdifferencebetweenthe "middleclass"andthe"lower class" in the use of symbolic rewardsby mothersor fathers n raisingboys. For girlsthe gap was somewhat larger. The majorrecent evidence for a relationship betweenclass and the explicit use of psychologicalpunishmentcomes from Millerand Swanson's1953 work in Detroit. The proportion ofparents using at least some form of psycho-logical manipulation is the reciprocal of therates of corporal punishment reported forDetroitin ChartI.Nature of the Samples

There is no question that wide variation

exists in the quality and breadth of thesamplesused in the studies. Variousproblemsof comparability of the earlier samples aredescribed n Bronfenbrenner 1958) and neednot be dealt with here. The importantpoint isthat the quality of the sample does not seemto be systematically related to findings. Per-haps the most serious drawbackof the sam-ples is the lack of attention to the social classgradient; or example, severalsimply comparetwo available groups of parents thought torepresent different social classes. The bestsample since the 1932 national sample isHeinstein's study, based on data collected in1956 through a statewide Californiasamplestratified to accurately reflect all incomegroups and geographicareas.The findingsbyeducation are summarized n ChartI; but asnoted there, grade-school educated motherswere actually less likely to emphasizespankingthan were other mothers without acollegeeducation. Heinstein inds a curvilinearrelationship between mother's education orthe occupationof head of householdand theuse of physical punishment, and no relation-ship between family income and the use ofphysical punishment. Because the study israther naccessible,the majortablesare repro-ducedin ChartII.Anotherproblemwith the samples s widevariation n the age of the child referred o inthe questions. One may arguethat with veryyoung children, reasoning s impractical,andthe use of spankingwould be relativelyhighinall social classes;then, as the child gets older,differences in technique would becomegreater.3The findingsfor some of the studiesare consistent with this hypothesis; butothers, particularly those of Kohn andLittman,are at variancewith it. TheViolenceCommission items on approvalof spankinglend some additional suggestiveevidence onthis point. As noted earlier,two indicesweredeveloped, one referringto everyday misbe-havior, such as a child's "getting on theparents' nerves" and one referringto moreunusual extreme occurrences, such as thechild'shavingbroken the law. Thehypothesiswould seem to predict that for parents of

3This argument, while tenable, overlooks alterna-tives to spanking such as the ignoring or tolerance ofthe undesired behavior, or the isolation of the child.


13/19

CLASSANDPUNISHMENT N CHILDREARING 79young children, there may be only smalldifferences by social class on the index ofapproval of spanking for everyday misbe-havior, while for parentsof olderchildren hedifferenceswould be substantial.Analysisofthe index by parent's education or income,controlling for age of children does notsupport these hypotheses (see, e.g., Table6a).For example, white college educatedparentsof childrenundersix have a highermeanscorethan other white parents on the index ofapproval of spanking for everyday misbe-havior; and, while there is a slightreversal nthis trend for parentswith no childrenundersix, the differenceis not statistically signifi-cant. (Forblacks,parentswith youngchildrenaremore likely than those with olderchildrento approveof spanking;but the differencebyeducation noted earlier is unchanged by thecontrolvariable.)For the index of approvalofspankingfor unusualsituations,the hypothe-sis would seem to predict substantial differ-ences by social class for parentsof teenagers.Conventional wisdom would hold that the

psychologicallyorientedmiddleor upperclassparent would consider spanking especiallyfutile in such instances, and reasoningwiththe child and understandinghis motivationsespecially important. Analysis shows, how-ever, that if anything, collegegraduateswithteenage childrentend to have a highermeanscore on the index than other parents ofteenagers(Table 6b), with a similarpatternholding for income. (For blacks there is atendency for less-educated [or poorer] par-ents to scorehigheron the index, irrespectiveof the control for ageof child.)TrendOverTime

At the time Bronfenbrennerwrote, thereseemed to him to be a relationshipbetweensocial class and punishmenttechniquewhichsuggestedthat the difference was narrowing.However,now that additionaldata areavail-able, it seems insteadthat overthe yearsfind-ings have fluctuated around zero, with sometendency to be positive. Looking over thedatain ChartI, one seesthat the most consis-

Table 6. Mean Score Indices of Approval of SpankingFor Parents with Children Aged 0-18By Race, Education, and Age of Child

WHITE BLACKLessSome Than HighEighth High High Some College High SchoolGrade School School College or More Total School or More Totala. Mean score, index of approval of spanking for everydaymisbehavior

Have child 3.41 4.46 4.61 4.45 5.00 4.53 5.45 4.30 4.89aged 0-6 (17) (41) (113) (60) (35) (266) (29) (27) (56)All 4.13 4.64 4.36 4.13 4.10 4.33 4.92 4.25 4.67childrenaged 7-18 (23) (47) (80) (31) (29) (210) (26) (16) (42)

b. Mean score, index of approval of spanking in unusual situationsHave child 3.65 4.38 4.21 3.69 4.26 4.11 5.38 4.53 5.03aged 13-18 (20) (37) (70) (26) (23) (176) (21) (15) (36)All 4.75 4.53 4.40 4.15 4.78 4.44 5.18 4.54 4.89childrenunder 13 (20) (51) (123) (65) (41) (300) (34) (28) (62)N.B. Range of each index is 0-6.


14/19

80 AMERICAN OCIOLOGICALEVIEWTable 7. Percent Spanked as a Child

By Race, Parents' Class and AgeWHITE BLACK18-30 31-50 51-64 65+ Total 18-50 51+ Total

MIDDLE CLASSNever 4 5 6 9 6 0 0Sometimes 70 78 63 64 71 73 69Frequently 26 17 31 27 23 27 (1) 31

(N) (90) (94) (51) (44) (290) (15) (1) (16)WORKING CLASS

Never 2 3 6 14 5 5 3 4Sometimes 65 67 51 50 60 51 53 52Frequently 34 30 43 36 34 44 44 44

(N) (113) (226) (132) (101) (591) (102) (57) (163)

tent finding is not the difference betweensocial classes, but the relatively small differ-ence that appears n almost all the samples,independent of time. The Violence Commis-sion retrospective reports of childhoodexperiences supportthis conclusion. When hedata presented in Table 1 are broken down byage group (Table 7), class differences arere-markablystable. In addition, regression naly-sis shows the correlation between parents'social class and spanking experience to bealmost unaffected by age. (The sameis true ofthe relationship between race and spankingexperience.)Moreover, contrary to the assessment ofmany commentators, both scholarly (e.g.,Miller and Swanson, 1958; Bronfenbrenner,1958, 1961) and popular, there is evidenceover time of at best a moderate rather than astrong shift away from the use of spanking.Table 7 suggests hat the relationshipbetweenage and spankingexperienceis somewhatcur-vilinear for whites; however, the zero ordermultiple correlation coefficient betweenspankingexperience and age as a dummy vari-able is only .08 (p=.32). For whites of bothsocial classes, persons aged thirty-one to fifty(raised roughly in the second quarterof thiscentury) report the lowest percentageof"spanked frequently" while the groups oneither side are higher, and the oldest group(over sixty-five) is at about the samelevel as

the youngest. It is very difficult to speculateon the meaningof the findingfor the groupover sixty-five4 who were reared in the late1800's and in the early part of this century.On the one hand, it tends to contradictthecommonly held view that "in the oldendays"parentswere "tough"with their children.Onthe other hand, no matter what the finding,recollectionsof events which occurredover ahalf-century ago probablyhave little validity.Comparison of the first two columns forwhites also puts in questiona commonlyheldview. Respondents aged eighteen to thirtywere rearedprimarily n the post-warperiod,in which the "progressive"iews of Dr.Spockhave dominated the childrearing iterature.Spock's views are widely believed to havegreatly influencedspankinghabits, and manypeoplebelievethat his advicehasbreda gener-ation of "brats." The Violence Commissiondataseem to indicate,however,thatalthoughthere probably was a shift in the use of spank-ing from the 1920's onward,there may havebeen no dramaticshift away fromspanking n

4 In Table 7 age groupswere collapsed n a waywhich preserved he pattern of the data. For themiddle class, the cell for age sixty-oneto sixty-five(N=8) showsa 25 percent requency, o the observa-tion in the text for the groupover sixty-fivemaypertainto this groupaswell. But the N is reallytoosmallto give a reliablepercentage,and at anyrateavariationof five years is of no consequence o thediscussion.


15/19

CLASSANDPUNISHMENT N CHILDREARING 81the 1940's. Note, too, that overall there is norelationshipbetween parents' social class andthe percent reporting hat they were "never"spanked.Moreover, his response s positivelyrelated to age, and is given by only four per-cent of respondentsunder fifty.Unfortunately, neither the collection ofstudies in the literature nor the survey datahere give definitive data on the question ofchanges n the use of spankingover time. Be-sides the inferences of Bronfenbrenner ndofMiller and Swanson, a few studies, based onlimited samples,have found a relationshipbe-tween exposure to professional childrearingadvice in the post-war period and changes nchildrearing practices. (See references inBronfenbrenner[1961], which, drawing onChildren'sBureau pamphlets and articles inpopular magazines, document the changes inadvice.White[1957] hasdataon the relation-ship.) On the otherhand,note that as early.as1936 Andersoncouldwrite: "Oneof the mostuniversally condemned methods of punish-ment for children is spanking..." 1936:213).At any rate, the availabledata are sufficientlyambiguousto cast doubt on the prevailingview.

Because of the relatively small sample ofblacksand the fact that few blackshavebeenallowedto attain middle class status,the datainclude only sixteen blacks raised in middleclass homes. Fifteen of these respondentsareunder age fifty, and as a group their experi-ences are comparable to those of youngermiddle class whites. Although the N's are toosmall to give stablepercentages, he completeage breakdowndoes seem to indicate a trendtoward less spankingn the blackmiddleclass.For blacks raised in workingclasshomes, thepercentageof respondentsreportingfrequentspanking s essentially the same for all agegroups, at 44 percent, averagingabout 10percentagepoints higherthan the white work-ing class and 21 points higherthan the whitemiddle class.DISCUSSION

Giventhe datacurrentlyavailable, he bestconclusion about the relationship betweensocial class and the use of physical punish-ment is that there is indeedsome correlation,but that it probablyis not strong enough to

be of great theoretical or practical signifi-cance.' For all whites and blacks in the Vio-lence Commissionsurvey,the zero ordercor-relation between parents' social class andspankingexperience s-.10 (significantat .001level), controllingfor raceand age(as a set ofdummy variables) n a regressionanalysisthebeta is-.09 (significantat .002 level).6 Separa-ting respondentsby race, the correlationisslightly higher for whites than for blacks.Combining his findingwith post-hoccorrela-tional analysis on data reportedin the litera-ture, an estimate of somewhere n the .10 to.15 rangeemerges, ndicatingthat social classmay explainbetween one and two percent ofthe variance.Moreover, n almost all samplesthe modal responsefor all social classesstud-ied is the same; it is thus inappropriate ocharacterize he classes asbeingdifferent.(Onthe otherhand,the findingsare not irrelevant,given that social classmay still be one of thebest predictorsavailable.)Forrace,therearemuchless data;but theydo indicate that race has an effect indepen-dent of social class. The tables presentedabove show this more clearlythancorrelationor regressionanalysis do, because the latterare sensitiveto the 9:1 disparity n N's. (Thezero-order correlation between being blackand reportingphysical punishmentas a childis .08 [significantat .01 level] ;controllingforsocial class the beta is .06 [significantat .03level]). However, data presented below sug-gest that insofaras approval s concerned,thegreater ikelihood of black parents to supportthe use of physicalpunishment s morelikelythe productof differences in belief abouttheefficacy of spankingrather han of differencesin attitude aboutviolence.Theconclusionon the effects of social classhas importantimplications or severalareasofconcernin sociology. Manystatementson therelationshipbetween social class and the useof spankinghave implied not just statistical

I The lack of clearrelationships etween classandchildrearingechniques is also evident with otheraspects,such as feedingand toilet training.See, forexample, Bronfenbrenner (1958, passing) orHeinstein 1964, passim).6 Physical punishment is scored as a threecategory continuous variable,with "never"= 0,"sometimes"= 1, and "frequent"= 2. Blacksareweighted 53.


16/19

82 AMERICAN OCIOLOGICALEVIEWsignificance,but the existenceof a verystrongrelationshipbetween those variables.This im-plication has then become the grounds forusing spankingto explain various behaviorsalso thought to be much morecommonin thelower or working class than in the middleclass.A numberof these implicationswill nowbe treated n turn.WorkingClassAuthoritarianism

In Lipset's classic discussionof "workingclass authoritarianism,")authoritarianamilypatterns"are hypothesized as one of the sixmost importantelements contributing o theauthoritarianpredisposition.The salienceoffamily patternsto the theory can be seen inone of the article's concluding statements:"To sum up, the lower class ndividuals like-ly to have been exposed to punishment, ackof love, and a generalatmosphereof tensionand aggressionsince early childhood-all ex-perienceswhich tend to producedeep-rootedhostilitiesexpressedby ethnicprejudice,polit-ical authoritarianism nd chiliastictransvalua-tional religion"(1960:114). Yet the basicevi-dence presented on this point is Bronfen-brenner's conclusion on punishment tech-niquesquoted at the beginningof the presentpaper. The re-evaluationof the evidence onspankinghas obvious implications,then, forthe theory of workingclassauthoritarianism.Lipset also arguesthat "a furtherlink be-tween such [physicallyoriented] childrearingpracticesandadulthostility andauthoritarian-ism is suggestedby the findingof two investi-gators in Boston and Detroit that physicalpunishmentsfor aggression,characteristicofthe workingclass,tend to increaseratherthandecrease aggressive behavior"(1960:107).Actually, the work cited by Lipset does notclaimthat physicalpunishmentfor aggressionis "characteristic"of the working class;and,in addition, further researchhas cast somedoubt on the strengthof the relationshipbe-tween physical punishment and subsequentaggression Yarrowet al., 1968).TendencyTowardPhysical Violence

Spankinghas alsobeen thoughtto generatea propensityto be physicallyviolent. Thisar-

gument has been advancedby severaltheo-rists, most notably Miller and Swanson(1960), who argue that in corporal punish-ment, the punisher s clearlyidentified and aphysicallyaggressive olemodel is established;niusthe child grows up oriented to expressaggressionutwardly.By contrast,psychologi-al manipulation,which is based on appeals oguilt and is said to result in the developmentof a strongsuper-ego, s postulatedas leadingto turning aggression upon the self (cf.Feshbach, 1970; Yarrowet al., 1968). Gold(1958) and Coser (1963) have used this rea-soningto explain the wide disparityby socialclass for the officially recordedrate of honi-dcide, by arguing hat members of the lowerclass are more likely to be physicallyviolentbecause they are more likely to have beenpunishedcorporally.Coser,for example,relieson the same oft-quoted statement byBronfenbrennercited above.7 Although themodel proposed by these authors has somevalidity, it is importantto note that the cor-relation between social classand punishmenttechniqueis not strongenoughto supporttheinferencethat lower classpersonswho arevio-lent were spanked as children. Individual

rather than aggregatedata areneeded to testthe model.Relationshipto ChildAbuse

The use of corporalpunishment s widelybelieved to be associatedwith certain unde-sirablebehaviors and attitudes in the adultswho practiceit. Gil, in an importantstudy ofchild abuse, finds that officiallyrecordedactsof physical abuse againstchildren are muchmore likely to be committed by low statusparents.He argues hat for all socialclasses,amajorcauseof abuseis a generallypermissiveattitude toward the use of physical force inchildrearing(apparentlyincluding spanking)in Americansociety. Since "studiesof child-rearingpatterns have found a strongassocia-7Both Coser and Lipset make the common errorof quoting Bronfenbrenner somewhat erroneously.The oft-uoted passage actually begins "The mostconsistent finding documented in Table 10 is the

more frequent use of physical punishment by work-ing class parents." Many writers leave out the refer-ence to "Table 10," and the cursory reader could bemisled into thinking that Bronfenbrenner viewed thedata on physical punishment as the most consistentof all the aspects of childrearing he examined.


17/19

CLASSAND PUNISHMENT N CHILDREARING 83tion between low socioeconomic status andthe use of physicalmeansin discipliningchil-dren" (Gil, 1970:127), Gil finds it consistentthat abusewould also occurdisproportionate-ly in these families. In supportof the state-ment quoted above, only Miller andSwanson's second (1953) sample is cited.ChartI shows that this particular amplehadby far the most extreme finding n forty yearsof research. Although little is known aboutthe general childrearingmethods of personswho on some occasion abuse a child,data pre-sented by Gil show that in less titanone-thirdof the cases studied"self-definitionof the per-petratoras stern, authoritativedisciplinarian"was a factor (1970:128). Although the clearmajorityof actsof abusewere in responseto aspecific act committedby the child, Gil doesnot show that the reactionwas relatedto dis-cipline rather than to stress. (cf. Erlanger,1971).Subculture of Violence

Finally, the use of corporalpunishmenthasbeen believed to be part of a generalpatternof the use of physical aggression n interper-sonal relationships.Wolfgang (1958, 1967)has suggested that blacks and low incomewhites are partof a "subcultureof violence"which emphasizesthe use of physicalaggres-sion in both parent-child nd peerencounters.In general,this thesis is undemonstrated m-pirically (Erlanger,1973), and the relativelysmall differences by class in the behavioraldata discussed above seem too small to sup-portthe thesisof a class subculture.Moreover,the concept of subcultureultimatelyreferstovalues, not behavior;and if the data on ap-proval of spankingby class are taken to indi-cate such values,there is againno supportfora class subculture.Some readersmay see supportfor the sub-cultureof violence thesis in the differences nchildhood experiencesand the differencesinapprovalof spankingby race. The approvalitems may be examined n more detail by re-lating them to approvalof other forms ofaggression,using other items from the Vio-lence Commission urvey.Thesurvey ncludedquestions on the conditionsunderwhich therespondentmight approveof variousacts ofinterpersonal aggression,such as a husband

slapping his wife, a man fighting with astranger,and teenage boys getting in fights(Baker and Ball, 1969; Stark and McEvoy,1970). The items on teenage fightingcan becombinedto form an "index of support formanliness" since they ask about such situa-tions as fighting back when challenged orpicked on. The index was constructed byscoringthe following items 0 for "No," I for"Not sure," and 2 for "Yes": (a) Are thereany situationsyou can imaginein which youwould approveof one teenage boy punchinganother? If yes, or not sure:(b-I) If he didn'tlike the other boy? (b-2) If he hadbeen ridi-culed and picked on by the otherboy? (b-3)If he had been challengedby the otherboy toa fist fight'? (b-4) If he had been hit by theother boy? The rangeis 0-10.The index of support for manliness issomewhatcorrelatedwith the other indicesofapprovalof aggression;or example,for whiteparentsof childrenundereighteen,its correla-tion with approval of a man punching astrangeris .29 and with approvalof maritalfighting is .19. For black parents, the inter-correlations are .53 and .16. However, forboth races,the correlationbetween the manli-ness index and approvalof spanking n un-usual situations is markedly ower, at .08 forwhites and virtually zero (-.01) for blacks.Moreover, for black parents of teenagers,approval of "manliness" and approval ofspanking actually are negatively correlated(-022). Compared to whites, blacks are alsodisproportionately ow in their approvaloffighting to demonstrate"manliness."For theindex of approval of spankingfor everydaymisbehavior, the correlations are similar.Thus, the disproportionatelyhigh rate ofblack approval of spankingreported earlierseems best explainedby a rejectionof normsof violence, and not by adherence to asubculturalvalue system supportingviolence.QualifyingFactorsAlthough urrentlyavailable atado not showa strongrelationshipbetween social classandchoiceof punishment echnique,this need notmean that parentsof different social classesare alike in theiruse of a discipline echnique.Kohn, for example, found no significantdif-ferences by class in the use of spanking,butfoundthat


18/19

84 AMERICAN OCIOLOGICALEVIEWThe principal difference between theclasses is in the specific conditions underwhich parents-particularly mothers-pun-ish children's misbehavior.Workingclassparents are morelikely to punishor refrainfrom punishing on the basis of the directand immediate consequencesof children'sactions, middle classparentson the basisoftheir interpretationof children's intent inacting as they do. (1969:104)

Kohn finds these differences to be part of amore generaltendency for working class par-ents to value conformity over self-direction,while middle classparents end to havethe re-versepreference.He concludesthat these dif-ferences are the productof differences n edu-cational attainmentand in opportunitiesforself-direction in one's occupation and areprobably not strongly relatedto basic differ-encesin personality.Moreover,spankingsmay be administereddifferently. By "spanking," one parent maymean a firm but quick slap on the child'sbottom, while another may mean a repeatedslapping,perhapsadministeredby the fatherwhen he returnshome from work. Althoughthere is reason to believe that these differ-ences are related to socialclass, they are prob-ably not as greatas many people believe.Forexample, the large-scalemidtown Manhattanstudy found that althoughthe use of straps nspanking s much more common among par-ents with low income, over 80 percentof lowincome parents n all ethnicgroupsdo not usethis method (Langner, 1969). Similarly, heremay be classor ethnic groupdifferences n thegeneral atmospherein the home, in the ex-pression of displeasureby grouchiness, theassumptionof an air of martyrdom,or otherchangesin behavior, or in the interpretationof variousparentaldisciplining actics by thechild (cf. Kohn, 1969:103). Clearly, uturere-searchmust be moresensitiveto subtlediffer-ences in punishment echniques.Thisresearchshould also explore the salience of variousdimensions of class, and of explanatory vari-ables that operate across class lines. Somepreviouscommentaryhasmade the mistakeofassuming or implying that class or ethnicgroupscan be characterizedby theirmethodsof punishment. To avoid this tendency toovergeneralize,utureresearchshouldbe sen-

sitive to absolutepercentagesandthe strengthof correlations,rather han primarily o estab-lishing statisticalsignificance. n addition,nullfindings based on good quality data cannot beoverlooked. Although future research couldstill confirm the class or ethnic generaliza-tions, it is much more likely that class andethnic differences in technique are relative,not absolute,and that the practicesof parentsin different groups greatly overlap. Certainlythe datapresentlyavailable mply as much.

REFERENCESAnderson, John E.1936 The Young Child in the Home. White HouseConference on Child Health and Protection,Committee on the Infant and Pre-schoolChild. New York: Appleton-Century.Andrews, Frank M., James N. Morgan, and JoghnA. Sonquist1967 Multiple Classification Analysis. Ann Arbor,Michigan: Survey Research Center, TheUniversity of Michigan.Baker, Robert K. and Sandra J. Ball1969 Mass Media and Violence. Report to theNational Commission on Causes and Preven-tion of Violence. Washington, D.C.: U. S.Government Printing Office.Bronfenbrenner, Urie1958 "Socialization and social class through timeand space." Pp. 400-25 in E. C. Maccoby, T.M. Newcomb, and E. L. Hartley (eds.),Readings in Social Psychology (3rd ed.).New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.1961 "The changing American child, a specula-tive analysis." Journal of Social Issues 17(1):6-1 8.1968 "Multiple regression as a generaldata-analytic system." Psychological Bulle-tin 70 (December):426-43.Coser, Lewis A.1963 "Violence and the social structure." Scienceand Psychoanalysis 6:30-42.Davis, Allison and Robert J. Havighurst1943 "Social class and color differences in child-rearing." American Sociological Review II(December):698-710.Elder, Glen H., Jr. and Charles E. Bowerman1960 "Family structure and child-rearing pat-terns: the effect of family size and sex com-position." American Sociological Review 28(December): 891-905.Erlanger, Howard S.1971 Review of David Gil, Violence Against Chil-dren. Social Service Review 45(December): 514-15.

1973 "The empirical status of the subculture ofviolence thesis." Department of Sociology,University of Wisconsin, Madison.Eron, Leonard D., Leopold 0. Walder, and MonroeM. Lefkowitz


19/19

CLASSAND PUNISHMENTN CHILDREARING 851971 Learning of Aggression in Children. Boston:Little Brown and Co.Feshbach, Seymour1970 "Aggression." Pp. 159-259 in Paul H.Mussen (ed.), Carmichael's Manual of ChildPsychology, Vol. 2. New York: John Wileyand Sons.

Gil, David G.1970 Violence Against Children. Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press.Gold, Martin1958 "Suicide, homicide, and socialization of ag-gression." American Journal of Sociology63 (May):651-61.Havighurst, Robert J., and Allison Davis1955 "Comparison of the Chicago and Harvardstudies of social class differences in childrearing." American Sociological Review 20(August):438-42.Heinstein, Martin1964 Childrearing in California. California StateDepartment of Public Health, Bureau ofMaternaland Child Health. Berkeley.Johnston, James M.1972 "Punishment of human behavior." Ameri-can Psychologist 27 (November):1033-53.Kohn, Melvin"Social class and parent-child relation-ships." American Journal of Sociology 68(January). 471-80.1969 Class and Conformity, A Study in Values.Homewood, Ill.:Dorsey Press.Langner, Thomas, Joseph H. Herson, Edward L.Greene, Jean D. Jamison, Jeanne A. Goff.1969 "Children of the city: affluence, povertyand mental health." Pp. 185-209 in VernonAllen (ed.), Psychological Factors in Pover-ty. Chicago: Markham.Lipset, Seymour M.1960 "Working class authoritarianism." Chapter 3in Political Man. New York: Doubleday.Littman, Richard A., Robert C. A. Moore and JohnPierce-Jones1957 "Social class differences in childrearing: Athird community for comparison withChicago and Newton." American Sociologi-cal Review 22 (December):694-704.Maccoby, Eleanor E. and Patricia K. Gibbs1954 "Methods of childrearingin two social class-es." Pp. 380-96 in W. E. Martin and C. B.Standler (eds.), Readings in Child Develop-

ment. New York: Harcourt, Brace, andWorld.McKinley, Donald G.1964 Social Class and Family Life. New York:The Free Press.Melichar, Emanuel1965 "Least squares analysis of economic surveydata." Proceedings of the Business and Eco-nomics Section of the American StatisticalAssociation.Miller, Daniel R. and Guy E. Swanson1958 The Changing American Parent. New York:John Wiley and Sons.1960 Inner Conflict and Defense. New York:Henry Holt and Company.Miller, S. M. and Frank Riessman1961 "Working class authoritarianism: a critiqueof Lipset." British Journal of Sociology 12(September):26 3-76.Parke, Ross D.

1970 "The role of punishment in the socializationprocess." Pp. 81-143 in Ronald A. Hoppe,G. Alexander Milton and Edward C. Simmel(eds.), Early Experiences and the Processesof Socialization. New York: AcademicPress.Sears, Robert R., Eleanor E. Maccoby and HarryLevin1957 Patterns of Child Rearing. Evanston, Ill.:Row, Peterson and Company.Solomon, Richard L.1964 "Punishment." American Psychologist 19(April):239-53.Stark, Rodney and James McEvoy III1970 "Middle class violence." Psychology Today4 (June):52-54.White, Martha9turm1957 "Social class, child rearing practices, andchild behavior." American Sociological Re-view 22 (December):704-12.Wolfgang, MarvinE.1958 Patterns of Criminal Homicide. Phila-delphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Wolfgang, MarvinE. and Franco Ferracuti1967 The Subculture of Violence, Toward anIntegrated Theory of Criminology. London:

Tavistock-Social Science Paperbacks.Yarrow, Marian R., John D. Campbell and Roger V.Burton1968 Child Rearing: An Inquiry into Researchand Methods. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Social Class and Corporal Punishment in Childrearing:

Documents

Transcript of Social Class and Corporal Punishment in Childrearing: