Invisible Boy Chp. 2 Part D
M. Lafontaine
Corporal Punishment
Much of the use of corporal punishment by parents, teachers, daycare providers, or various
institution-based professionals goes unnoticed, or is not labeled as being abusive,
because it is viewed as an acceptable function for an adult in the role of parent,
locus parentis, or caregiver. This is due, in part, to widespread cultural norms in
North American society sanctioning the use of force in the correction and discipline
of children and youth and a "just world" view that children who misbehave, are difficult
to control, or anger adults deserve to get a spanking.
But it is also because much of this form of maltreatment does not come to the attention
of authorities unless it is severe. As in the case of inter-spouse abuse, we have
historically viewed incidents of violence within families as a "domestic" concern or a
private family matter, though significant strides have been made to improve this situation
in Canada. However, we have not yet begun to accord children the same type of compassion
and concern we are beginning to give female spouses.
Almost all American parents endorse the use of corporal punishment and use it routinely
on infants, older children, and teens alike, though usage tends to decrease the older
the child gets. However, more corporal punishment appears to be directed at boys than
girls. More males report being hit by parents and more parents report hitting sons than
daughters (Straus, 1994). In this same study, sons recall being equally likely to be hit
by both parents,whereas adolescent daughters are a third more likely to be hit by their
mothers. The most chronic pattern of hitting, in terms of frequency, is mothers hitting
adolescent sons, the lowest is for fathers hitting daughters. Two-thirds of mothers with
toddlers hit them three or more times per week. Other studies have also found higher
rates of mothers hitting adolescent children (Wauchope and Straus, 1990).
When an adolescent is hit, both parents usually do it, especially if the child is a boy.
When a son is hit, fathers do it 23% of the time, mothers 23%, and both parents 53%.
When a daughter is hit, fathers do it 20% of the time, mothers 39%, and both parents 41%.
The highest rate of hitting teens occurs in middle class families (Straus, 1994).
Several theories summarized by Straus (1994) offer some explanation of why boys are hit
and punished more often than girls: they misbehave more; boys are encouraged to be more
active which may subtly encourage misbehaviour; it is part of training boys for anticipated
adult male roles of provider/protector; and it is used to toughen boys up. The gender of the
parent administering corporal punishment is also likely to influence our perceptions.
Because of our stereotypes of women as nurturers or "natural" caregivers, we are less
likely to attribute malicious intent to mothers or other females. Instead, we tend to view
women’s use of physical abuse or corporal punishment as a sign of stress. We are also likely
to overlook, or give only passing concern to, cases where a female caregiver uses physical
force or corporal punishment toward an older male child or teen. However, theories that
explain mothers’ use of violence toward children and teens solely in terms of stress, fail
to acknowledge and factor in these gender-specific issues of particular consequence to
male victims.
It is generally believed that parental stress owing to conditions of poverty or low
socio-economic status (SES) contributes to children being "at risk". However, the research
is inconclusive. Erlanger’s review of the literature on corporal punishment reported no
remarkable relationship between use of corporal punishment and socio-economic status.
Others have found higher rates for lower income families (Bryan and Freed, 1982; Stark
and McEvoy, 1970). One study found that corporal punishment rates are highest for middle
class families (Straus, 1994). This same study also found that while fewer lower SES
adolescent parents may hit their children, those that do hit do it more often.
Personal beliefs, life experience, attribution, and social learning all appear to play a
role in predicting the use of corporal punishment. Parents who believe hitting a child is
not abuse and that it works to correct misbehaviour, attribute the child’s misbehaviour
to premeditation or provocation, attribute the behaviour to internal characteristics of
the child that are within their control, observe their partner administer force, or who feel
powerless in the face of the misbehaviour are most likely to use corporal punishment or
physically abuse their children (Bugental, Mantyla, and Lewis, 1989; Dibble and Straus,
1990; Dietrich et al., 1990; Dix and Grusec, 1985; Fry, 1993; Institute For the
Prevention of Child Abuse, 1990; and Walters, 1991). The more parents believe in the
use of corporal punishment, the more likely they are to use it, and the more likely
they are to apply it harshly (Moore and Straus, 1987).
M. Lafontaine
Corporal Punishment
to correct misbehaviour,attribute the child’s misbehaviour to