Child Abuse and Neglecr, Vol. 6, pp. 12%139, 1982 Ol45-2134182/020129-11$03.

00/0
Printed m the U.S.A. All rights reserved. Copyright 0 1982 Pergamon Press Ltd.

CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES

OF HARSH PARENTAL PUNISHMENT

An Empirical Investigation in a Representative Sample of 570

German Families

ANETTE ENGFER, DIPL. PSYCH. AND KLAUS A. SCHNEEWIND, PROF. DR.

Institut fiir Psychologie, Persiinlichkeitspsychologie tmd Psychodiagnostik. L’niversitgt Miinchen.

Schellingstrasse IO, 8000 Milnchen 40. F.R. Germany

Abstract-This article examines a multifactorial model of causes and consequences of harsh parental punishment. The
social-psychological model as developed by Gelles was extended to also include the antecedent conditions leading to rigid
assertion of parental power relating to the child. Furthermore, personality problems of the child observable as consequences
of harsh parental punishment were included in our model. The conditions which predict harsh parental punishment are-
in the rank order of their importance: a child perceived as difficult to handle, i.e., a “problem child”; parental anger-
proneness; the rigid assertion of parental power; and intra-familial problems and conflicts. As consequences of harsh
parental punishment and rejection as perceived by the child, two types of personality problems were observed: a syndrome
named “Conduct Disorder” and a syndrome including personality problems such as anxiety and helplessness.

Key Words-Harsh parental punishment; Family conflicts and stress; “Difficult temperament” of child; Parental anger-
proneness; Power-assertion.

R&um&Les auteurs ont utilisC un modtle multifactoriel pour Ctudier les causes et consCquences de moyens punitifs
brutaux par les parents ?II’tgard d’enfants. IIs ont repris le modkle socio-psychologique introduit par Gelles, en l’amplifiant.
11s ont inclus dans le modble les ant&dents ayant amen6 les parents ?I prendre une attitude rigide dans I’affirmation de
leur auto& par rapport & I’enfan!. En plus, les auteurs ont inclus dans le mod& les consCquences sur la personnalit6 de
I’enfant, amentes par les brutalit& parentales. Les circonstances qui peuvent laisser prkvoir des s&ices physiques de la
part des parents sont, dans I’ordre de leur importance: perception par les parents que leur enfant est difficile, c’est&dire
reprksente un “enfant probleme”; tendance B la colere de la part des parents; besoin d’affirmer son autorite de faGon rigide;
problemes et conflits intra-familiaux. Les auteurs ont pu degager deux sortes de probl?mes de personnalite chez I’enfant
ayant subi les s&ices et le rejet: un syndrome de trouble du comportement et un syndrome caracttrise surtout par I’angoisse
et le d6sespoir.

PROBLEM

RESEARCH on the conditions leading to child abuse has not brought a satisfying answer to the
question of what “causes” child abuse. Retrospective research on “identified” child-abusing parents
has many methodological flaws summarized by Gelles [I]. Even though this type of research has
become more refined lately by the use of appropriate control groups, it is our impression that in
the long run only two types of research will be able to “unravel” [2] the causes of child abuse in
a methodologically appropriate way: first, prospective studies with large, unselected groups of
parents being monitored longitudinally including control and experimental groups with specific

This research was supported by a grant from the German Research Association (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft). We thank
Jiirgen Hinderer and Jan-Bemd Lohm(iller for their help and advice with the computer work.
This paper was presented at: The Third International Congress on Child Abuse and Neglect, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
April 1981.
129
130 Anette Engfer and Klaus A. Schneewind

forms of intervention [3,4]; secondly, the study of intrafamilial violence in “normal” representative
samples of families which have not been labeled as “abusers” by legal or medical authorities 15,
61.
Unfortunately these latter studies of violence using representative samples so far have focussed
mainly on sociological variables. Research including personality measures, data on the parent-
child relationship itself, on specific sources of parental anger and frustration dealing with the child
have not been undertaken. This article shall fill this gap. In our investigation we examined
sociological and psychological conditions associated with harsh parental punishment in a repre-
sentative sample of 570 families in the Federal Republic of Germany.
The second purpose is the attempt to test empirically the social-psychological model of the
causes of child abuse as developed by Gelles [7]. Among the three major approaches to the
theoretical explanation of child abuse, i.e., the “pathological,” the sociological and the social-
situational model [8- 111, this model was the first important step away from the circular argument
to explain child abuse mainly with the pathological personality of parents caught as abusers. In
spite of it’s great theoretical relevance there has been little research putting this model directly
to an empirical test. Small samples and the lack of comprehensive data made it difficult to use
multivariate methods. To investigate the interaction of factors and their cumulative impact as
predictors of child abuse, one has to use multivariate methods such as path analysis or structural
equation models. That is what we tried to do in our investigation.
The Gelles model conceives six complex conditions or “blocks” as antecedents of child abuse:
The socialization of the parents with the experience of violence and aggression leads to psycho-
pathic states or personality problems of the parents and also increases situational stress: Marital
conflicts, structural stress such as too many children, unemployment or threats to parental authority
and child-produced stress such as an unwanted or a “problem’‘-child. Likewise, contributing to
the situational stress is the social position of the parents.
Personality problems of the parents, situational stress and societal values which tolerate intra-
familial violence cumulate in situations of confZict or disciplinary problems with the child. Their
influence and situations of conflict increase the likelihood of physical assaults upon the child.
Figure 1 shows our own block model of conditions leading to child maltreatment. It includes
several blocks of the Gelles model, other parts are extensions. The left side of our block model

, I”BORDIWLTLON

Figure 1. Theoretical Model of Causes and Consequences of Parental Punishment

 Causes and consequences of harsh parental punishment 131

shows blocks very similar to those which Gelles has included in his model: Unfavourable so-
cialization experiences (Block 1) lead topersonali~ problems (Block 3) of the parents and increase
the likelihood of infru-familiui co~~icfs (Block 5) and stress. The problem-child (Block 4) has
been conceptualized as a separate factor antecedent of parental unger-proneness (Block S), which
in our model is one of the main conditions leading to harsh punishment (Block 10).
The right side of our model shows the conditions which are supposed to explain the second
main precursor of harsh punishment, namely the rigid asserrion ofparenraf power (Block 10).
This attitude interprets the parent-chiid relationship above all in terms of power. Harsh punishment
will be used as a means to deter the child from disobedience and to make him comply to parental
demands. While the conditions on the left side of our model explain punishment mainly as a
consequence of excessive demands impinging on the parents, it is viewed here as a means for the
maintenance of parental power. This “power-hypothesis” of intrafamilial violence has been pro-
posed by a number of authors [ 12, 131 and seems to be a promising extension of the Gelles model
which explains child abuse mainly as a consequence of cumulative social stress.
Goode f 121 and others assume that people mainly Iacking other resources of social power and
influence will resort to physical force to back up their authority. The social potency and power
of parents depend to a great extent on their position in the social and economic structure of society.
Therefore we consider the social and economic siruation of rhe family (Block 2) as one antecedent
of parental power assertion (Block 10). Two other conditions known to be related to social class
and to the use of power assertion are seen as mediating variables: Personality traits corresponding
to a syndrome described as the aathori~arian Fersonali~ (Block 6) by Adomo et al. are known
to depend on education and to predict parental power assertion f 14- 16).
Parental educational goals, which stress conformity and subordination of the child, have been
found to be related to social class, and to power-assertive techniques of discipline [ 17- 191. The
social and economic situation of the family (Block 2) are also thought to have an influence on the
prevalence of inrrafamizia~ conflicts (Block 5) and burdens as is suggested by the Gelles model.
A third extension of our model as compared with the Gefles model is seen in the lower part
of our block model. Here we consider the consequences of harsh parental punishment. We assume
that children who frequently experience harsh punishment tend to feel rejected by their parents.
They will describe their parents as overly strict, irritable and difficult to satisfy. This consequence
of harsh punishment is represented by Block 11, perceived rejecrion. Concerning the personality
problems of the child we expect two types of problematic behavior to be connected with punishment
perceived rejection: Aggression and condac~ disorder (Block 12) and anxiery and helplessness
(Block 13). After the work of Bandura & Walters [20], Lefkowitz et al. 1211, Stapf et al. [22]
and Gordon et al. [23] both outcomes (anxiety and/or aggression) seem equally probable and are
therefore included in our block model.
To summarize: our proposed model of causes and consequences of harsh punishment is an
extension of the sociaI-psychological model as developed by Gelies. On the left side of our model
stress conditions sensu Gelies are conceived as antecedents of parental anger-proneness and in-
security which in conjunction with family conflicts and a “problem child” will predict harsh
punishment. The right side of the model shows conditions contributing to rigid power assertion
in the parent-child relationship. According to this “power’‘-hypothesis harsh punishment appears
as a means to secure parental authority. Another extension of the Gelles model is the inclusion
of personality problems of the child which are observable as consequences of harsh punishment
(lower part of the block model).
This whole model is conceived as a path model. This enables us to weigh the specific contribution
of each condition thought to predict harsh punishment and to estimate the variance explained in
our dependent variables by the conditions preceding them.
 132 Anette Engfer and Klaus A. Schneewind

Table 1. Factor-Loadings and Factor-Weights of Indicator Variables Constituting the “Blocks” in Our Model of
Harsh Maternal Punishment (N = 285)
Block Var. No. Variable-Name Factor-Loading Factor-Wei~bt
I. Socialization- 1 “Unhappy childhood” 90 69
experience 2 Criticism of own education 76 45
3 Orientation towards own education -55 -06
2. Social and economic Educational attainment of the mother 90 59
situation of the Educational attainment of the father 83 20
family Occupational position of the father 80 32
Income of the father 70 08
ml per person 27 - 15
DM per person 59 05
3. Personality problem: 10 Emotional stability (scale C) -58 -29
irritability and 11 Guilt-proneness (scale 0) 64 37
nervous tension 12 Self-Control (scale Q3) -55 -42
13 Nervous tension (scale Q”) 76 54
4. “Probtem child” 14 ‘Problem child” (perceived traits) 78 44
15 ‘Conduct disorder” (behavior checklist) 91 82
16 Academic problems (behavior checklist) 64 02
17 Nervousness (behavior checklist) 54 - 10
5. Family conflict and 18 Marital conflict 54 -03
stress 19 Disagreements about the child 83 67
20 Family stressors (problem list) 80 64
6. Rigid-autho~ta~an 21 Suer-Ego-Strength (scale G) 55 28
personality 22 Carelessness (scale M) -86 -72
23 External locus of control 62 46
7. Educational goals: 24 Organisation (FES) 45 04
conformity and 25 Control (FES) 82 65
subordination 26 Conformity as educational goal 44 -09
27 Conservative ideal of manliness 69 44
2s Social Competition 65 38
8. Anger-proneness 29 Anger-proneness and helplessness 99 103
9. Rigid power assertion 30 Rigid assertion of parental power 99 103
10. Harsh punjshment 31 Harsh maternal punishment 85 65
32 Perceived harsh maternal punishment 79 57
Il. Perceived rejection 33 Irritability and rejection 94 78
34 Tolerance -41 -20
35 Emotional Extortion 44 25
36 Manipulation 40 09
37 Lack of predictability 43 09
12. ‘Conduct disorder” 38 Aggressive Ego-Assertion 85 52
39 Impulsiveness 72 33
40 Lack of Wil~Kontrol 84 47
13. Anxiety and 41 External locus of control 87 70
helplessness 42 Feelings of Inferiority 74 45
43 Emotional irritability 54 24

METHOD

Between spring 1976 and spring 1977, 570 families with sons (IV = 285) and daughters
(IV = 285) 8 to 14 years of age were individuaIly interviewed by trained interviewers. These
interviews were conducted with the father, the mother and one child (son or daughter) of the
family, The families were equally distributed in three socioeconomic classes and live in different
parts of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Our multivariate method of data analysis, the Partial-Least-Square-Technique (PLSC) by
Lohmiilfer & Woid 1241 integrates the meth~ology of factor analysis and path analysis: it allows
US to construct complex latent variables or “blocks” from different indicators and it infers the
 Causes and consequences of harsh parental punishment 133

causal-predictive relations between these blocks as in path analysis. Consequently, most of the
blocks in our model are constructed from a number of different indicators summarized in Table
1. Here we will describe just some of the most typical measures used to construct our blocks*:

1. Socialization experience of the parents: These were covered by three questions: “How happy
were you in your own childhood, ” “how do you agree with the way you were brought up,”
“to what extent do you model your own behavior relating to your child after the behavior of
your own parents?”
2. Social and economic situation of the family: This block includes measures such as the amount
of schooling for both parents, income and occupational position of the father, monthly al-
lowance per person.
3. Personality problems: irritability and nervous tension: Here we used four scales of the German
adaptation of the Sixteen Personality Factor Test (16 PF) by Cattell [25] which are related
to “neuroticism” as a second order factor.
4. “Problem Child”: This was measured by several scales of a 53 item behavior checklist filled
out by the mother. This checklist touches all kinds of behavior problems as “conduct disorder,”
problems in school and psychosomatic symptoms.
5. Family conflict and stress: This block includes measures such as “marital conflicts,” dis-
agreements about the child and an 18-item checklist of general family life stressors.
6. Rigid authoritunan personality: Here we used two relevant scales of the German adaptation
of the Sixteen Personality Factor Test (16 PF) by Cattell [25] and a German Locus of Control
Scale [26].
7. EducrGonal goals: conformity and subordination: This block was constructed by the use of
two scales of the German adaptation of the Family Environment Scale (FES) by Moos [27],
here: “Organisation” and “Control”; beyond that we used three scales of a questionnaire about
parental goals developed in our research project.
8. Anger-proneness and helplessness: Parental anger-proneness relating to the child was measured
by one scale of our Parent-Attitude Questionnaire [28].
9. Harsh punishment: Harsh punishment was measured by a 7-item scale comparable to the
“Conflict Tactics Scales” described by Straus [29]. It includes items such as “yelling at the
child,” “ slaps in the face, ” “spanking” and “beating with a stick, a belt etc.” In this block
we combine the scale used with the parents and the scale used with the children who report
about such instances of harsh parental punishment.
10 Perceived rejection: Here we used several scales of a questionnaire developed within the
research project. Children describe the behavior of their parents under aspects such as “irrit-
ability, ” “tolerance” and “lack of predictability.”
11 Child personality: “conduct disorder”: These dimensions of the child’s personality were
measured by three scales of the Personality Questionnaire for Children by Seitz & Rausche
[30] including the scales “need for aggressive ego-assertion,” “impulsiveness” and “lack of
will-control.”
12 Child personality: anxiety and helplessness: Here we used the scales “emotional irritability”
and “feelings of inferiority” of the Personality Questionnaire for Children [30] and a German
Locus of Control Scale for children [3 11.

For the statistical analysis of our data we used the Partial-Least-Square Technique developed
by Lohmoller & Wold [241. To make the presentation of our results understandable, two things
should be noted: first, the blocks of our model are constructed from several indicators, their factor-
loadings (Table 1) indicating their correlation with the block are equivalent to factor-loadings in
factor analysis. Secondly, the causal-predictive relations between the blocks (Figure 2) are rep-

*F~,.a &tailed descriptionof the scales and the items used to construct them please order the more comprehensive report from
the authors.
 1,3;4 Anette Engfer and Klaus A. Schneewind

Figure 2. Empirical Model of Causes and Consequences of Muternal Punishment

resented by the arrows connecting them; these arrows are equivalent to paths in path analysis and
indicate the direction and the weight one block has as a predictor of another dependent block. The
bivariate correlations between the blocks are presented in Table 2. We defined the predicting
blocks common to one dependent block as uncorrelated. This can reduce the strength of the path
coefficients, but it has the advantage of clearing the structure from spurious correlations and
suppressor effects.

RESULTS

Here we present only the empirical test of our theoretical model. We limit this presentation of
our results to the data of mothers in relationship to their sons. * These results are presented in
Figure 2.
Our results show that unfavourable socialization experiences predict maternal personality prob-
lems of irritability and nervous tension (p** = .18) and the prevalence of intrafamilial problems
and conflicts (p = .26). Personality problems (p = .46), a “problem child’ (p = .42) and
intrafamilial problems and conflicts (p = .28) are potent predictors of maternal anger-proneness
and helplessness relating to the child. These three antecedent blocks explain 47% of the variance
in the dependent block “anger-proneness and helplessness.”
Harsh punishment is predicted from parental anger-proneness, the “problem child”, from rigid
assertion of parental power and from intrafamilial conflict and stress. The most important predictor
for harsh punishment is the perceived difficulty in handling a “problem child” (p = .29) followed
by anger-proneness (p = .23) and rigid assertion of power (p = .22). The direct contribution

*The more comprehensive report of our results includes frequency counts about the incidence of physical punishment in our
sample of 570 German families, t-tests comparing parents scoring high to parents scoring low on our scale of harsh punishment
and the empirical test of our model for fathers relating to their sons compared to the empirical model of causes and consequences
of maternal punishment described above.

**p = path coefficient

 Table 2: Correlations of the “Blocks” or Latent Variables (mothers of sons, N = 285)
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. I. 8. 9. 10. II. 12. 13.
h
1. Socialization experience: - - .07 .24 .13 - .17 -.20 .I7 -.16 .OO .01 .05 .05 L’
.28
E
“unhappy childhood” w
2. Social and economic sit- u* - .06 .os -.29 - .50 - .41 - .03 - .27 - .08 -.I8 - .Ol -.17 9
5.
uation of the family
8
3. Nervous personality of .18 .08 - .30 .35 - .05 - .13 .55 .02 .22 .I5 .17 .23 B
the mother 8
4. “Problem child” .05 .05 - - .32 - .12 - .08 .52 .lO .42 .23 .32 .24
5
2
5. Family Conflict .26 - .28 uu - .ll .06 .40 .06 .27 .21 .I7 .24 a
6. Rigid authoritarian per- -,16 - .43 u u U .43 .oo .40 .I4 .19 -.09 .09 %
sonality z
7. Conformity as educa- .03 52 .I5 .17 - .05 .05 a
-.19 -.32 u U U U z-
tional goal .o
8. Anger-proneness .20 .Ol .46 .42 .28 - .05 -.Ol - .28 .42 .20 .I9 .18 S
R
9. Rigid power assertion -.20 - .28 - .03 .08 -.04 .32 .48 u - .29 .21 ‘.04 .I1 ry
10. Harsh punishment .OO - .08 .I4 .40 .I8 .13 .I4 .39 .24 - .45 .33 .31 B
3.
11. Perceived rejection .Oi -.18 .I1 .21 .15 .I7 .14 .18 .I8 .45 - .34 .49 5
12. Conduct disorder .04 .04 .07 .26 .07 -.I0 -.04 .I7 - .02 .28 .24 - .48 2
13. Anxiety and helplessness .04 -.18 .I7 .I4 .17 .I1 .05 .I3 .lO .25 .45 u - J

*Fields with a U below the diagonal mean that these blocks have been defined as uncorrelated. Fields above the diagonal show the empirical correlations of the
blocks or latent variables.
136 Anette Engfer and Klaus A. Schneewind

of intrafamilial conflict and stress is rather low (p = .12) though its indirect influence over
maternal anger-proneness is substantial.
The social and economic situation of the family is a powerful predictor (p = - .43) for the
rigid authoritarian personality of the mother and her normative orientation emphasizing conformity
and subordination of the child (p = - .32). The social and economic situation of the family also
seems to reduce the prevalence of intrafamilial conflict and stress (p = - .28). Rigid power
assertion relating to the child is best predicted from the normative orientation and educational
goals of the mother (p = .49) followed by the rigid authoritarian personality (p = .33); both
antecedent blocks explain 33% of the variance of rigid assertion of power.
Maternal rejection as perceived by the child is closely related to harsh punishment (p = .43).
Aggressive and antisocial tendencies in the child are better predictable from harsh maternal pun-
ishment (p = .24) than from perceived rejection (p = .15), but the explained variance in this
syndrome of antisocial behaviors seems to be rather low (R2 = . 11) as compared to the syndrome
of child anxiety and helplessness. This syndrome is best predicted from perceived maternal rejection
(p = .42); the explained variance amounts here to 20%.
So far our empirical model of harsh punishment seems to replicate quite accurately the structure
of our theoretical block model. Three additional paths are found: the unfavorable socialization
experiences of the mother apparently reduce the probability that she agrees with rigid authoritarian
attitudes (p = - .16)or enforces conformity and subordination in her child (p = - .19). In other
analyses (321, a similar pattern was found: parents who are not willing to model their behavior
after the behavior which they have experienced as children from their own parents show greater
permissiveness and tolerance in relationship to their child. The direct path leading from harsh
punishment to antisocial tendencies in the child shows the direct and significant contribution of
maternal punishment to this syndrome of “conduct disorder” in the personality of the sons.

IMPLICATIONS

1. The main antecedents of harsh punishment are psychological variables. By psychological

variables we mean variables which describe aspects of the parent-child relationship, modes of
handling intrafamily conflicts and-as one very important predictor of maternal punishment-
the way in which mothers perceive their child. A problem child, maternal anger-proneness,
rigid power assertion and family conflicts are found to be the most significant predictors of
harsh punishment; they are all psychological variables.
2. Another point which deserves attention is the significance of maternal personality factors
influential in the way in which mothers relate to their children. After the devaluation of the
psychiatric model it has become almost taboo to consider personality factors as antecedents
of child abuse. Our empirical model of harsh punishment supports the notion that the direct
contribution of personality factors to the prediction of harsh punishment is weak, indeed. But
their indirect influence via anger-proneness and rigid power assertion as typical ways of relating
to the child seem to be substantial.
3. How do sociological variables relate to harsh punishment? In spite of the sophisticated analysis
Straus [33] has proposed concerning this issue quite a few authors still favor a social-structural
explanation of child abuse [2, 341.
As early as 1974 Erlanger (351 had published his second-order analysis of the relationship
between social class and physical punishment. He demonstrated that the correlation between
social class and physical punishment hardly ever exceeds a coefficient of r = .14. Furthermore,
social class as a sociological construct per se cannot “explain” child abuse. The common
auxiliary argument to back up the social-structural hypothesis is a sociological version of the
frustration-aggression theory. This theory implies that parents lacking economic resources and
educational attainments experience high degrees of frustration; such frustrations supposedly
 Causes and consequences of harsh parental punishment 137

increase their inclination to react aggressively within intrafamilial contexts where the fear of
negative sanctions is relatively low. According to this theory we would expect that a low
position of the family in the hierarchy of social and economic resources would increase the
likelihood of family conflict and anger proneness towards the child.
In our empirical model of harsh punishment we found, indeed, a significant relationship
between the social and economic situation of the family and the prevalence of family conflicts.
Family conflicts are significantly related to maternal anger-proneness and to harsh punishment;
the social and economic situation of the family itself is not related to anger-proneness, its
correlation to harsh punishment is with an r = ‘08 negligable and mostly mediated by other
conditions such as family conflict and power assertion.
The social and economic situation of the family seems to be far more essential, though, for
the way in which mothers handle the issue of power and authority. Rigid power assertion and
the social and economic situation of the family correlate with r = .28, but rigid power assertion
correlates even higher with the educational goals of the mothers (r = .48). Therefore we find
that the social and economic situation is essential for rigid power assertion as one impo~ant
precurser of harsh punishment, but its influence again is mediated by another variable: the
normative orientation of the mothers.
4. Considering the consequences of harsh maternal punishment our results are inconclusive. Harsh
punishment has some significance for the prediction of conduct disorder in the child. Anxiety
and helplessness can be explained much better in conjunction with perceived maternal rejection.
Here we face the limitations of a path model assuming only one direction of influence.
Conduct disorder must not necessarily be considered as a “product” or result of harsh punishment
and rejection. Equally probable is the inversion of causes and effects as proposed by Bell [36]
and other authors. It seems just as likely that a child whose behavior is aggressive and antisocial
provokes “upper-limit-behavior” [36] of the mothers such as harsh punishment or rejection.
Concerning this hypothesis it is interesting to note that the variable which in terms of its factor
loading and factor weight (Table 1) shows the highest cont~bution to the block “problem child”
is the scale “conduct disorder” from the behavior checklist filled out by the mother.
5. This issue touches a more general limitation of our empirical model. Even though statistically
the structure of the model can be considered to be optimal, several points related to the content
of the model deserve discussion:
a. Many predictors which we have defined to be uncorrelated show high empirical correlations
(see Table 2): for instance the problem child and family conflicts correlate with r = .32,
the rigid authoritarian personality of the mother correlates with her educational goals
r = .43.
b. This model is based on cross-sectional data. We are not able to decide which comes first
in terms of time sequence: the irritable personality of the mother which contributes to family
conflicts or a family to be characterized by dish~ony which may result in nervous tensions
of the mother and behavior problems of the child. We do not even know if the aggressive,
antisocial behavior of the child is to be considered as a consequence or an antecedent of
harsh parental punishment.
In spite of sophisticated methods of multivariate analysis our empirical model of harsh
parental punishment functions mainly as a heuristic model which eventually has to be put
to an empirical test by longitudinal research.
c. There is another point concerning the empirical validity of our block model. Only 28% of
the variance can be explained in our central dependent variable-the harsh maternal pun-
ishment. Considering the number of antecedent blocks used to predict harsh punishment
this result which corresponds approximately to a multiple R of .53 may appear disappointing.
Here we must point to the fact that there might be a lot of error-variance connected with a
touchy subject such as harsh punishment. The low correlations between parents’ and chil-
dren’s reports of harsh punishment document this methodological difficulty. The predictive
138 Anette Engfer and Klaus A. Schneewind

power of our antecedent conditions might be improved by a more adequate measure of harsh
punishment such as the use of diaries where family members would be asked to record
continuously any incidence of intrafamilial violence.

REFERENCES

1. GELLES, R. J., Etiology of violence: Overcoming fallacious reasoning in understanding family violence and child
abuse. Remarks of RichardJ. Gelles. Unpublished (1978).
2. GIL, D. G., Unraveling child abuse. American J. of Orrhopsychiarry 45(3): 346-356 (1975).
3. EGELAND, B., BREITENBUCHER, M. and ROSENBERG, D., Prospective study of the significance of life stress
in the etiology of child abuse. J. of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 48(2): 195-205 (1980).
4. VIETZE, P., FALSEY, S., SANDLER, H., O’CONNOR, S. and ALTEMEIER, W. A., Transactional approach to
prediction of maltreatment. Paper presented at Biennial Meeting of the SRCD, March 1979, San Francisco, California
(1979).
5. GELLES, R. J., The violent family. In: McNall, S. E. (Ed.), Crifical issues in Sociology. New York: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston. In press (1979).
6. STRAUS, M. A., Family patterns and child abuse in a nationally representative American sample. Child Abuse and
Neglect 3:213-225 (1979).
7. GELLES, R. J., Child abuse as psychopathology: A sociological critique and reformulation. American J. of Orrho-
psychiatry 43(4): 61 I-621 (1973).
8. PARKE, R. D. and COLLMER, C. W., Child abuse: An interdisciplinary analysis. Chicago and London: University
of Chicago Press ( 1975).
9. BURGESS, R. L., Child abuse: A social interactional analysis. In: Lahey, B. B. & Kazdin, A. E. (Eds.), Advances in
Clinical Child Psychology, Vol. 2. New York & London: Plenum Publishing Corporation, pp. 141- 172 (1979).
10. BELSKY, J., Three theoretical models of child abuse: A critical revjew. Child Abuse and Neglecr 2:37-49 (1978).
11. SAMEROFF, A. J., Transactional models in early social relations. Human Developmenr l&65-79 (1975).
12. GOODE, W. J., Force and violence in the family. J. ofMarriage and rheFamily, pp. 624-636 (1971).
13. STRAUS, M. A., A general systems theory approach to a theory of violence between family members. Social Science
fnformarion 12(3): 105- 125 (1973).
14. ADORNO, T. W., FRENKEL-BRUNSWIK, E., LEVINSON, D. J. and SANFORD, R. N. Fhe Authoritarian Per-
son&y. New York: Harper & Row (1950).
15. FEATHER, N. T., Value correlates of conservatism. J. ofPersonality andSocialPsychology 37(9): 1617- 1630 (1979).
16. HOFFMANN, M. L., Personality, family structure, and social class as antecedents of parental power assertion. Child
Developmenr 34:869-884 (1963).
17. KOHN, M. L., Class and conformity:A study in values. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press (1969).
18. STRAUS, M. A., Some social antecedents of physical punishment: A linkage theory interpretation. J. ofMarriage and
theFamily. pp. 658-663 (1971).
19. STEINKAMP, G. and STIEF, W. H., Lebensbedingungen und Sozialisarion. Die Abhiingigkeir van Sozialisarionspro-
zessen in der Familie van ihrer Srellung im Verreilungssysrem ekonomischer, sozialer und kultureller Ressourcen und
Parriziparionschancen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag (1978).
20. BANDURA, A. and WALTERS, R. H., Adolescent Aggression. New York: Ronald Press (1959).
21, LEFKOWITZ, M. M., ERON, L. D., WALDER, L. 0. and HUESMANN, L. R., Growing up ro be Violenr: A Lon-
girudinal Study ojrhe Developmenr ofAggression. New York: Pergamon Press (1977).
22. STAPF, K. H., HERRMANN, T., STAPF, A. and STACKER, K. H., Psychologie des elrerlichen Erziehungsstils.
Bern: Huber (1972).
23. GORDON, D. A., JONES, R. H. and NOWICKI, S., A measure of intensity of parental punishment. J. ofPersonal@
Assessrncnr 43(5):485-496 (1979).
24. LOHMOLLER, J.-B. and WOLD, H. Three-mode path models with latent variables and partial least squares (PLS)
parameter estimation. Forschungsberichr 80.03. Fachbereich Pldagogik. Hochschule der Bundeswehr Miinchen. Neu-
biberg ( 1980).
25. SCHNEEWIND, K. A., Zur Enhvicklung einer deurschsprachigen Experimentalversion des 16 PF-Fesrs van
R. B. Cartell. I. Tesrsratisrische Kennwerte undjakrorielle Validiriir der Primiirskalen. Arbeitsbericht 13 aus dem EKB-
Projekt an der Universitlt Trier (1976).
26. SCHNEEWIND, K. A., Entwicklung eines FragebogenszurErfassung inrernalervs. exrernalerKontrol&iberzeugungen
bei Erwachsenen (LOC-E). Arbeitsbericht 15 aus dem EKB-Projekt an der Universitat Trier (1976).
27. ENGFER, A., SCHNEEWIND, K. A. and HINDERER, J., Die Familienklimaskalen (FKS). Ein Fragebogen tur Er-
hebung perzipierter Familienumwelren nach R. H. Moos. Arbeitsbericht 16 aus dem EKB-Projekt an der Universitlt
Miinchen (1977).
28. ENGFER, A. & SCHNEEWIND, K. A.. Der SEE. Ein Fragebogen zur Erhebung selbsrperzipierrer elrerlicher Erzie-
hungseinsrellungen. Arbeitsbericht 22 aus dem EKB-Projekt an der Universitit Munchen (1978).
29. STRAUS, M. A., Measuring Intrafamily Conflict and Violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. J. ofMarriage and
the Fami/y, pp. 75-88 (1979).
30. SEITZ, W. and RAUSCHE, A., Persiinlichkeirsjragebogen fiir Kinder 9-14 (PFK). Braunschweig: Westermann
(1976).
 Causes and consequences of harsh parental punishment 139

31. SCHNEEWIND, K. A., Mitteilung ilber die Konstruktion eines Fragebogens zur Erfassung intemaler vs. extemaler
Bekraftigungsilbetzeugungen bei Kindem. Diagnosrica, pp. 46-49 (1974).
32. RINKE, R., Korrelate der elterlichen Orientierung am selbsterfahrenen Erziehungsstil. In: Schneewind, K. A., Beck-
man, M., Engfer, A., Hintermair, M. Krohns, H. C. & Rinke, R. Bedingungen and Auswirkungen elterlicher Erzie-
hungsstile. Bericht tlber ein Forschungsprojekt. In Vorbereitung (198 I).
33. STRAUS, M. A., Stress and physical child abuse. ChildAbuse andNeglecr 4:75-88 (1980).
34. PELTON, L. H., Child abuse and neglect: The myth of classlessness. American J. of Orrhopsychiarry, pp. 608-617
(1978).
35. ERLANGER, H. S., Social class and corporal punishment in childrearing: A reassessment. American Sociological Re-
view 39~68-85 (1974).
36. BELL, R. Q., Stimulus control of parent or caretaker behavior by offspring. Developmental Psychology 4( 1):63-72
(1971).