Personality and Individual Differences 87 (2015) 121–129

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

“Smacking never hurt me!”

Identifying myths surrounding the use of corporal punishment
Antonia M. Kish ⁎, Peter A. Newcombe
School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Corporal punishment (CP) is a common disciplinary strategy used by parents, despite recent evidence associating
Received 14 April 2015 it with adverse effects on child development. The influence of common beliefs or myths about CP use, particularly
Received in revised form 25 July 2015 those related to its effectiveness and harmlessness, is one possible explanation for its continued use and aligns
Accepted 29 July 2015
with past research evidence in other contexts illustrating myths as precursors for behavior.
Available online 8 August 2015
With a sample of young people (N = 366, M age = 19.55 years, SD = 3.79 years), this study aimed to identify
Keywords:
whether such myths exist and whether they might predict CP use. However, because no measure yet exists to
Child discipline empirically examine CP myths, a new Corporal Punishment Myths Scale (CPMS) was developed and validated.
Corporal punishment Results show CP myths exist, are measurable and multidimensional, and can predict disciplining behaviors.
Childhood Preliminary support was also found for the reliability and validity of the new CPMS. Implications, strengths
Children and limitations, and future directions of this research are also discussed.
Developmental outcomes © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Factor analysis
Parent–child relationships
Parenting

1. Introduction
Ever-changing, societal opinions about “culturally acceptable” forms
of discipline have played a significant role in making discipline a difficult
parenting practice (Renteln, 2010). From early history to the 1950s,
conventional wisdom influenced the use of strict and harsh types of
child discipline. Parents made and enforced the rules, which children
then followed without question and little negotiation. By the late
1950s, however, the approach to discipline changed significantly.
Households became very ‘child-centered’. Parents focused extensively
on the feelings of their children; becoming permissive and reluctant to
set rules and limits. It was not until the 1980s that disciplinary methods
shifted and began to take children's perceptions, temperaments and
abilities into perspective; but doing so while still holding them account-
able to high standards, rules and limits (Renteln, 2010; The Center for
Parenting Education, 2014).
A key consequence of these ever-changing opinions is the constant
confusion about what discipline is and what is acceptable. Accompanied
with the common parental fear of losing control of their children and
today's hurried pace of life (Nieman & Shea, 2004), it is not surprising
that individuals, including parents, confuse discipline with punishment.
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: antonia.kish@uqconnect.edu.au (A.M. Kish), newc@psy.uq.edu.au
(P.A. Newcombe).
“Corporal punishment” (CP) has been defined as “the use of physical
force with the intention of causing a child to experience bodily pain or
discomfort so as to correct or punish the child's behavior” (Gershoff,
2008, p. 9). It can include: spanking, hitting, pinching, squeezing,
paddling, whipping/“whupping”, swatting, smacking, slapping, making
a child kneel on painful objects, and/or forcing a child to stand or sit in
painful positions for long periods of time. As of 2014, parental use of
CP in the home is legislatively prohibited in 38 states and countries
worldwide (Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of
Children, 2014b) including Sweden, Denmark, Norway, New Zealand
and Uruguay. In Australia, the United Kingdom and United States of
America, however, the use of CP to discipline children in the home is
still lawful. Currently, legal defense for the use of corporal punishment
exists across all three countries. Under numerous Acts in Australia, the
United States and the United Kingdom, established provisions and
legal justifications confirm the right for parents to use ‘reasonable’
punishment to discipline their child (Global Initiative to End All
Corporal Punishment of Children, 2013a, 2013b, 2014a).
In countries such as Australia, United States and United Kingdom,
reported prevalence rates for the use of physical punishment are high.
For example, in 2011, 85% of Australian parents admitted to smacking
their child (Godfrey, 2011), while 41.5% of parents in the UK were
found to have physical punished or ‘smacked’ their child (Radford
et al., 2011). In the United States, in 2013, 67% of parents admitted to
smacking their child (Corso, 2013). Moreover, the common use of CP

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.035
0191-8869/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
122 A.M. Kish, P.A. Newcombe / Personality and Individual Differences 87 (2015) 121–129
is still present despite empirical research illustrating that several child-
related negative consequences are associated with its use, and that the
use of CP is an ineffective disciplinary strategy (Gershoff, 2013; Smith,
2005).
Recently, Maguire‐Jack, Gromoske, and Berger (2012) have suggested
that while some studies have labeled CP use as an effective means of
discipline and a way of controlling undesired behavior (e.g.,Baumrind,
1996a, 1996b, 1997; Larzelere, 1996), the majority suggest it is ineffective
and has the potential to cause adverse and long lasting side effects to child
development (Berlin et al., 2009; Slade & Wissow, 2004; Taylor,
Manganello, Lee, & Rice, 2010). These include an increase in anti-social
behavior, aggression, drug, alcohol and anxiety problems (Gershoff,
2002; Grogan-Kaylor, 2005), as well as a decrease in the quality of
parent–child relationships, moral internalization, mental health, cognitive
abilities and self-discipline (Smith, 2004). The evidence presented leads
to the formulation of an important and necessary question that requires
focus and further investigation. Why is it, that despite the evident risk
of harm and the ineffectiveness of CP as a form of discipline, parents still
utilize it as a way to discipline their children?
There is little focused empirical research that has addressed this
question (Reid & Davies, 2009). No specific or empirically-based reason
to explain the continued use of CP as a preferred disciplinary method
has been put forward, however, there have been a number of proposals
that have been tendered. For some time it has been argued that a strong
association exists between parenting and how parents themselves were
raised (Tucci, Mitchell, & Goddard, 2006), the choice of discipline
methods used by their parents and the discipline they received as a
child (Corby, 2006). It is suggested that parents raised with physical
punishment themselves are more likely to use it with their own chil-
dren (Reid & Davies, 2009). Although explanations for this association
are unclear, it appears that parents may behave reactively. Perry
(1996) pointed out that of behaviors learned during the preverbal
years, when brain function pathways are more primitive than cognitive,
the more primitive behaviors are those which individuals later rely on
in times of stress, frustration and fatigue. It follows then, that parents
when behaving reactively might respond instinctively rather than
cognitively. Therefore, and although parents may be aware of the
positive and negative consequences of CP use, they may still be greatly
influenced by earlier learned behaviors (e.g., they themselves were
physically disciplined) and not recent, informative and effective disci-
plinary parenting practices (Perry, 1996). This may provide an explana-
tion for why parents, despite recognizing corporal punishment as
ineffective, might continue to use it as discipline.
Parents are also reported as using CP out of obligation or as a result of
coercion (Reid & Davies, 2009). Such coercion, said to influence parental
behavior, is suggested to be either implied or imagined, or as a result of
overt expressions by others (e.g., family or social groups) about what
is good discipline (Reid & Davies, 2009). Parents rely on the wisdom,
experience and assistance of elders (e.g., their own parents, grandpar-
ents) in determining their own parenting behaviors. However, chal-
lenging the parenting styles of others who are more experienced can
lead to scrutiny from family and friends about the consequences of the
choices parents make. Within families, such issues are usually unspo-
ken, unrecognized and unquestioned, and therefore rarely addressed.
Maintenance of the family status quo seems to be more important
than the effects that can occur as a result of corporal punishment.
These past experiences, together with parental feelings of obligation,
familial opinions, societal norms, fear of criticism, the mixed informa-
tion regarding the effectiveness, morality and consequences of CP use
can lead parents to create their own, personal ideas regarding the
acceptability, effectiveness and consequences of CP (Christophersen,
1992; Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child & Family & Health,
1998). These actions can become a concern when parents begin to use
opinions as validation for their own disciplining behaviors. Furnham
(2005) proposed that if an individual holds a personal ‘lay theory’
(i.e., a myth) that, for example, suggests CP discourages a child from
being ‘naughty’ and helps enlist ‘self-discipline’, such a myth would
lead to both avocation of the theory and to further performance of the
behavior.
Despite limited research within the CP context, Goodnow (1984)
broadly suggested that lay theories are affected by numerous factors
and could predict parent rearing practices. It may be that myths are
closely related to other consistent and wider belief systems. Further-
more, it might be also that, as research in the rape and economics
contexts find (Harbridge & Furnham, 1991), broader and more consis-
tent belief systems of the individual, particularly conservatism, author-
itarianism, work ethic and a just world may be associated with CP
myths. Though not specific to CP, evidence does point to relationships
between these four belief systems and belief in myths. For example,
research in the rape context, does find that higher levels of sexual
conservatism (Burt, 1980), right-wing authoritarianism (Koesterer &
Hoffman, 2003), work ethic and just world beliefs (Rubin & Peplau,
1975) predict higher levels of myth acceptance.
“Myths” are said to serve a psychological function, helping individ-
uals make sense of the world around them. Belief systems are said to
serve as ways to make the world a stable, orderly and predictable
place (Furnham, 2005). That is, they function in such a way to help indi-
viduals establish a cause and effect relationship between phenomena
occurring in their everyday life, which in turn enables them to assign
blame, praise or responsibility (Furnham, 2005). Consistent evidence
reveals that more favorable attitudes towards spanking are associated
with a higher incidence of spanking (Ateah & Durrant, 2005;
Pinderhughes, Dodge, Bates, Pettit, & Zelli, 2000; Vittrup, Holden, &
Buck, 2006). Furthermore, Straus and Donnelly (2001) argued that
certain myths/beliefs, or false ideas are behind the strong support of
the use of smacking and CP.
In 1994, Straus proposed that “myths” were the reasons behind the
strong support of spanking children. He proposed 10 myths in relation
to spanking children. These included: “spanking works better than
other methods”; “spanking is harmless”; “one or two instances will
not cause damage” and “without spanking, children will be spoiled or
run wild”. Straus (2001) suggested that these myths group into two
broad categories — myths about the effectiveness of spanking and
myths about the harmlessness of spanking. He further proposed that
these ideas perpetuated or facilitated the use of physical punishment
by parents, with other researchers also identifying that these mistaken
notions were often used to justify and to rationalize the physical punish-
ment of children (Dorpat, 2007). Although based on limited supporting
research, these common parental beliefs regarding CP are seen as ficti-
tious or simply falsehoods (Straus, 2001). Given that evidence suggests
that the use of CP predicts greater use of CP, it seems appropriate to
investigate these beliefs that lead to this strong support, and as such
greater use of CP. The suggestion made by some researchers that
myths or false ideas exist that perpetuate or facilitate the use of physical
punishment, or rationalize the use of physical punishment should be
further investigate. No study, to date, extensively investigates these
relationships.
As such, the present study sought to identify whether beliefs or
myths about CP use do exist and in turn whether they might predict
the use of CP. Furthermore, it proposed that if indeed they do exist,
and can be measured, then they might provide some evidence for an
explanatory model which illustrates the perpetuation of this discipline
style, especially in the face of the growing evidence illustrating the neg-
ative consequences as a result of its use. However, and more immediate-
ly important, there is no reliable or valid measure to empirically
evaluate their existence or predictive ability. This paper, therefore,
details the development and evaluation of a self-administered measure
of myths relating to corporal punishment, the Corporal Punishment
Myths Scale (CPMS). The aim of the CPMS is to measure the extent to
which individuals believe or accept a set of ‘myths’ proposed to perpet-
uate CP use, which have been identified by past research, but never
measured. In order to achieve this, the present exploratory research
 A.M. Kish, P.A. Newcombe / Personality and Individual Differences 87 (2015) 121–129
sought to examine the underlying dimensions of these CP myths and
their predictive ability in determining CP use. In addition, and based
on previous research within similar contexts, this study examined
whether CP myths were related to other coherent belief systems of
the individual, specifically conservatism, authoritarianism, the work
ethic and the just world, in order to validate this new measure.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
All participants (N = 366) in this study were young people (M age =
19.55 years, SD = 3.79 years) attending a public university in the metro-
politan area of Brisbane, Australia; with 251 identifying as females
(M age = 19.40 years, SD = 3.75 years) and 113 as males (M age =
19.44 years, SD = 3.89 years). The majority of participants in the sample
were Australian (N = 249, 68%). All participants completed the study for
credit towards their course grade. All of the procedures and measures
used in this study were approved by the appropriate ethical review
committee before recruitment and data collection.
Of the total sample, 193 participants (M age = 19.51 years, SD =
3.51 years) were randomly selected to form one sample (Sample 1,
Study 1), while the remaining 173 participants (M age = 19.61 years,
SD = 4.09 years) formed another sample (Sample 2, Study 2). As illus-
trated in A.1 of the Supplementary material, the participants of the
two samples were comparable in terms of their age, gender and socio-
economic status, whether they had children, their religious/spiritual
beliefs and marital status.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. The Corporal Punishment Myth Scale
The development of the CPMS was based on past suggestions of
possible myths regarding the effectiveness and harmlessness of smack-
ing, outlined by Straus (2001), with additional items added to encom-
pass myths about CP use as a function of child (gender and age) and
context (type of misbehavior and setting) characteristics. Ten ‘myths’
proposed by Straus (2001), three by Dubanoski, Inaba, and Gerkewicz
(1983) and an additional four to cover the fictitious beliefs relating to
CP use as a function of child and contextual characteristics were initially
included.
Table A.2 in the Supplementary material lists the original 17 items
included, and details what type of myth each item measures. Each of
the items were worded in the form of a statement to which participants
indicated their level of agreement using a 5-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Total scores
were calculated by summing responses to all items with higher scores
on the CPMS reflecting a higher level of belief in myths about CP.
2.2.2. Authoritarianism
The California Fascist-scale or F-scale (Adorno, 1950) consisting of
26-items was used to assess participants' level of authoritarianism.
The scale required participants to rate their levels of agreement with
statements regarding several components of authoritarianism such as
conventionalism (e.g., Obedience and respect for authority are the most
important virtues children should learn), authoritarian aggression
(e.g., There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel a
great love, gratitude, and respect for his parents), anti-intraception
(e.g., Nowadays more and more people are prying into matters that should
remain personal and private), power (e.g., People can be divided into two
distinct classes: the weak and the strong), destructiveness and cynicism
(e.g., Familiarity breeds contempt) and projectivity (e.g., Nowadays
when so many different kinds of people move around and mix together so
much, a person has to protect himself especially carefully against catching
an infection or disease from them). Participants rated their agreement
with each of the items using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1
123
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A total score was calculated by
summing responses to all 26 items. Higher scores on the F-scale
reflected a greater level of belief in authoritarianism. The reliability of
the F-scale has not been extensively investigated; however in this
study, it was found to have good internal consistency (26 items; α =
.85).
2.2.3. Work Ethic
The Protestant Work Ethic (PWE) Scale (Mirels & Garrett, 1971) con-
sists of 19 items which require participants to rate their levels of agree-
ment with statements regarding attitudes that either endorse or do not
endorse the Protestant Work Ethic (e.g., Distaste for hard work usually
reflects a weakness of character). Participants indicated their level of
agreement to each statement on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A total score of Protes-
tant Work Ethic was obtained by summing each participant's score for
the 19 items. Higher scores on the scale reflected a greater level of
PWE. Past research has found this scale to be of acceptable reliability
(Furnham et al., 1993). In this study the PWE scale had acceptable inter-
nal consistency (19 items; α = .68).
2.2.4. Conservatism
The Social Conservatism Scale (Henningham, 1996) consisting of 27
items was used to assess participants' level of conservatism. The scale
requires participants to rate their levels of agreement with several
items consisting of a single word or short phrase that detailed a contro-
versial topic within society. The scale was balanced with 13 items detail-
ing attitudes or views that would be considered conservative
(e.g., Royalty), while 14 items were liberally orientated (e.g., Australia
as a republic). Participants rated each item using a 5-point Likert-type
scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A total
score can be calculated by summing responses to all 27 items (liberal
items being revere scored) with higher scores reflecting a greater level
of conservatism. Past research assessing the scale's reliability has
found this scale to have good internal consistency with α = .81
(Henningham, 1996). Similar to these findings, the scale was found to
have good internal consistency, (27 items; α = .79).
2.2.5. Just World Beliefs
The Belief in a Just World (BJW) by Lucas, Zhdanova, and Alexander
(2011) was used to assess participant's beliefs about justice for self and
justice for others. The 16-item scale required participants to rate their
levels of agreement with statements regarding beliefs about fair out-
comes (e.g., People usually use fair procedures in dealing with others)
and processes regarding themselves (e.g., I usually receive the outcomes
that I deserve) and others (e.g., I feel that people generally earn the re-
wards and punishments that they get in this world). Participants
responded to each item on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Total BJW scores for each partic-
ipant were calculated by summing responses to all 16 items with higher
scores reflecting a greater level of Belief in a Just World. Strong internal
consistency has been demonstrated for each of the four subscales
(range: .79 to .94); but not the whole scale (Lucas et al., 2011). In this
study, the whole scale was found to have good internal consistency,
(16 items; α = .89).
2.2.6. Corporal punishment use intensions
Parent use of CP differs based on the type of misbehavior (Mulvaney
& Mebert, 2007) and where the misbehavior takes place (Gelles, 2005),
as well as the age (MacKenzie, Nicklas, Brooks-Gunn, & Waldfogel,
2011; Regalado, Sareen, Inkelas, Wissow, & Halfon, 2004) and gender
of the child (Day, Peterson, & McCracken, 1998). As such, and in order
to capture these differences and assess the new scale's concurrent
validity, these factors were varied across four scenarios which each sub-
ject was given, depicting an infraction between a mother and a child.
Age and gender were the two between-subjects variables, given that
124 A.M. Kish, P.A. Newcombe / Personality and Individual Differences 87 (2015) 121–129
boys and girls are corporally punished by parents, as are younger and
older children. The location and type of misbehavior were the two
within- subject variables given that all children, regardless of age or
gender engage in different types of misbehaviours in numerous loca-
tions (e.g., at home, grocery store, restaurants). Therefore, each scenario
differed in terms of the type of infraction depicted (child was acting out
vs. hitting/ making contact with parent); the location of the infraction
(in a public setting vs. at home); the gender (male vs. female) and the
age of the child (4 years vs. 9 years).
Participants were asked how they would respond to the each of the
scenarios in terms of discipline — that is, would they use some form of
CP (e.g., hit, smack, slap, belt the child), ignore the child's misbehavior,
send the child to time out, explain to the child what he/she did wrong
or use some other type of disciplinary technique. Participants' original
responses to each of the scenarios were re-coded into either “No CP
use” or “CP use”, where “No CP use” was coded as a “0” and “CP use”
as a “1”. A total score ranging from 0 to 4 was then created, by summing
the re-coded responses across all four scenarios. A higher score on this
measure reflected a greater intension to use CP. Table A.3 in the Supple-
mentary material provides four examples of the 16 different scenarios
used to measure CP intentions.
2.3. Procedure
Participants were asked to respond to a questionnaire packet that
included all of the measures detailed above. The questionnaire, though
completed individually, was administered in groups ranging from 2 to
24. On average, participants took 20 min to complete the questionnaire.
Participants read an information sheet outlining the purpose of the
study and any potential risks involved. Following this, each completed
the demographics section first, followed by the measures of: (a) CP
myths, (b) authoritarianism, (c) conservatism, (d) work ethic, and
(e) just world beliefs. Following this, each participant read the four
scenarios assigned to them and responded to the corresponding ques-
tion. The presentation order of the five measures was counterbalanced
to avoid any order effects or bias. In addition, four scenarios were
randomly assigned to each participant, where the individual either
read a scenario depicted either a 4-year-old or 9-year-old, either a
female or male child, engaging in two types of misbehaviors, across
two locations.
3. Results
The full data set was randomly split into two, with a first, indepen-
dent group being allocated to the initial exploratory factor analysis or
EFA (Sample 1, Study 1; N = 193) and the second, independent group
to the follow-up confirmatory factor analysis or CFA (Sample 2, Study
2; N = 173). Data screening procedures (see Appendix B in Supplemen-
tary material), followed by an EFA, construct and criterion validation
analysis and a CFA were used to explore the factor structure and psycho-
metric properties of the CPMS.
3.1. Study 1
3.1.1. Exploratory factor analysis
Given the exploratory nature of this study and the heuristic, limited
past theory and research, EFA was firstly conducted to: (a) determine
the number of factors underlying the structure of the 17 CPMS items;
(b) examine whether factors underlying the scale were correlated,
and (c) to summarize the data, by grouping related items.
The Kaiser–Guttman criterion of eigenvalues N 1, examination of
the Scree Plot and the already established theoretical suggestions
were utilized as criteria to determine the number of factors to be
retained (Frank & Keith, 1995; Gorsuch, 1983). Several analyses, using
both Principal Components Analysis (PCA) and Principal Axis Factoring
(PAF) as extraction methods and/or orthogonal and oblique rotation
methods, were conducted to determine which would provide the
most appropriate and parsimonious solution. An item loading of .40
on a factor for all items, was used as the cutoff (Matsunaga, 2010).
Initial analyses revealed 5 factors with eigenvalues N 1. However, in
order to find the most parsimonious and theoretically sound factor solu-
tion; 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-factor solutions using both varimax and oblimin
rotations methods for the factor loading matrix were also examined.
During these preliminary steps, two items were eliminated as they did
not meet the inclusion criteria of an item loading N .40 on any factor.
These items were “A parent cannot stop using corporal punishment to
discipline his/her child unless he/she is trained to use other alternative
means of discipline” (Item 5) and “Corporal punishment should not be
used as a disciplinary measure by the time a child becomes a teenager”
(Item 8). The final four factor solution, using oblique rotation with the
remaining 15 items explained 48% of the variance. Factor 1, labeled
“Harmless Myth” (5 items, e.g., Corporal punishment used to discipline a
child is harmless) explained 31.32% of the variance. Factor 2, “effective
and necessary myth” (6 items, e.g., Corporal punishment teaches a child
how to respect others), explained 6.77% of the variance. Factor 3, “Specific
Occasions Myth” (2 items, e.g., Corporal punishment can be used to disci-
pline a child of any age) explained 5.61% of the variance and Factor 4,
“Rare Use Myth” (2 items, e.g., Corporal punishment should be used as a
last resort to discipline a child) explained 4.57% of the total variance.
The respective factor loadings of each item and labels for each factor
are presented in Table 1.
3.1.2. Reliability
Interrelations among the items of the CPMS were assessed to mea-
sure internal consistency. Overall, the CPMS was found to have good
internal consistency (15 items, α = .84). Cronbach's α for each of the
four factors showed some variability, ranging from .46 (Rare Use
Myth) to .80 (Harmless Myth).
Given the number of items loading on each, the low internal consis-
tency and the amount of variance that each explained, as well as the
non-significant associations of these factors, Factor 3 and Factor 4
were excluded from all of the future analyses performed.
3.1.3. Validity
For convergent validity, associations between total scores on each of
the CPMS subscales and total scores on: (a) the F-scale, (b) the Social
Conservatism Scale, (c) the Protestant Work Ethic (PWE) Scale, and
(d) the Belief in a Just World (BJW) Scale were examined. As can be
seen in Table 2, correlations between the CPMS factors, specifically the
2 retained factors or subscales of the CPMS (“Harmless Myths” and
“Effective & Necessary Myths”) and total scores on the four individual
characteristics were significant, revealing positive associations and as
such evidence for convergent validity of the CPMS.
Similarly, the concurrent validity of the CPMS was evaluated by
assessing the relationship between participants' scores on the four
CPMS subscales and their “CP” scores obtained from the vignettes. As
illustrated in Table 2, significant positive associations, were found be-
tween three of the subscales and CP use; the “Harmless Myths” subscale,
“Effective & Necessary Myths” subscale, and the “Specific Occasions
Myths” subscale, but not the “Rare Use Myths” subscale. The means
and standard deviations for all measures, as well as these correlations
are summarized in Table 2.
3.2. Study 2
3.2.1. Confirmatory factor analysis
In conducting these analyses, a set of Structural Equation Models
(SEMs) using maximum likelihood functions and bootstrapping analy-
ses were implemented using the IBM Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS) Version 20 and AMOS (Analysis of Moment Structures).
Maximum likelihood (ML) estimation was initially applied to the
covariance matrices. However, to take into account the non-normality
 A.M. Kish, P.A. Newcombe / Personality and Individual Differences 87 (2015) 121–129 125

Table 1
Factor loadings for a Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) solution, using oblimin rotation and 15 items of the Corporal Punishment Myths Scale (CPMS). The factor loading provided in italics
represents the final loading of each item of the CPMS on the appropriate factor.

Factor loadings

Statement (item number) “Harmless “Effective & “Specific “Rare

Myth” Necessary Occasions Use
Myth” Myth” Myth”

Using corporal punishment occasionally to discipline a child does not cause damage to a child (4) .87 −.23
Corporal punishment used to discipline a child is harmless (3) .55
Use of corporal punishment teaches a child responsibility and helps develop his/her character (11) .50 .49
Corporal punishment is used to discipline both boys and girls (14) .45 .30
It is unrealistic to think that parents should never use corporal punishment to discipline a child (10) .45
Corporal punishment works better than other methods of discipline (1) .59
Corporal punishment is the only thing that children understand (13) .55 .24
Without use of corporal punishment to discipline children, children become spoilt and will run wild (6) .37 .55
Corporal punishment teaches a child how to respect others (12) .40 .54
Corporal punishment should be used to discipline a child every, single time a child misbehaves (17) .53 −.27
Usually, if corporal punishment cannot be used to discipline a child, then verbal abuse towards a child is .52
appropriate (9)
Parents use corporal punishment to discipline their child both at home and in public (16) .83
Corporal punishment can be used to discipline a child of any age (15) .24 .48
Corporal punishment should be used as a last resort to discipline a child (2) .56
Corporal punishment should only be utilized on rare occasions and/or only for serious problems (7) .55

of the data and the possibility that standard errors may be erratic given
the sample size, overall model fit using the Bollen–Stine Bootstrap ap-
proach was also examined and models compared (Nevitt & Hancock,
2001). Missing data, which was determined to be less than 5% of
the total number of data points (Schafer, 1999), was estimated using
the expectation maximization (EM) algorithm. Model fit was assessed
using a number of fit indices. Overall model fit was determined using
the relative chi-square ratio, χ2/df. A ratio ≥ 2 represents inadequate
fit of a model (Byrne, 1989). Absolute, incremental and residual-based
indices were also used as indicators of model fit. These included the
Normed Fit Index (NFI), the Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI), and the
Comparative Fit Index (CFI); the Squared Root Mean Square (SRMR)
and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). Cut off values
of ≥ .95 for the CFI, NFI and NNFI, and ≤ .09 and ≤ .06 for SRMR and
RMSEA, respectively, were seen as indication of good model fit between
the hypothesized model and the observed data (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Standardized path loadings for the final model were assessed to deter-
mine if best fit was appropriate.
3.2.2. Model testing
Using the EFA factor structure as a base, four possible models were
hypothesized and compared to determine whether the factor structure
of the CPMS was better explained by either (a) a single factor, (b) two,
uncorrelated factors, (c) two, correlated factors or (d) two factors load-
ing onto a single, second-order factor. Table 3 presents the fit indices of
these four models, as well the final model, after re-specification.
As can be seen from Table 3, Models 3 and 4 provided the best fit of
the data. Fit indices though not indicative of a good model, were more

Table 2
Descriptive data and zero-order correlations between conservatism, authoritarianism, work ethic, just world beliefs, corporal punishment myths (four subscales) and corporal punishment
use in the exploratory factor analysis (N = 193).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
a
1. Authoritarianism –
2. Conservatismb .57⁎⁎ –
3. Protestant Work Ethic (PWE)c .47⁎⁎ .30⁎⁎ –
4. Belief in a Just World (BJW)d .30⁎⁎ .21⁎⁎ .33⁎⁎ –
5. Corporal punishment usee .38⁎⁎ .20⁎⁎ .21⁎⁎ .09 –
6. Total belief in CP mythsf .48⁎⁎ .38⁎⁎ .30⁎⁎ .16⁎ .57⁎⁎ –
7. Effective & Necessary Mythsg .60⁎⁎ .38⁎⁎ .28⁎⁎ .18⁎ .57⁎⁎ .85⁎⁎ –
8. Harmless Mythsh .33⁎⁎ .34⁎⁎ .25⁎⁎ .10 .53⁎⁎ .86⁎⁎ .60⁎⁎ –
9. Specific Occasions Mythsi .18⁎ .27⁎⁎ .13 .09 .25⁎⁎ .61⁎⁎ .43⁎⁎ .42⁎⁎ –
10. Rare Use Mythsj .01 .03 .11 .06 −.03 .23⁎⁎ .10 −.01 .03 –
M 74.41 71.55 63.89 52.61 .90 47.96 13.89 15.55 4.98 7.34
SD 11.20 11.05 6.40 8.64 1.10 8.38 4.03 3.74 1.78 1.50
Range 57.00 71.00 36.00 56.00 4.00 48.00 19.00 20.00 8.00 8.00
α .85 .79 .68 .89 – .84 .80 .79 .60 .46

Note:
a
Authoritarianism measured on scale from 0 to 130, with higher scores reflecting greater authoritarianism, 26 items.
b
Conservatism measured on scale from 0 to 135, with higher scores reflecting greater conservatism, 27 items.
c
Protestant Work Ethic measured on scale from 0 to 95, with higher scores on each reflecting greater belief in the work ethic, 19 items.
d
Belief in a Just World measured on scale from 0 to 80, with higher scores on each reflecting greater belief in the just world, 16 items.
e
Corporal punishment (CP) use measured on scale from 0 to 4, with higher number reflecting greater use of CP.
f
Corporal punishment myths measured on scale from 0 to 75, with higher scores reflecting greater myth acceptance, 15 items.
g
Effective & Necessary Myths Subscale measured on a scale from 0 to 30, with higher numbers reflecting greater myths acceptance about the effective and necessity of CP.
h
Harmless Myths Subscale measured on a scale from 0 to 25, with higher numbers reflecting greater myth acceptance about the harmlessness of CP.
i
Specific Occasions Myths Subscale measured on a scale from 0 to 10, with higher numbers reflecting greater myth acceptance about specific occasions of when CP is used.
j
Rare Use Myths Subscale measured on a scale from 0 to 10, with higher numbers reflecting greater myth acceptance about rare use of CP.
⁎ p b .05.
⁎⁎ p b .01.
126 A.M. Kish, P.A. Newcombe / Personality and Individual Differences 87 (2015) 121–129

Table 3
Fit indices for comparisons between four potential models, of a 2 factor model aimed at explaining the structure of the new Corporal Punishment Myths Scale (CPMS). The model labeled, in
this table 3a is the final model.

Model χ2a df b p (ML)c p (BSB)d χ2/df e NFIf NNFIg CFIh SRMRi RMSEAj

1 Single factor (11 items) 147.86 44 b.001 b.001 3.36 .82 .83 .87 .08 .12
2 2 uncorrelated factors (11 items) 298.00 44 b.001 b.001 6.78 .64 .59 .67 .26 .18
3 2 correlated factors (11 items) 144.41 43 b.001 b.001 3.36 .83 .83 .87 .08 .12
3a 2 correlated factors (10 items) 34.94 27 .140 .323 1.29 .96 .98 .99 .04 .04
4 2 factors loading onto a single, second-order factor (11 items) 144.401 43 b.001 .004 3.36 .83 .83 .87 .08 .12

Note: AMOS does not provide S–B χ2 (Satorra–Bentler chi-square); The Bollen–Stine Bootstrap is the alternative and assess overall model fit when taking into consideration non-normal
data (Bollen & Stine, 1992). All models based on N = 173.
a
χ2 = chi-square.
b
df = degrees of freedom.
c
Maximum Likelihood p-value.
d
Bollen–Stine Bootstrap p-value.
e
Chi-square/degrees of freedom.
f
Normed Fit Index.
g
Non-Normed Fit Index.
h
CFI = comparative fit index.
i
SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.
j
RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

acceptable than those of the other models; however, this model still did
not fit the data well. The Bollen–Stine Bootstrap overall model fit mir-
rored the result obtained when using Maximum Likelihood (ML) esti-
mation. However, in both models one item, Item 9 — “Usually, if
corporal punishment cannot be used to discipline a child, then verbal
abuse towards a child is appropriate” showed a low factor loading in
each case and was dropped from further analyses.
3.2.5. Reliability
The final, two-factor version of the CPMS, with 10 items, was found
to be reliable, with a good internal consistency, (10 items; α = .88). The
two subscales, “Harmless Myth” and “Effective and Necessary Myth”,
each yielded good internal consistencies, “Harmless Myth” (5 items;
α = .82) and “effective and necessary myth” (5 items; α = .80).

3.2.3. Model estimation: post-hoc modification of Models 3 and 4

Given the results obtained from the original set of analyses, Table 4
Descriptive data and zero-order correlations between conservatism, authoritarianism,
respecification to improve the fit of Models 3 and 4 was necessary. Inad-
work ethic, just world beliefs, corporal punishment myths and corporal punishment use
equate global model fit, large modification indices and non-uniformly in the confirmatory factor analysis sample (N = 173).
interpretable parameter estimates, as well as need for improvement of
parsimony and interpretability of the model were all reasons for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

respecification of both of these models. Based on Modification Indices 1. Authoritarianisma –

obtained in the original Model 3 and Model 4, error terms of some 2. Conservatismb .50⁎⁎ –
3. Protestant Work .46⁎⁎ .19⁎ –
items were set to covary. Modification indices and parameter changes
Ethic (PWE)c
for the factor loadings were inspected and only items on the same factor 4. Belief in a Just .12 .05 .19⁎ –
were covaried as this was considered the most appropriate and theoret- World (BJW)d
ically sound (Hoyle, 2012). A total of 7 respecified models were tested 5. Corporal .22⁎⁎ .27⁎⁎ .16⁎ −.01 –
punishment usee
and compared, with one model, Model 3a, providing the best fit for
6. Total Belief in CP .41⁎⁎ .33⁎⁎ .25⁎⁎ .21⁎⁎ .52⁎⁎ –
the data. Respecification of Model 4 was considered and obtained, but Myths (CPMS)f
as illustrated in Appendix C.1 in the Supplementary material, even 7. Effective & .49⁎⁎ .43⁎⁎ .27⁎⁎ .15 .50⁎⁎ .91⁎⁎ –
after error terms were correlated for this model, Model 3 still provided Necessary Mythsg
the better fit. 8. Harmless Mythsh .24⁎⁎ .19⁎ .19⁎ .23⁎⁎ .47⁎⁎ .92⁎⁎ .69⁎⁎ –
M 74.13 70.93 63.49 51.76 .97 27.98 11.53 14.87
SD 12.96 11.60 7.25 8.55 1.18 7.50 3.73 4.14
Range 71.00 67.00 36.00 43.00 4.00 35.00 – 19.00
3.2.4. Final model α .86 .80 .71 .89 – .87 .80 .78
The key to CFA is to achieve both parsimony and good model fit. Note:
A final model, including two factors, “Harmless” and “Necessary and a
Authoritarianism measured on scale from 0 to 130, with higher scores reflecting greater
Effective” which were allowed to correlate was analyzed for model fit. authoritarianism, 26 items.
b
The original Model 3, as seen in Table 4, did not provide the best Conservatism measured on scale from 0 to 135, with higher scores reflecting greater
conservatism, 27 items.
fit. Therefore, respecified versions of this model, with 10 items were c
Protestant Work Ethic measured on scale from 0 to 95, with higher scores on each
then tested, where decisions to covary error terms and free parameters reflecting greater belief in the work ethic, 19 items.
based on modification indices and theoretical justifications were made. d
Belief in a Just World measured on scale from 0 to 80, with higher scores on each
The final model provided good fit, χ2 = 34.943, p = .140, χ2/df = 1.294. reflecting greater belief in the just world, 16 items.
e
Corporal punishment (CP) use measured on scale from 0 to 4, with higher num-
The NFI, NNFI and CFI indices were all ≥ .95. Similarly, the residual
ber reflecting greater use of CP.
indices, the RMR and RMSEA, were both ≤ .09 and ≤ .06, respectively. f
Corporal punishment myths measured on scale from 0 to 50, with higher scores
The Bollen–Stine Bootstrap overall model fit mirrored the result obtain- reflecting greater myth acceptance, 10 items.
g
ed when using Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimation, such that taking Effective & Necessary Myths Subscale measured on a scale from 0 to 25, with higher
into consideration the non-normality of the data, the χ2 value remained numbers reflecting greater myths acceptance about the effective and necessity of CP.
h
Harmless Myths Subscale measured on a scale from 0 to 25, with higher num-
non-significant, p = .323. Fig. 1 (attached) illustrates the final model fit
bers reflecting greater myth acceptance about the harmlessness of CP.
of the CPMS, Model 3a, and include the standardized path loadings for ⁎ p b .05.
each item. ⁎⁎ p b .01.
 A.M. Kish, P.A. Newcombe / Personality and Individual Differences 87 (2015) 121–129 127

Fig. 1. Final model of the Corporal Punishment Myth Scale (CPMS). Numbers associated with a single headed arrow represent Standardized Path Loadings. This model is a Two-Factor
Correlated Model, including 10-items of the CPMS, and corresponds to Model 3a which is the final model obtained from the CFA conducted (N = 173).

3.2.6. Validity
As can be seen in Table 4, all correlations between the two CPMS
factors or subscales, “Harmless Myths” and “Effective and Necessary
Myths” and total scores on the authoritarianism, conservatism, work
ethic and just world beliefs, as well as intention of CP use were signifi-
cantly correlated The means and standard deviations for all measures,
as well as these correlations between all variables are summarized in
Table 4.
4. Discussion
The current study aimed to identify whether beliefs or myths about
corporal punishment (CP) existed, and in turn sought to investigate
whether they might predict the use of CP. The Corporal Punishment
Myths Scale (CPMS) was designed to measure the extent to which indi-
viduals believed or accepted a set of ‘myths’ identified by past research
and proposed to perpetuate CP use. It was hypothesized that potential
patterns within the gathered data would be best explained by a four
factor model in which the scale items loaded upon factors depicting
CP effectiveness; CP harmlessness; situations and contexts when CP
is commonly used. The first two factors, “Effectiveness Myths” and
“Harmless Myths” had been previously identified (Dubanoski et al.,
1983; Straus, 2001) as two types of myths that may exist in relation to
use of smacking; a form of CP. The third and fourth proposed factors
reflected empirical evidence summarizing existing differences in paren-
tal use of CP.
Based on the EFA, four factors were identified — “Harmless Myths”
(5 items), “effective” or “necessary” myths (5 items), “Specific Occa-
sions Myths” (2 items) and “rare myths” (2 items). These EFA results
confirm that myths regarding CP can be measured and are multidimen-
sional. However, given that the last two factors identified in the EFA
consisted of 2 items each and were unreliable, the final model, which
provided the best fit of the data, included only two latent factors. The
“myths labeling CP as harmless” factor (5 items) – measuring fictitious
beliefs suggesting CP to be harmless to children, causing no damage;
and the “myths regarding CP use as effective and necessary” factor
(5 items) – where these mirror fictitious beliefs that suggest CP to
teach children how to respect others or how, if not used can lead to
children become even more misbehaved. This model provided good
fit for the data with all indices above the established thresholds.
This model also provides evidence that two types of myths about CP
128 A.M. Kish, P.A. Newcombe / Personality and Individual Differences 87 (2015) 121–129
harmlessness and effectiveness and necessity are high correlated, and
similar with that most common types proposed by Straus (2001). The
final 10-item CPMS was found to be reliable, with the overall scale
and each subscale showing good internal consistency.
The CPMS was also found to be valid. The positive correlations
between the overall scale and subscales, and the measures of authori-
tarianism, conservatism, work ethic and just work beliefs provided evi-
dence to suggest that an individual's level of ‘myth’ belief relate to
similar constructs. This provides evidence for the scale's convergent va-
lidity. The significant positive association between scores on the whole
CPMS, as well as each subscale and intention to use CP, also support the
validity of the new scale with this result providing evidence for the
scale's concurrent validity. The current study, through exploratory and
confirmatory analysis with independent samples showed the develop-
ment of a 10-item scale, measuring myths regarding CP. No much mea-
sure, to date has been previously developed. Evidence for the scale's
reliability and validity is also presented. This study also confirms that
myths regarding CP do exist, can be measured and are multidimension-
al, with two higher-order factors or subscales illustrating the most com-
mon types of myths.
There are several limitations to this study. Firstly, in terms of the
development of the CPMS, it should also be noted that the ‘myths’
included in the CPMS are all common, fictitious beliefs that favor the
use of CP and essentially perpetuate or make it more likely that the in-
dividual would use it as a disciplinary method. The CPMS, therefore,
does not include other types of myths, for example those that inhibit
the use of CP, which are also probable and common, and as such
might also be likely to influence use of CP. Conducting a priori qualita-
tive study to gain a more in-depth understanding about parenting
behaviors in relation to CP use and the reasons behind them might
have been useful. This would have permitted a deeper investigation
into why and how parents use CP and would have identified other gen-
eral propositions or common beliefs about CP; hereby better informing
the construction of other potential items within the initial CPMS.
Secondly, both the validity and reliability of the CPMS were exam-
ined using either one or two indicators. The study did not analyze
other psychometric indicators such as face, discriminant or predictive
validity, nor did it attempt to assess test–retest, inter-rater or parallel
form/s reliability. Only examining a small number of indicators may
not necessarily equate to a reliable instrument. Finally, the population
used in this study was a sample of first year psychology students
which included very few parents. This may limit ecological validity.
Before any practical application of this scale, it is important that the
scale is validated and psychometrically examined with parent popula-
tions. This study does provide data that suggests CP myths exist and
can be measured. However, future research is needed to explore its use-
fulness in with parents and understanding their disciplinary behaviors.
5. Applications, future directions & conclusions
The 10-item CPMS would be useful to measure parent levels or
beliefs in CP myths, which could be a precursor for predicting CP use
or intentions. The scale could benefit from application in a study in
which parents of young children are the sample of interest, in order to
investigate: 1) its predictive ability, 2) how myths may related to actual
CP use; and 3) whether CP myths lay at the foundation of parental use of
CP. From a practical perspective, the CPMS could be included as part of
current measures which are administered to parents when attending
parenting interventions, in order to investigate whether such beliefs,
and myths might be influencing parenting practices.
Whether the CPMS is valid and reliable warrants more research.
Future research should further assess the scale's validity and reliability
with parents and by using additional psychometric indicators. A study,
in form of a parent survey may also provide a more in-depth under-
standing of “CP myths” by providing more information about the all of
the common beliefs about CP, to be might be tested empirically. The
17 items used here were an initial step in understanding CP myths,
but they may not have incorporated all aspects of the construct. Perhaps
other types of myths, such as those that inhibit the use of CP exist, which
also are likely to influence the use of CP, hereby decreasing its use, might
be included.
This study, however, addressed an important gap in the research, by
developing and evaluating a self-administered scale, the Corporal
Punishment Myths Scale (CPMS), which aimed to measure individual
levels of belief in ‘myths’ said to perpetuate the use of CP . Potential
patterns of CP myths were shown through the exploratory analyses per-
formed, while the confirmatory analyses revealed that the CP myths
construct was consistent with previous theory. Furthermore, future
research is needed to address the limitations identified, before conclu-
sions are drawn about the structure and psychometric properties of
the CPMS, and recommendations are made for how it might be used
in practice.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.035.
References
Adorno, T. W. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper.
Ateah, C. A., & Durrant, J. E. (2005). Maternal use of physical punishment in response to
child misbehavior: Implications for child abuse prevention. Child Abuse & Neglect,
29(2), 169–185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.10.010.
Baumrind, D. (1996a). A blanket injunction against disciplinary use of spanking is not
warranted by the data. Pediatrics, 98(4 Pt 2), 828.
Baumrind, D. (1996b). The discipline controversy revisited. Family Relations, 45(4),
405–414.
Baumrind, D. (1997). Necessary distinctions. Psychological Inquiry, 8(3), 176–182. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0803_2.
Berlin, L. J., Malone, P. S., Ayoub, C., Ispa, J. M., Fine, M. A., Brooks-Gunn, J., ... Bai, Y. (2009).
Correlates and consequences of spanking and verbal punishment for low-income
White, African American, and Mexican American toddlers. Child Development,
80(5), 1403–1420.
Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. A. (1992). Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit measures in structural
equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 21, 205–229.
Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 38(2), 217–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.2.217.
Byrne, B. M. (1989). A primer of LISREL: Basic applications and programming for confirma-
tory factor analytic models. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Christophersen, E. R. (1992). Discipline. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 39(3), 395–411.
Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child; Family & Health (1998). Guidance for
effective discipline. Pediatrics, 101(4), 723.
Corby, B. (2006). Child abuse: Towards a knowledge base. Maidenhead: Open University
Press.
Corso, R. A. (2013). Four in five Americans believe parents spanking their children is some-
times appropriate. New York: Harris Poll and Public Relations, Harris Interactive.
Day, R. D., Peterson, G. W., & McCracken, C. (1998). Predicting spanking of younger and
older children by mothers and fathers. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60(1), 79.
Dorpat, T. L. (2007). Crimes of punishment: America's culture of violence. New York: Algora
Publishing.
Dubanoski, R. A., Inaba, M., & Gerkewicz, K. (1983). Corporal punishment in schools:
Myths, problems and alternatives. Child Abuse & Neglect, 7(3), 271–278. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(83)90004-2.
Frank, J. F., & Keith, F. W. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of
clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.286.
Furnham, A. (2005). Spare the rod and spoil the child: Lay theories of corporal punish-
ment. In M. Donnelly, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), Corporal punishment of children in theoret-
ical perspective (pp. 134–151). New Haven & London: Yale University Press.
Furnham, A., Van Daalen, H., Bond, M., Heaven, P., Hilton, D., Lobel, T., ... Stacey, B. (1993).
A comparison of protestant work ethic beliefs in thirteen nations. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 133(2), 185–197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1993.9712136.
Gelles, R. J. (2005). Exchange theory. In M. Straus, & M. Donnelly (Eds.), Corporal punish-
ment of children in theoretical perspective. London, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors
and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin,
128(4), 539–579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.539.
Gershoff, E. T. (2008). Report on physical punishment in the United States: What research
tells us about its effects on children. Columbus, Ohio: Center for Effective Discipline.
Gershoff, E. T. (2013). Spanking and child development: We know enough now to stop
hitting our children. Child Development Perspectives, 7(3), 133–137. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/cdep.12038.
 A.M. Kish, P.A. Newcombe / Personality and Individual Differences 87 (2015) 121–129
Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children (2013a). Australia — Country
report: Summary of necessary legal reform to achieve full prohibition. from http://
www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/reports/australia.html
Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children (2013b). United Kingdom —
Country report: Summary of necessary legal reform to achieve full prohibition. from
http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/reports/uk.html
Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children (2014a). Corporal punish-
ment of children in the USA. from http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/
progress/reports/usa.html
Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children (2014b). States with full
abolition. from http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/prohib_
states.html
Godfrey, A. (2011). Hands raised, we're smack addicts: Australian parents open about
smacking kids. Retrieved April 7th, 2013, from http://www.news.com.au/national-
news/australian-parents-do-smack-their-children/story-e6frfkvr-1226134667946
Goodnow, J. J. (1984). Parents' ideas about parenting and development: A review of issues
and recent research. In M. Lamb, B. Rogoff, & A. Brown (Eds.), Advances in
developmental psychology, Vol. 4. (pp. 193–242). Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.
Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2005). Corporal punishment and the growth trajectory of children's
antisocial behavior. Child Maltreatment, 10(3), 283–292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1077559505277803.
Harbridge, J., & Furnham, A. (1991). Lay theories of rape. Counselling Psychology Quarterly,
4(1), 3–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09515079108254425.
Henningham, J. P. (1996). A 12-item scale of social conservatism. Personality
and Individual Differences, 20(4), 517–519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-
8869(95)00192-1.
Hoyle, R. H. (2012). Handbook of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
Hu, L. -t., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analy-
sis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
Koesterer, M., & Hoffman, J. (2003). Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Rape Myth Accep-
tance in Female College Students. Poster was presented at the Webster University Un-
dergraduate Behavioral and Social Science Research Fair.
Larzelere, R. E. (1996). A review of the outcomes of parental use of nonabusive or custom-
ary physical punishment. Pediatrics, 98(4 Pt 2), 824.
Lucas, T., Zhdanova, L., & Alexander, S. (2011). Procedural and distributive justice beliefs
for self and others: Assessment of a four-factor individual differences model.
Journal of Individual Differences, 32(1), 14–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/
a000032.
MacKenzie, M. J., Nicklas, E., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Waldfogel, J. (2011). Who spanks infants
and toddlers? Evidence from the fragile families and child well-being study. Children
and Youth Services Review, 33(8), 1364–1373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.
2011.04.007.
Maguire‐Jack, K., Gromoske, A. N., & Berger, L. M. (2012). Spanking and child develop-
ment during the first 5 years of life. Child Development, 83(6), 1960–1977. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01820.x.
Matsunaga, M. (2010). How to factor-analyze your data right: Do's, don'ts, and how-to's.
International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 97–110.
Mirels, H. L., & Garrett, J. B. (1971). The protestant ethic as a personality variable. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 36(1), 40–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0030477.
Mulvaney, M. K., & Mebert, C. J. (2007). Parental corporal punishment predicts behavior
problems in early childhood. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(3), 389–397. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.3.389.
129
Nevitt, J., & Hancock, G. (2001). Performance of bootstrapping approaches to model test
statistics and parameter standard error estimation in structural equation modeling.
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8(3), 353–377. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_2.
Nieman, P., & Shea, S. (2004). Effective Discipline for Children. Paediatric Child Health,
9(1), 37–41.
Perry, B. D. (1996). Maltreated children: Experience, brain development, and the next
generation. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Pinderhughes, E. E., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., & Zelli, A. (2000). Discipline
responses: Influences of parents' socioeconomic status, ethnicity, beliefs about
parenting, stress, and cognitive-emotional processes. Journal of Family Psychology,
14(3), 380–400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.14.3.380.
Radford, L., Corral, S., Bradley, C., Fisher, H., Bassett, C., Howat, N., & Collishaw, S. (2011).
Child abuse and neglect in the UK today. (London, United Kingdom).
Regalado, M., Sareen, H., Inkelas, M., Wissow, L. S., & Halfon, N. (2004). Parents' discipline
of young children: Results from the national survey of early childhood health.
Pediatrics, 113(6 Suppl.), 1952.
Reid, E., & Davies, C. (2009). Smacking: Is it child discipline or a child protection issue?
Communities, Children and Families Australia, 4(2), 46–52.
Renteln, A. D. (2010). Corporal punishment and the cultural defense. Law and
Contemporary Problems, 73(2), 253.
Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1975). Who believes in a just world? Journal of Social Issues,
31(2), 65–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1975.tb00997.x.
Schafer, J. L. (1999). Multiple imputation: A primer. Statistical Methods in Medical
Research, 8(1), 3–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/096228099671525676.
Slade, E. P., & Wissow, L. S. (2004). Spanking in early childhood and later behavior
problems: A prospective study of infants and young toddlers. Pediatrics, 113(5),
1321–1330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.113.5.1321.
Smith, A. (2004). What do children learn from being smacked? Messages from social
science theory and research. Childrenz Issues: Journal of the Children's Issues Centre,
8(2), 7–15.
Smith, A. B. (2005). The state of research on the effects of physical punishment. Social
Policy Journal of New Zealand, 27, 114–127.
Straus, M. A. (2001). 10 myths that perpetuate corporal punishment. In M. A. Straus, & D.
A. Donnelly (Eds.), Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in American
families and its effects on children (pp. 149–164). New Brunswick, United States:
Transaction Publishers.
Straus, M. A., & Donnelly, D. A. (2001). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in
American families and its effects on children. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
Taylor, C. A., Manganello, J. A., Lee, S. J., & Rice, J. C. (2010). Mothers' spanking of 3-year-
old children and subsequent risk of children's aggressive behavior. Pediatrics, 125(5),
e1057–e1065. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-2678.
The Center for Parenting Education (2014). Discipline: An introduction to discipline. Re-
trieved April 2014, from http://centerforparentingeducation.org/library-of-articles/
discipline/introduction-discipline/
Tucci, J., Mitchell, J., & Goddard, C. (2006). Crossing the line: Making the case for changing
Australian laws about the physical punishment of children. Ringwood, Vic: Australian
Childhood Foundation.
Vittrup, B., Holden, G. W., & Buck, J. (2006). Attitudes predict the use of physical punish-
ment: A prospective study of the emergence of disciplinary practices. Pediatrics,
117(6), 2055–2064. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2005-2204.