Is Juvenile Delinquency and Aggression Produced by Permissive
or Punitive Parenting: Re-evaluating 50 years of Research
Rachel Lafond Paul Robinson
Abstract
Re-evaluating 50 years of research we have searched for parental causes of juvenile delinquency and adolescent aggression. The stance of Freud, Adler, and Rogers on reinforcement and punishment being detrimental has been disproved with empirical studies. Major research studies such as those done by Glueck and Glueck in 1950, and Sears, Maccoby and Levin in 1957 concluded that parental punishment and oversupervision were the cause or prompters of delinquency and aggression. However, through re-evaluation, it is found that research actually proves the opposite. Parental permissiveness and laxness is the cause or prompter of such delinquent and aggressive behavior. In fact, children coming from homes with permissive parents are thirteen times more likely to produce delinquent and aggressive behavior than children coming from homes with overly strict and punitive parents. McCord and McCord reported a thirteen year study in 1959 of 650 11 year old children and concluded that parental permissiveness rather than parental punishment produce delinquency and aggression. Also, they report that the research project’s main goal of using psychologically based talking out approaches rather than punishment to reduce juvenile delinquency was a major failure. From other studies such as Nye’s study of 2219 high school students in 1959 and Paulson’s study of California adolescents incarcerated for striking their parents in 1990, the conclusions were the same. Permissive parenting far more than punitive parenting result in juvenile delinquency and adolescent aggression.
In 1998, Anthony Biglan gave a presentation at the American Psychological Association National Convention in which he said society was adopting scientifically unsupported parenting systems rather than those supported by empirical evidence. He stated scientifically unsupported parenting systems such as Parent Effectiveness Training (PET) and Systematic Training for Effective Parenting (STEP) were being advocated by mental health professionals and accepted by society.
Few parenting specialists would argue with the idea that punishment free parenting systems such as PET, STEP, and Freudian parenting espoused by Benjamin Spock are being talked about more and advocated more by mental health professionals at this time than consequence based parenting systems that advocate the parental use of rewards and punishments. In fact a recent survey of state foster care programs (Robinson, Robinson, Drebot, Lemkau, & Dew, 2000) showed over 85% of state foster care programs teach the idea that punishment is a detrimental behavior change procedure that parents should avoid.
Prior to the 1950s, Benjamin Spock (1946) gave out parenting advice that was based on Freudian theory. Instead of encouraging parents to handle discipline problems with punishments, Spock advocated a talking-it-out approach with Freud’s emphasis on building warm parent-child relationships and “understanding” the child. In the 1970s, PET and STEP with their strong claims against the use of punishment came on the scene. While Spock (1976), PET (1970), nor STEP (1976) cited any scientific evidence to support their anti-punishment orientation, later books condemning parental punishment, which did cite research evidence, typically began by citing research evidence collected in the 1950s. For example, in his book Discipline That Works (1989) Gordon provides what he claims is a comprehensive review of the research evidence on the value of punishment in parenting. In Spare the Child (1991) Greven cites research suggesting parental punishment is detrimental to children. Both Gordon and Greven refer to studies published in the 1950s such as Sears (1957), Glueck & Glueck (1950) and McCord & McCord (1959) to support their argument against parental punishment.
The purpose of this paper is to revisit the research studies published mainly in the 1950s and show that the major research studies evaluating the potential causes of juvenile delinquency and child aggression demonstrate permissive parenting methods rather than punitive parenting as their conclusions indicate. Such examples as PET, STEP, and Freudian parenting are more responsible for juvenile delinquency and anti-social aggressive behavior than parenting that involves the appropriate and consistent use of punishment.
This paper is divided into eleven sections. The first section gives a historical look at the emergence of the punishment free psychological theories of Freud, Adler, and Rogers in the United States as mental health professionals. At the same time, the juvenile courts were attempting to better understand the causes of juvenile delinquency and aggressive behavior in children. The second section deals with interview research studies published in the 1950s that looked at the role of parental punishment and permissive parenting on juvenile delinquency and aggression. The third section looks at field experiments and interview studies, which conclude parental permissiveness rather than parental punishment causes delinquency and aggression. The fourth section looks at field research that concluded punishment free counseling approaches do not reduce juvenile delinquency and aggression. The fifth section looks at research reviews that involve re-evaluating past research whose conclusions seem inconsistent with their data. The sixth section reviews research looking at empirical evidence for or against the effectiveness of the three punishment free parenting systems. The seventh section looks at empirical evidence supporting specific behavior change procedures such as reinforcement, punishment, modeling, unconditional love, active listening and logical consequences. The eighth section looks at behavior change procedures that do reduce delinquency and aggression. The ninth section looks at corporal punishment research findings. The tenth section looks at research showing reinforcement and punishment are effective in changing behavior. The eleventh section briefly summarizes the empirical evidence which suggests parental laxness and permissiveness are more responsible for juvenile delinquency and aggression than parental supervision and punishment.
1. Historical Look at Punishment Free Parenting Systems and Juvenile Delinquency and
Aggression
The causes of juvenile delinquency and anti-social aggression in children became major concern in the United States in the early decades of the 1900s as there was a dramatic rise in juvenile delinquency and crime up through the 1930s. Two events occurred during this time which prompted the mental health profession to carry out studies designed to identify the causes of juvenile delinquency and aggression. One of these events was R.A. Fisher (1925) authoring a book which identified an effective experimental paradigm that could be used by mental health professionals. Fisher’s experimental approach included the use of control groups of subjects within the experimental design and the use of inferential statistics to determine whether the effects of any independent variable in the investigation are significant or not. This experimental paradigm provided researchers with greater confidence in identifying psychological cause and effect relationships.
The second event was development of a psychological theory which suggested an explanation for causes of juvenile delinquency and aggression along with a possible solution. That theory was developed by Sigmund Freud.
Before Freud’s theory impacted the United States the theories of Cesare Lombroso, a professor of psychiatry in Italy were used as the most prominent explanation for criminal behavior. In the 1870s, Lombroso argued that criminals were mainly the product of genetics. Most criminals were born to be criminals. Lombroso’s theory was supported by reports such as Dugdale’s (1877) study of criminal inmates in the state of New York. Dugdale reported on one family line from which 140 convicted criminals came including 60 chronic thieves and 50 prostitutes over a one hundred-year period.
In 1909, a British psychiatrist, Dr. William Healy, moved from Europe to Chicago and began working in the juvenile court system. Being familiar with Freud’s work which was considered new at that time, Healey began pushing the idea that the cause of delinquent behavior in juveniles was due more to social factors identified by Freud than to hereditary factors. After Healey integrated Freud’s theory into the problems of juvenile delinquency in two books, The Individual Delinquent (1915) and Mental Conflicts and Misconduct (1917), he became the director of the Judge Baker Guidance Center affiliated with Harvard University. By 1920, Healey’s work and ideas became the “cornerstone of the mental hygiene and child guidance movements that were evolving at this time and were dominated by Freud’s supporters” (Torrey, 1992, p.149).
While Healey was promoting Freudian theory in juvenile court systems, Dr. Bernard Glueck was concurrently advocating Freudian theory with adult criminal offenders. Glueck (1916) claimed the idea that criminal behavior was due to heredity and was “wide-spread superstition.” Glueck argued that institutionalized criminals could be rehabilitated with Freudian psychoanalysis. A third psychiatrist, Dr. William White, with strong political and governmental connections, forcefully positioned Freud’s psychoanalytic approach as the number one mental health solution for criminals. White went so far as to claim criminals should not be punished because their actions were unconsciously motivated. He also argued that prisons should be replaced by psychiatric treatment centers.
In 1902, Alfred Adler, an Opthamalogist turned psychiatrist began working with Freud in Europe. In 1911, disagreements between Adler and Freud resulted in them going their separate ways. While disagreeing with Freud on the role of sex as man’s basic motivation, Adler agreed with Freud about parental punishment being a detrimental behavior change procedure. Working with Adler in the early 1930s, Rudolf Dreikurs advanced Adler’s punishment free psychodynamically based parenting ideas in the United States.
Benjamin Spock was introduced to Freud’s psychological theory through his politically active wife, the former Jane Cheney, and wrote the book Baby and Child Care in 1946. This book included Freudian based parenting ideas. Over 40 million copies of Spock’s book were sold, as it continued to claim parental over supervision was substantially responsible for children’s problems. Spock vehemently denied being a permissive parent, yet admitted his childrearing advice directed parents to become more permissive. In 1989, Spock admitted his parenting advice was incorrect as he stated, “It’s professional people- like me - who have gotten the parents afraid of their children’s hostility, and I don’t know if we can undo it. Pandora’s box has been opened,” (Torrey, 1992, p. 142). Spock said the information in his book should be revised to counteract a growing tendency toward over-permissiveness among parents.
With Adler dying in 1937, Dreikurs carried the banner of Adler’s parenting theory through his parenting books until Dinkmeyer and McKay (1976) authored Systematic Training for Effective Parenting (STEP) a complete parenting system based on Adler and Dreikurs scientifically unsupported parenting ideas.
Born in 1902, Carl Rogers was raised in a religious home that believed in a living God and believed the Bible was an inspired book. In 1922, Rogers changed his religious beliefs, there after believing man created God rather than God created man. He adopted the ideas of an ancient Chinese scribe, Lao Tse, which includes the belief that parents should not try to direct their children through the use of consequences-rewards and punishments.
In the late 1930s, mental health professionals were convinced that Freud’s non-punitive psychoanalytic counseling approach and Roger’s non-punitive, non-directive counseling approach could effectively reduce juvenile delinquency. He implemented a research project involving 650 youth where data was collected on the youth for thirty years.
In 1962, Thomas Gordon began giving parenting workshops based on Rogers non-punitive, non-directive psychological theory. In 1970, Gordon authored Parent Effectiveness Training (PET), a permissive parenting system which advocated parents be supportive of their children, but avoid using consequences in efforts to direct or correct their children. According to Gordon, parents need to accept any behavior that a child is unwilling to change. Neither Rogers nor Gordon carried out any empirical studies to empirically validate their belief in parenting without consequences. Prior to 1989, neither Freud, Spock, Adler, Dreikurs, Rogers, Gordon’s nor any of their parenting advocates produced any substantive review of the empirical research literature which show punishment and reinforcement to be detrimental behavior change procedures or showed the behavior change procedures incorporated in their parenting systems to be effective.
2. The 1950 and 60s Interview Research on Causes of Juvenile Delinquency and
Aggression
In 1950, Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck published the results of a very extensive and long term study of 1000 eleven to eighteen year old young men, 500 of whom were incarcerated. The Glueck’s goal was to identify the causes of juvenile delinquency. They looked at over 400 factors and their potential for causing juvenile delinquency. The Gluecks’ found the parents of delinquent boys were twice as likely to employ physical punishment than parents of boys not in detention centers. They found 86% of delinquent parents and 74% of control parents report not using reasoning in discipline. They found 1 ½ times more delinquent boys did not have warm relationships with their mothers than control boys. From these results the Glueck’s concluded the use of physical punishment by parents, the lack of reasoning when disciplining, and the lack of parental warmth were the main factors in creating juvenile delinquency.
When reviewing the Glueck’s data we noted (1) delinquent parents were twice as likely to be inconsistent in their discipline than control parents, (2) delinquent boys were 13 times (57% to 4.4%) more likely to come from homes with permissive mothers than punitive overly strict mothers, (3) 93% of the delinquent boys came from families where the mothers did not keep a close watch on their sons and let their sons make their own choices, and (4) delinquent boys are 5 times (64% to 13%) more likely to come from families that let the boy fend for himself than control boys.
It appeared to us that the Glueck’s data really indicates that permissive parenting was a bigger factor in producing juvenile delinquency than parental punitiveness. We were surprised to see the Gluecks picked out physical punishment, lack of reasoning, and lack of warmth to be causes of juvenile delinquency over permissive parenting. However, when we later found out Sheldon Glueck’s older brother was such a strong advocate of Freud’s theory, it seemed to explain why the Gluecks’ identified three factors which are consistent with Fruedian theory.
A second well cited study claiming parental punishment is responsible for aggressive and misbehaving children is the study done by Sears, Maccoby, and Levin (1957).
Three hundred seventy nine New England mothers with a child approximately five years of age, plus a husband were interviewed for two hours with 72 questions on topics including feeding, toilet training, dependency, sex, aggression, restrictions and demands, techniques of training, and conscience development. While 92% of the mothers admitted to using physical punishment on their child, 17% of the middle class mothers and 33% of the working class mothers were rated high on the use of physical punishment. After asking mothers whether spanking caused their child to feel hurt or anger, 54% of the mothers reporting spanking caused hurt feelings and said spanking did some good, while 43% of the mothers reporting spanking caused anger and said spanking did some good.
Mothers rated as frequent users of physical punishment reported different effects of physical punishment, depending on whether they were high or low in also using reasoning with the child, and depending on whether that mother was rated high or low in terms of being warm to the child. Of the mothers rated high in use of physical punishment plus high in reasoning, 57% reported spanking did their child good. Only 38% of mothers concurrently rated high in spanking
and low in reasoning reported spanking did their child good. Sixty six percent of mothers concurrently rated high in spanking frequency and high in warmth toward their child reported spanking did their child good, while 43% of mothers high in spanking and low in warmth reported spanking did their child good. Approximately 40% of mothers rated low in the frequency of using punishment claimed spanking did their child good, no matter whether they were rated high or low on warmth or use of reasoning.
Forty nine percent of the mothers reported their children exhibited “some” aggression toward their parents, while 17% reported their children exhibited a substantial amount of aggression toward their parents. Ninety five percent of the mothers reported instances of strong aggression directed toward the parents. Sears et al. (1957) reported parental use of severe physical punishment on children for non-aggressive misbehavior (e.g. lying, stealing) had no effect on increasing children’s aggression (p. 264). They also reported a significant increase in parental use of physical punishment for a child’s aggressive misbehavior substantially increased a child’s aggressive behavior (p. 262).
Sears et al. (1957) reported a significant correlation between permissiveness and aggression ( r = .23), and a significant correlation ( r = .16) between physical punishment use and aggressive behavior in children. They also reported 55% of the mothers used reasoning in disciplining their child, substantially higher than the 25% reported by Glueck and Glueck (1950). Sears et al. (1957) reported 51% of the mothers claimed to use little, if any, reasoning in disciplining, substantially lower than reported by Glueck and Glueck (1957).
In terms of social class differences Glueck and Glueck (1950) reported middle class mothers being more permissive than lower class mothers. This was consistent with Sears et al. (1957) findings, yet in contradiction to Havinghurst and Davis’s (1955) well-cited study on class differences.
Sears et al. (1957) reported 45% of the mothers indicated they were inconsistent in following through with punishment while Glueck and Glueck (1950) reported 35% of mothers of delinquents and 21% of mothers of control boys were inconsistent. Fifty one percent of the mothers report infrequently using tangible rewards in child training. Most felt the use of material rewards was bad (p. 321).
Being impressed with Sears, et al.’s (1957) methodology and aggression oriented measures, Bandura and Walters (1959) attempted to expand the use of Sears, et al.’s approach from five year olds to adolescent boys 14 to 18 years of age. Bandura and Walters selected 26 boys on probation and 26 control boys from two parent families in California, and interviewed both parents as well as each boy. Building on Sears et al.’s (1957) efforts to integrate their study results into a theoretical system that would produce a more complete understanding of adolescent aggression and its abuse to society (including parents), Bandura and Walters (1959) increased the types of aggression measured and collected data from fathers and sons rather than from just the mothers.
From mother and father interviews Bandura and Walters (1959) obtained the following information:
1. There was no significant difference between the four possible groups (mother-dad x delinquent son-control son) in terms of severity of punishment given by the parent to the
adolescent (p. 106).
2. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of restrictions on the boys (relates to possible permissiveness) (p. 195-209).
3. There were no significant differences between the four groups in terms of placing responsibility demands on the boys (p. 208).
4. Control fathers reasoned with their sons more than fathers of aggressive sons (p. 230). (p. < 02; control x = 8.25, aggressive x = 7.33).
5. Control mothers reasoned more with their sons than mothers of aggressive sons (p. L. 001; control x = 8.35, aggressive x = 7.33) (p. 230).
6. Parental ratings indicated differences in warmth between control and aggressive fathers, but no significant differences between mothers on warmth (p. 278).
7. Aggressive boys showed significantly less guilt about their aggression than control boys
(p. 289).
8. There were significant differences of physical aggression toward mothers between aggression and control boys (p. < 05; control x = 2.02, aggressive x = 2.35).
9. Control boys and aggressive boys equally identified with their mothers (p. 308).
10. Both groups of parents made little use of material rewards in training children (p. 217). The majority of the parents reported that the use of rewards was not a good parenting practice.
11. Aggressive boys were significantly more aggressive against fathers than control boys (aggressive x = 2.00, control x = 2.23).
12. No significant difference in verbal aggression toward father of aggressive (x = 4.62) boys
and control boys ( x = 4.13).
13. Significantly more indirect aggression (slam doors, stamp around) against fathers from
aggressive boys (x = 5.33) than control boys (x = 4.23).
14. Significantly more physical aggression toward mothers from aggressive boys (x = 2.35)
than control boys (x = 2.02).
15. No significant difference in verbal aggression toward mother from aggressive boys (x = .60) and control boys (x = 5.25).
16. No significant difference in indirect aggression toward mother from aggressive boys (x =
6.31) and control boys (x = 5.79).
17. Aggressive boys significantly more aggressive than control boys toward teachers in
terms of physical aggression, verbal aggression, hostility, and indirect aggression.
18. Both mothers and fathers of aggressive boys significantly more punitive for their boys
being aggressive to other adults than control boy parents.
From the boy’s interviews, the following information was obtained:
1. The boys report (p. 209) parental responsibility demands were higher for control parents
than aggressive parents (inconsistent with parent reports).
2. The boys report (p. 209) no difference between any of the parents in terms of
restrictions placed on the boys (consistent with parental reports).
3. The boys report (p. 241) fathers of aggressive boys use significantly more physical punishment than control fathers (inconsistent with parental reports).
4. The control and mothers of aggressive boys do not significantly differ on the amount of punishment given (consistent with parental reports).
5. The boys report (p. 241) control fathers reason more than fathers of aggressive boys (p <. 01; control x = 4.15, aggressive x = 2.67); but there is no significant difference between mothers (inconsistent with parental reports).
6. Aggressive boys report (p. 242) being more resistant to fathers’ discipline than control boys to their fathers; no significant difference in resistance to discipline between aggressive and control mothers.
7. The boys rate their fathers’ level of reasoning (control x 4.15, aggressive x 2.67) substantially lower than parental ratings (control x = 8.25, aggressive x = 7.33).
After collecting and analyzing all their data Glueck and Glueck (1950) identified five main factors as being most important in being responsible for delinquent adolescents. These factors were: (1) the greater use of physical punishment and less use of reasoning by parents of
delinquent boys, (2) the less supervision by mothers of delinquent boys, (3) the less warmth expressed by fathers of delinquent boys, (4) the less warmth expressed by mothers of delinquent boys, and (5) the less cohesiveness of families with delinquent boys.
After collecting and analyzing all their data, Sears, Maccoby, and Levin (1957) identified the functional role of several factors brought up when the issues of delinquency and aggression are being studied. Factors which Sears et al. (1957) report as having a significant role in causing aggression include parental permissiveness, parental use of physical punishment, parental demand level, parental warmth, parental disagreement on child rearing, and low self-esteem and high child rearing anxiety in mothers. Factors not shown to significantly affect adolescent aggression include parental restrictions, gender, and socio-economic status of parents. Sears (1961) re-tested the five-year-old boys evaluated in the Sears, Maccoby, and Levin (1957) study when they reached the age of 12. He reported parental permissiveness was still significantly correlated with increased aggression in the boys, but parental use of physical punishment did not significantly increase aggression in these twelve-year-old boys.
Bandura and Walters (1959) drew the following conclusions about factors affecting adolescent aggression: (1) the lack of affectional warmth from fathers causes aggression in boys, (2) parental use of punitive methods of discipline cause aggression, (3) parental inconsistency increases aggression, (4) low dependency relationships between parent and child increase aggression, (5) parental permissiveness causes aggression, and (6) control parents use reasoning “to a much greater extent” than parents of aggressive boys.
With Glueck & Glueck (1950), Sears, Maccoby, & Levin (1957), and Bandura & Walters (1959) all drawing conclusions from their data that parental punishment was a main factor (more than permissiveness) in causing juvenile delinquency and aggression, it would seem reasonable that other mental health professionals might conclude the same. However, empirical research findings from several areas changed the whole perspective as to whether permissive parenting or punitive parenting was seen as the cause of delinquency and aggression.
3. Field Experiments to Determine Causes of Delinquency and Aggression
The first aspect had to do with the results of other studies finding no relationship between parental punishment and delinquency and aggression. McCord and McCord (1959) present the data on a rather extensive and expensive research project begun in 1937 which was designed to demonstrate the ability of Freudian and Rogerian parenting principles implemented by trained youth counselors to reduce juvenile delinquency and aggression in 650 boys averaging eleven years of age at the start of the project. The 650 boys were matched into pairs in terms of physical health, intelligence, emotional adjustment, home background, and delinquency prognosis (delinquency prognosis rated on an eleven point scale). Two groups of 325 boys were formed with the “treatment” group of boys having a counselor trained in Freud and Rogers non-punitive parenting counseling methods assigned to each boy. Data was collected on each boy through 1945.
The primary purpose of the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study was to show that a mentoring program that involved professional counselors trained in Freudian and Rogerian non-punitive parenting/counseling methods and had the counselors mentor both the boys and their parents would reduce the number of boys that would get involved in crime. According to McCord & McCord, “the program failed to reduce either the number of criminals or the number of crimes...there were no significant differences between the control group or the treatment group” (p. 24-25). In terms of the role of discipline McCord & McCord reported, “Consistent discipline, whether of a punitive or love-oriented nature, tended to prevent criminality.... Lax discipline resulted in a relatively high proportion of criminals .... criminals who had been disciplined in a lax manner tended to begin criminal activity at an early age .... Erratically punitive discipline was closely related to criminality” (p.169).
While PET, STEP, and Freudian parent clearly condemn the parental use of punishment as being a cause of delinquency and aggression in childhood, and claim children will behave more appropriately if parents lighten up on their supervision and let the children make more of their own decisions, McCord & McCord’s (1959) data indicate that such lax and permissive parenting approaches are much more the cause of delinquency and aggression than closely supervised and consistent parenting systems that include punishment.
In 1975, Joan McCord did a 30-year follow-up in which she located 95% of the boys in the original study. McCord was very surprised to find that a higher proportion of the criminals from the treatment group had committed significantly more crimes than men from the control group. Additionally, McCords 30 year review showed that the longer the boys received the treatment with the counselors the greater the chances of later criminal behavior, PLUS the more intensive the treatment where counselors focused more on a boy’s personal and family problems, the greater the probability of later criminal behavior. One of Dr. Joan Crawford’s, professor of criminal justice at Temple University, conclusions was “more was worse”.
When reviewing the research reported by the McCords, Torrey (1992) made the following statement, “It appears, then, that (Freudian and Rogerian) counseling and psychotherapy given to young juvenile delinquents do not decrease later criminal behavior. On the contrary, in so far as it has any effect at all, it appears to increase later criminal behavior.
West (1982) reports on a study of 411 youth in England that started in the early 1960s. West did not report parental punishment as being related to delinquency, but did report “A particularly noticeable characteristic of the parents of many of the delinquents in the study was carelessness or laxity in matters of supervision” (p. 57). West reports the parents, while often showing affection, did not provide family rules and let the children decide where they went and with whom they want. The parents let their children decide their own bedtime, television viewing and manners.
Nye (1959) studied over 2200 high school students and reported parental permissiveness rather than parental punishment related to delinquency and aggression.
4. Field Experiments Showing Punishment Free Counseling Approaches Do Not Reduce
Delinquency and Aggression
While McCord & McCord (1959) reported a Freudian psychoanalytic and Rogerian nondirective parenting/counseling approach were not effective in reducing delinquent and aggressive behavior in children, in 1975, Lipton, Martinson, and Wilks identified thirty one studies designed to use individual or group therapy to reduce the recidivism rates of delinquents and criminals. In their book Crime and Human Nature 1985, Wilson and Herrnstein review Lipton et al.’s (1975) study and report, “In any event, the reviewers (Lipton, et al.) found little consistent evidence that such programs had a beneficial effect. Group therapies in particular seemed to be of small value: There were ‘few reliable and valid findings concerning their effectiveness.’ There were some examples of improvement resulting from individual psychotherapy, but these gains accrued chiefly to persons who were judged to be ‘amenable’ to treatment” (p.378).
5. Research Reviews Suggesting Experimenter Bias
One research concern which changed the complexion of the situation where data from Glueck & Glueck’s (1950), and Sears, Maccoby, and Levin’s (1957) were suggesting research findings supported the idea that parental punishment rather than permissiveness causes delinquency and aggression was the growing concern about the mental health profession making unsubstantiated claims about child rearing issues.
In Glueck and Glueck (1950) Erwin Griswold, Dean of Harvard Law School, reminds us of the lack of research objectivity in the area of child rearing and delinquency when he points out this area “has heretofore been filled with speculation and conjecture” (p. vi). Bandura and Walters (1959) remind their audience of the lack of objectivity and solid data in the area of child aggression when they state, “It is remarkable how little reference to actual research is made by many “experts” in the field and to how large an extent they rely on unsystematic observational material: (p. 372). Along with their research efforts to provide empirical support for psychological theories pertaining to child rearing, punishment, and aggression, Sears et al. (1957) remind their audience that “false stereotypes, even idealistic ones, have no place in a society that believes in working out its social problems on a rational basis” (p. 447).
Sensing that research conclusions in child rearing and aggression studies of the 1950s and 60s were being distorted because of methodological and unintentional experimenter bias, Yarrow, Campbell, and Burton (1968) replicated Sears et al.’s (1957) study and reviewed the related studies on child rearing, punishment, permissiveness, and aggression. They closely scrutinized the data of Sears et al. (1957) and other studies reporting parental use of physical punishment was significantly related to child aggression and notes, “In order to interpret the data as having established a link between high punishment and high aggression, it is necessary to select among the findings and to ignore many results that are not in line with the hypothesis” (p. 71).
Additional support for Yarrow et al.’s (1968) claim that unintentional experimenter bias toward some theoretical position was influencing research conclusions in this area came from three other sources. Yarrow et al. (1968) replicated Sears et al.’s (1957) study and found no significant relationship between physical punishment and child aggression. Schuck (1974) re-analyzed both Yarrow et al. and Sears et al.’s data with path analysis and concluded that the data from both studies show no significant relationship between physical punishment and child aggression. In 1961, Sears re-evaluated the now twelve-year-old boys who were five-year-old subjects in his 1957 study. His new finding was no significant relationship between physical punishment and child aggression. Yarrow et al. (1968) went on to point out several methodological problems with the punishment-aggression research with children such as: (1) data collected from parent questionnaires, parent interviews, and teacher interviews are the predominant sources of data in this research area, and these are all indirect measures which often (as in Sears et al.’s study) are not well correlated (e.g. the parents interviews in Bandura and Walter’s study produced parental use of reasoning scores averaging 8.25 and 7.33 while the children interviews produced parental reasoning scores averaging from 2.67 to 4.15), (2) there was selective focusing on a few significant correlations supporting author’s theoretical preferences when dozens of correlations were calculated, most of which were not significant, and (3) some studies proposed certain theoretical approaches as solutions to the issue being studied that seemingly goes against the data. It appears that Bandura and Walters proposed certain approaches that went against their data.
After evaluating their data, Bandura and Walters (1959) proposed a solution to child aggression that appeared to go against even their research findings but supported the strongly anti-punishment theoretical approach of Freud (1929). Although their own data indicated increased parental permissiveness and the lowering of parental restrictions and demands on children reduces dependency and identification in children and increases child aggression, Bandura and Walters (1959) proposes a psychoanalytic based treatment plan for aggressive children where they are placed initially in a substantially permissive environment where there is little requirement for the boy to comply with program restrictions and obey program rules. Psychoanalytic theory suggests the key to reducing aggression in children is to help the child develop a positive bond with the therapist or parent rather than using reinforcement and punishment contingencies to establish positive behavioral repertoires in the children.
Yarrow et al. (1968) and Schucks (1974) re-evaluation of Sears et al.’s (1957) showing parental permissiveness rather than parental punishment as causing aggression in children is consistent with more recent research findings. Paulson, Coombs and Landsverk (1990) interviewed over 400 Southern California teenagers in juvenile detention centers for physically attacking their parents. These investigators found these teenagers were twice as likely to come from permissive parenting homes as from punitive parenting homes.
6. Lack of Empirical Support for Punishment Free Systems and Procedures
At the time Bandura and Walters (1959) were publishing their study where they collected indirect measures of data on child rearing factors and aggression there was some experimental evidence accruing which would question the value of using the psychoanalytic approach to correct aggressive behavior in children. In a somewhat general sense there were reported evaluations looking for scientific support for Freud’s psychoanalytic theory of human behavior (e.g. Murphy, Murphy, & Newcomb, 1937; Orlansky, 1949) whose conclusions can be summed up by Hilgard, Kubis, & Pumpian-Mindlin’s (1952) review of Freudian research in their statement, “anyone who tries to give an honest appraisal of psychoanalysis as a science must be ready to admit that as it is stated it is mostly very bad science, that the bulk of the articles in its journals cannot be defended as research publications at all.” After reviewing research reviews of Freud’s theory up through 1992, Torrey repeated Hilgard et al.’s statement about scientific support.
Efforts to empirically support the punishment free parenting systems of PET, STEP, and Freudian parenting have not been that successful. In 1959, Spock obtained a foundation grant to prove the validity of Freud’s theory in parenting. For six years Spock had eleven eminent psychiatrists (some trained by Anna Freud) individually counsel with parents twice a month for six years. The children were followed up for thirteen years. According to Torrey’s (1992) review of Spock’s study, “The study, probably the most ambitious ever undertaken to prove that child rearing based on Freud’s theory can ameliorate developmental problems, had completely negative results; the results of the study provided no support whatsoever for Freud’s theory and, not surprisingly, little of the data was ever published” (p. 134-135).
Rinn and Markle (1977) reviewed all the published studies designed to identify the empirical validity of PET and concluded the data did not support PET as being effective. Dembo, Sweitzar, and Lauritzen (1985) reviewed the PET research and concluded “....little evidence that children’s behavior is affected consistently by their parents participation in PET...(furthermore) none of the researchers using children’s self-esteem measures reported any significant changes as a result of their parents’ PET program” (p. 177). Dembo et al. (1985) also reviewed STEP research and concluded the empirical evidence did not support the claims about the STEP parenting system being effective.
7. Research Looking at Specific Behavior Change Procedures
Reviews of research evaluating the effectiveness of the punishment free approaches of PET and STEP also point out the lack of scientific support for their specific procedures designed to change behavior. For example, Weber, Crawford, Roff, and Robinson (1983) reviewed over 62 specific discipline techniques and procedures in terms of the amount of empirical research evidence there was that supported the individual techniques. Weber et al. reported both reinforcement and punishment had a substantial amount of empirical research showing both of them to be effective behavior change procedures. However, Weber et al. reported behavior change procedures advocated by PET and STEP lacked empirical support. In terms of PET, Weber et al. reported, “Although (communicating) acceptance is a widely advocated strategy, an examination of the literature yields little empirical support for its desirability or effectiveness” (p. 37). In terms of STEP, Weber et al. noted, “The major advantage usually cited is that logical consequences are far less likely to endanger relationships than harsher forms of punishment. Unfortunately, even though the logic of this argument seems sound, it appears that no empirical evidence supports such contentions.
Psychology of Learning college textbooks focus on techniques and procedures designed to change behavior. Since the middle of the 1970s when PET, STEP, Freudian behavior change principles were available to the public college learning texts have repeatedly claimed rewards and punishments (behavior change procedures condemned by these three punishment free parenting systems) are effective behavior change procedures. For example, Hulse, Deese, and Egeth (1975) authored the number one selling college textbook on learning. When discussing the information available about the effects of punishment, Hulse et al. (1975) said, “From this literature (frequently cited popular magazine and book articles falsely claiming punishment is ineffective), one can gain the strong impression that punishment is a maladaptive, ineffective, and wasteful technique to use in the establishment and guidance of behavior. Such is patently not the case...” (P.201). Neither Hulse, et al. (1975) nor any of the popular college textbooks written since provide any empirical evidence showing the behavior change procedures of active listening, communicating acceptance, I-messages, or logical consequences to be effective in changing behavior.
PET strongly claims parental modeling employed with unconditional love and without reinforcement is a very effective behavior change procedure. Albert Bandura, the world’s undisputed expert on modeling, took exception to PET’s claims about how well modeling works on children without rewards and punishments and made the following statement:
“Some child-rearing authorities have popularized the view that healthy personality development is built on ‘unconditional love’. If this principle were, in fact, unfailingly applied, parents would respond affectionately regardless of how their children behaved–whether or not they mistreated others, stole whatever they wanted, disregarded the wishes and rights of others, or demand instant gratification. Unconditional love, were it possible, would make children directionless and quite unlovable” (1977, p. 102). Bandura points out the two most important factors in getting a child to behave like his/her modeling father are (1) letting the child see the model gets rewarded for his behavior, and (2) making sure the child gets a reward for behaviorally imitating the father.
8. Experimental Research Support for Reinforcement and Punishment
It is important to remember that most research studies suggesting punishment and reinforcement are detrimental behavior change procedures (e.g. Glueck & Glueck, 1950; Sears, Maccoby, and Levin, 1957; Bandura & Walters, 1959) deal with indirect measures. Instead of directly measuring behavior changes, these changes are inferred to have happened from statements made by parents or teachers. Experimental studies showing reinforcement and punishment contingencies actually reduce aggressive behavior and delinquent behavior in individuals began showing up in the 1950s. Ayllon and Michael (1959) successfully demonstrated reinforcement and punishment procedures controlled aggressive and abusive behavior in 19 institutionalized adults, Williams (1959) experimentally demonstrated a young boy’s tyrant-like tantrum behavior which he used abusively on his parents was actually the product of parental reinforcement. Williams successfully eliminated the tantrum behavior through proper use of extinction procedures.
Within a short time several experimental studies were published (Bernal, Duryee, Pruett, and Burns, 1968; Boardman, 1962; Hawkins, Peterson, Schweid, and Bijou, 1966; Wahler, Winkel, Peterson, & Morrison, 1965) where reinforcement and punishment procedures were successfully used to eliminate the “brat” syndrome. A brat was defined as a child who abused his/her parents by the excessive use of tantrums, physical threats, and physical assault to render the parent helpless in controlling the child. Using some rather innovative small-N research designs incorporating control conditions rather than control groups, these investigators were able to empirically demonstrate the aggressive behavior of children could be successfully reduced and eliminated according to reinforcement and punishment procedures without adopting a more psychodynamically based theoretical approach. In one of the first studies reporting success in reducing juvenile delinquency, Alexander and Parsons (1973) demonstrated a short term behavioral intervention approach reduced the recidivism rates of juvenile delinquents by one half over a year and a half time period. They carried out an experiment with control groups where a contingency contracting behavior modification program was the treatment applied to boys and girls sent to juvenile court for various minor delinquencies including truancy, shoplifting, drinking, and running away from home. One group of youth offenders experienced the contingency contracting experience, a second group experienced a conventional group-discussion counseling program, and a third group was a “no-treatment” group. The contingency contracting group’s recidivism rate was significantly better than the other three groups.
9. Corporal Punishment Effects on Aggression
Corporal punishment research has been a very active research area with conflicting results about whether or not corporal punishment is a detrimental behavior change procedure. Due to the fact that some individuals encourage people to carry out advocacy research with the intent to show corporal punishment is detrimental, one has to look carefully at corporal punishment research. There are well-controlled research investigations on both sides of the issue as to whether corporal punishment is effective.
Research investigations involving answers from questionnaires that report spanking increases physical aggression include Bucher, Peterson, Luria, Shoemaker, and Helmer, (1962), Eron, Banta, Walder, Laulicht (1961), Bryan and Freed (1982), and Larzelere (1986).
As previously mentioned secondary variables can be influencing the investigatory situation without its influence being realized. Simons, Johnson, and Conger (1994) looked at the effects of strong physical punishment on 332 children when quality of parental involvement was controlled for, and noted corporal punishment was unrelated to adolescent aggression, delinquency, and psychological well being.
Gunnoe and Mariner (1997) studied 1112 families adjusting for secondary variables such as baseline level of aggression, parental yelling, and parental praise over a five-year period and found frequency of spanking predicted less aggression in children. Lefkowitz, Walder, Eron, and Huesmann (1963) evaluated 875 eight year olds and found moderately spanked boys were much less aggressive than boys raised by permissive parents. Ten years later Lefkowitz et al. followed up on 427 of those children and reported spanking was not a predictor of physical aggression in these children ten years later.
Straus, Sugarman, and Giles-Sims (1997) conducted a two-year study of children 6 to 9 years old to determine whether corporal punishment causes antisocial behavior problems. Straus et al. claim they statistically controlled for parental deficiency and reported corporal punishment does appear to increase antisocial behavior. Straus has a public reputation of legally banning spanking whether the evidence supports such a position or not (Straus, 1994).
Unfortunately, Straus et al. (1997) also reported studies on corporal punishment show punishment produces negative effects such as depression, delinquency, spouse abuse, physical abuse, masochistic sex, and alienation. A substantial portion of the source he cited as providing these conclusions came from non-refereed books. They fail to refer to the substantial number of journal articles that provide empirical data that goes against their beliefs about corporal punishment. They did not attempt to explain the differences between their findings and contradictory findings of other journal articles. They say their findings suggest replacing corporal punishment with non violent modes of discipline could reduce antisocial behavior in children and fail to mention any research (e.g. Glueck & Glueck, 1950; Paulson, Coombs & Landsverk, 1990; Di Lalla, Mitchell, Authur, & Pagliocca, 1988) showing permissive parenting produces much more antisocial behavior in children than corporal punishment.
10. Reviews of Experimental Research on Punishment as a Behavior Change Procedure
With PET and STEP arguing so strongly against punishment, it is important to look at the experimental research specifically on punishment. There were three main reviews of experimental research on punishment starting in the 1960s. These reviews were carried out by Azrin and Holz (1966), Walters and Grusec (1977), and Axelrod and Apsche (1983). No major review of punishment published since 1983 has disagreed with the findings of these three reviews.
Azrin and Holz (1996) mention there was at the time a growing climate against the use of punishment in society and their review of punishment research was aimed at taking a neutral, scientific look at the use and value of punishments. They compare punishment to the four most researched alternatives for reducing and/or eliminating behaviors and conclude, “Indeed , punishment appears to be potentially more effective than other procedures for weakening a response” (p. 427). Holz and Azrin’s review of the experimental research on punishment (1) strongly contradicted PET and STEP unsupported claims that punishment is ineffective (2) included no reference to a substantial body of scientific research showing punishment to be ineffective as PET and STEP’s claim that their techniques for controlling behavior (e.g. unconditional love, active listening, logical consequences) are more effective than reinforcement and punishment.
In 1977, Walters and Grusec historically reviewed substantially all the human and nonhuman animal experimental research including the possible main effects and side effects of punishment. The research findings reported in their review strongly support the idea punishment is effective, and contradicts PET and STEP’s claims of punishment being ineffective. They ended their review with the following statement, “...a good case can be made that punishment is a more effective technique for behavior change than is reinforcement. And this leads us to an inescapable conclusion: Punishment will always be a necessary tool for behavior change.”
Axelrod and Apsche (1983) reviewed punishment research on humans in their book entitled The Effects of Punishment on Human Behavior. They presented data from hundreds of experimental research studies showing alternative types of punishment (e.g. time out, overcorrection, verbal reprimands, physically painful punishments) can be very effective when used correctly. They reviewed the research on the potential side effects of punishments, and said their review supports the overall conclusions noted by Azrin and Holz (1960) and Walters and Grusec (1977) that punishment is a very effective behavior change technique. Additionally, Axelrod and Apsche state, “The relationship between the child and adult who administers punishment does not deteriorate but in fact improves as long as the adult is the source of positive experiences as well as punishment (Bucher & Lovaas, 1968; Lovaas, et al., 1965; Merbaum, 1973; Simmons and Lovaas, 1969; Tate & Baroff, 1966)” (p. 290). Neither Walters and Grusec (1977) nor Axelrod and Apsche (1983) report finding any substantive body of published experimental research showing PET and STEP’s techniques of unconditional love, active listening, or logical consequences being more effective than punishment in controlling the misbehavior of children. Neither or those books nor any college textbook on the psychology of learning present any research evidence supporting STEP’s contention that there is a distinction between discipline and punishment in controlling misbehaving children with discipline being effective in contrast to punishment being detrimental.
The fact that a number of mental health professionals have authored articles making unsupported claims against punishment is exemplified by Axelrod and Apsche’s (1983) review of punishment research where they talk about addressing claims about punishment effects:
In at least one account (Maurer, 1974), punishment is credited with causing juvenile delinquency, hyperactivity, anti-social aggression, vandalism, minimal brain damage, and homicide. Evidence for such claims, except in the case of aggression, is non existent...But evidence that physical punishment is a significant variable in the determination of antisocial lifestyles of criminal proportions has not been obtained” (Axelrod & Apsche, 1983, p. 291-192).
When looking at punishment research where punishment was experimentally applied to human subjects (rather than ex post facto punishment research having a host of uncontrolled secondary variables) the data indicate punishment was very effective in changing behavior without producing undesirable side effects, including aggression and antisocial behavior. Axelrod & Apsche (1983) conclude:
The undesirable side effects reviewed here come from a relatively small proportion of all the studies on the therapeutic use of punishment. Even when allowance is made for the probable under reporting of negative side effects due to editorial sanctions, it is interesting to note how few studies in the literature contain observations that would suggest clinical or ethical problems. In considering the studies where undesirable side effects were observed, the overall impression that results is one of mild surprise that serious side effects are seen so infrequently ...Most of the undesirable side effects described lasted only for a few minutes or days, were quickly responsive to treatment if they did not disappear spontaneously, and constituted a relatively small and ethically justified price to pay in return for the elimination of much more detrimental behaviors” (Axelrod & Apsche, 1983, p. 300-301).
In research investigations such as these where punishment is actually applied without demeaning comments or other negative factors which are often incorrectly included as part of punishment, the use of punishment is found to be effective in correcting misbehavior without producing long term undesirable emotional problems, aggression, or antisocial behavior.
11. Summary
This presentation reviewed empirical research on punishment to see if the claims that parental punishment causes juvenile delinquency and aggression made by punishment free parenting systems (PET, STEP, and Freudian parenting) are correct. We believe our review identified the following points:
1. Punishment free parenting theories of Freud, Adler, and Rogers claimed punishment
produces delinquency and aggression in children.
2. Three prominent research investigations (Glueck & Glueck, 1950; Sears, Maccoby, and Levin, 1957; Bandura & Walters, 1959) published in the 1950s claimed their data supported the punishment free parenting systems contention that parental use of punishment is a major cause of juvenile delinquency and aggression.
3. Later re-evaluations (e.g. Yarrow, Campbell, & Burton, 1968; Schuck, 1974) of the data in those three studies indicate parental laxness and permissiveness rather than parental oversupervision and use of punishment were responsible for delinquency and aggression.
4. McCord & McCords’ (1959) field experiment showed Freud and Roger’s punishment free counseling approaches were not effective in reducing juvenile delinquency and parental permissiveness rather than parental punishment increased juvenile delinquency and aggression in youth.
5. Thirty one field experiments carried out from 1945 to 1967 that were designed to use punishment free approaches to reduce juvenile delinquency failed to produce the expected reductions.
6. Empirical research studies (Spock, 1959; Rinn & Markle, 1977; Dembo, Sweitzer, & Lauritzen, 1985) fail to show any of the punishment free parenting systems effective in producing positive behavior changes in children.
7. Empirical research studies (e.g. Weber, Crawford, Roff, & Robinson, 1983) college learning textbooks show reinforcement and punishment have substantial empirical research findings showing them to be effective behavior change procedures, but fail to show punishment free parenting behavior change procedures as being effective.
8. Numerous empirical studies (e.g. Ayllon & Michael, 1959; Williams, 1959; Bernal, Duryee, Pruett, & Burns, 1968; Boardman, 1962; Hawkins, Peterson, Schweid, & Bijou, 1966; Alexander & Parsons, 1973) show reinforcement and punishment effective in reducing delinquent and aggressive behavior.
9. Corporal punishment research (e.g. Simons, Johnson, & Conger, 1994; Lefkowitz, Walder, & Eron, 1977; Gunnoe & Mariner, 1997) shows corporal punishment does not increase physical aggression in children.
10. Punishment research reviews(e.g. Azrin and Holz, 1966; Walters & Grusec, 1977; Axelrod & Apsche, 1983) indicate punishment is an effective behavior change procedure.
Anthony Biglan (1998) claimed scientifically unsupported parenting systems are
being advocated by mental health professionals and accepted by society over scientifically supported parenting procedures. Our review of the research suggests Biglan is correct. We suggest more in depth public comparisons and discussions of punishment free and punishment included parenting research findings is warranted.
Alexander, J. F., & Parsons, B.V. (1973). Short-term behavioral intervention with
delinquent families: Impact family process and recidivism. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 81, 219-225.
Axelrod, S., & Apsche, J. (1983). Effects of Punishment on Human Behavior. New York:
Academic Press.
Ayllon, T., & Michael, J. (1959). The psychiatric nurse as a behavioral engineer. Journal
of the Experimental Analysis, 2, 223-234.
Azrin, N. H., & Holz, W. C. (1996). Punishment. In W. K. Hong’s (ed.) Operant
Behavior: Areas of Research and Application. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englemwood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1959). Adolescent Aggression. New York: Ronald Press.
Beoker, W., Peterson, D., Luria, Z., Shoemaker, D., & Hellmer, L. (1962). Relations
factors derived from parent-interview ratings to behavior problems of five years olds. Child Development, 33, 509-535.
Bernal, M. E., Duryse, J. S., Pruett, H. L., & Burns, B. J. (1968). Behavior modification
and the brat syndrome. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32, 447-455.
Bridget, M. (1998). Psychology needs to connect parents with useful research. APA
Monitor, 29(10).
Boardman, W. K. (1962). Rusty: A brief behavior disorder. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 26, 293-297.
Bryan, J., & Freed, F. (1982). Corporal punishment: Normative data and sociological and psychological correlation in a community college population. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 11(2), 77-87.
Bucher, B., & Lovaas, O. I. (1968). Use of aversive stimulation in behavior modification.
In M. R. Jones (ed.), Miami Symposium on the prediction of behavior, Aversive Stimulation, Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.
Dembo, M. H., Sweitzer, M., Lauritzen, P. (1985). An Evaluation of Group Parent
Education: Behavioral, PET, and Adlerian Programs. Review of Educational Research, 55(2), 155-200.
Di Lill, L. F., Mitchell, C. M., Arthur, M. W., & Pagliocca, P. M. (1988). Aggression and
Delinquency: Family and environmental factors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 17(3), 233-245.
Dinkmeyer, D., McKay, G. D. (1976). Systematic Training for Effective Parenting. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Dugdale, R. L. (1877). The Jukes: A study in Crime, Pamperism, Disease, and Heredity.
In Hamilton Craven’s (1978) The Jukes. The Triumph of Evolution: American Scientists and the Heredity-Environmental Controversy, 1900-1941. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
obtained from mothers and fathers on child rearing practices and their relation to child aggression. Child Development, 32, 373-374.
Glueck, B. (1916). Studies in Forensic Psychiatry. Boston: Little Brown.
Glueck, S., & Gleuck, E. (1950). Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Gordon, T. (1970). Parent Effectiveness Training. New York: Peter H. Wyden.
Gordon, T. (1989). Discipline That Works. New York: Plume Books.
Greven, P. (1991). Spare the Child. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Gunnoe, M., & Mariner, C. (1997). Toward a developmental contextual mold of the
effects of parental spanking on children’s aggression. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 151, 768-775.
Havighurst, R. J., & Davis, A. (1955). A comparison study of the Chicago and Harvard
studies of social class differences in child rearing. American Sociological Review, 20, 438-442.
Hawkins, R.P., Peterson, R. F., Schweid, E., & Bijou, S. W. (1966). Behavior therapy in
the home: Amelioration of problem parent-child relations with the parent in a therapeutic role. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 4(1), 99-107.
Healy, W. (1915). The Individual Delinquent. Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith republished
1969.
Healy, W. (1917). Mental Conflicts and Misconduct. Boston: Little Brown.
Hilgard, E. R., Kubie, L. S., & Pumpian-Mindlin, E. (1952). Psychoanalysis as Science.
New York: Basic Books.
Hulse, S. H. Egeth, H., & Deese, J. (1975). The Psychology of Learning. New York:
MvGraw-Hill.
Larzelere, R. E. (1986). Moderate spanking: Model or deterrent of children’s aggression
in the family. Journal of Family Violence, 1(1), 27-35.
Lefkowitz, M., Eron, L., Walker, L., & Huesman, L. (1977). Growing Up to be Violent:
A longitudinal Study of the Development of Aggression. New York: Perhamon.
Lipton, D., Martinson, R., & Wilks, J. (1975). The effectiveness of correctional treatment: A survey of treatment evaluation studies. New York: Praeger.
Lovaas, O. I., Schaeffer, B., & Simmons, J. Q. (1965). Experimental Studies in
Childhood Schizophrenia: Building Social Behavior in Autistic Children by Use of Electric Shock. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1, 99-109.
Maurer, A. (1974). Corporal Punishment. American Psychologist, 29, 614-626.
McCord, J. (1978). A Thirty Year Follow-up of Treatment Effects. American
Psychologist, 33, 284-289.
McCord, W., McCord, J. (1959). Origins of Crime: A New Evaluation of the Cambridge-
Somerville Study. New York: Columbia University Press.
Merbaum, M. (1973). The Modification of Self-destructive Behavior By a Mother-
therapist Using Aversive Stimulation. Behavior Therapy, 4, 442-447.
Murphy, G., Murphy, L. B., & Newcomb, T. (1937). Experimental Social Psychology.
New York: Harper.
Nye, R. I. (1958). Family Relations and Delinquent Behavior. New York: John Wiley
and Sons.
Orlansky, H. (1949). Infant Care and Personality. Psychological Bulletin, 46, 1-48.
Rinn, R. C. & Markle, A. (1977). Parent Effectiveness Training: A Review.
Psychological Reports, 41, 95-109.
Sears, R. R. (1961). Relation of Early Socialization Experiences to Aggression in Middle Childhood. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 63, 466-492.
Sears, R. R., Maccoby, E. E., and Levin, H. (1957). Patterns of Child Rearing.
Evanston, IL: Row Patterson and Co.
Simons, R. L., Johnson, C., & Conger (1994). Harsh Corporal Punishment versus
Quality of Parental Involvement as an Explanation of Adolescent Maladjustment. Journal of Marriage and The Family, 56, 591-602.
Spock, B. (1976). Baby and Child Care. New York: Duell, Sloan, and Pearce.
Spock, B. (1946). The Common Sense Book of Baby and Childcare. New York: Pocket
Books.
Straus, M. (1994). Beating the Devil Out of Them: Corporal Punishment in American
Families and its Effects on Children. Boston: Lexington Books.
Straus, M. A., Sugarman, D. B., & Giles-Sims, J. (1997). Spanking by Parents and
Subsequent Antisocial Behavior of Children. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.
Tate, B. G., & Baroff, G. S. (1966). Aversive Control of Self-Injurious Behavior in a
Psychotic Boy. Behavior Research and Therapy, 4, 281-287.
Walters, G. C., & Grusec, J. E. (1977). Punishment. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
Weber, W. A., Roff, L.A., & Robinson, C. (1983). Classroom Management: Reviews
of the Teacher Education and Research Literature. Princeton: Education Testing Service.
West, D. J. (1982). Delinquency Its Roots, Careers, and Prospects. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Williams, C. D. (1959). The Elimination of Tantrum Behavior by Extinction Procedures.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 269.
Wilson, J. Q., Herrnstein, R. J. (1985). Crime and Human Nature. New
York: Simon and Schuster.
Yarrow, M., Campbell, J., & Burton, R. (1968). Child Rearing. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.