Influence of Physical Punishment on Adolescents Self-esteem

work on of Physical Punishment on Adolescents Self-esteemIntroductionDisciplinary incidents are central to moral exploitation beca enjoyment disciplinal practices assist to inculcate moral standards and values that leave the basis for self-controlled behaviour within the youngster (Brody Shaffer, 1982, p.32). Amongst the various disciplinary methods, forcible penalization is giganticly practised across different cultures and countries. The present survey focused on non- abusive bodily penalisation and adopted the definition by Straus (1994) that visible penalization is the use of sensual force with the intention of causing a child to experience pain, entirely not injury, for the nominate of correction or control of the childs behaviour (p.4). This definition was used to delineate non-abusive natural penalization from harsher radiation diagrams of abusive penalization. The term somatogenic punishment is synonymous and has been used interchangeably with corpora l punishment. We used the term physical punishment in this study because it specific on the wholey indicates that punishment is meted break in a physical and somatic manner.A survey conducted in Jamaica revealed that physical punishment is frequently practiced in home and give instruction (Smith Mosby, 2003). Physical punishment is withal common in south-west Ethiopia (Admassu, Belachew, Haileamalak, 2006). This disciplinary method, however, is not peculiar to create countries. Even in soci all in ally privileged countries, physical punishment is alike used as a disciplinary method. Approximately 60% of Hong Kong Chinese parents admitted to using physical punishment as a form of discipline (Tang, 2006). In America, 94% of 3- and 4-year olds have been physically punished by their parents at least in one case during the past year (Straus Stewart, 1999), and 85% of Ameri tail ends believed that a good hard spanking is sometimes necessary (Bauman Friedman, 1998). Beliefs in it s electro domineering disciplinary personal personal effects contributed to the widespread use of physical punishment (Straus, 1994) and there are yard-based studies living the idea that physical punishment suppresses undesired behaviour (Gershoff, 2002 Larzelere, 2000 Paolucci Violato, 2004). For example, studies in Larzeleres (2000) meta-analysis provided evidence that non-abusive spanking used by loving parents reduced posterior noncompliance and fighting in 2- to 6-year olds. In relation to Larzeleres (2000) findings, Gershoff (2002) tack a large mean effect size for immediate compliance following corporal punishment. However, as storied by Gershoff (2002), these beneficial outcomes are only temporarily because physical punishment neither teaches children the reasons for behaving correctly, nor does it communicate what effects their behaviours have on others. Hence, physical punishment whitethorn not facilitate moral internalisation of the intend disciplinary message (Ger shoff, 2002). Moreover, the demerits whitethorn outweigh the merits of punishment because studies suggested that physical punishment carry with it unintended and uncomely effects (Holden, 2002 Rohner, Kean, Cournoyer, 1991 Straus, 1994). In response to the increasingly condemnatory transnational views about physical punishment, 25 states, to date, abolished all forms of physical punishment on children (Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, 2009).Burgeoning query has link up physical punishment to a variety of minus effects. These effects ranged from social-emotional and psycho arranged problems, such(prenominal) as amiable distress and withdrawal (Eamon, 2001), to behavioural problems, such as antisocial behaviour and change magnitude aggressiveness (Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Blates, Pettit, 1996 Sim Ong, 2005 Straus, Sugarman, Giles-Sims, 1997 Tang, 2006). Straus et al. (1997) suggested that a dose response to physical punishment for children may e xist, such that much frequent and longer manipulation of punishment pull up stakes lead to increase prob energy of behaviour problems. These potencyly adverse effects of physical punishment may similarly carry over into adulthood in the form of increased psychiatry and violent behaviour (Eron, 1996) substance abuse, depression, family craze, and suicide (Afifi, Brownridge, Cox, Sareen, 2006 Straus, 1995 Straus Kantor, 1994). Eron (1996) indicated that the to a greater extent harshly 8- and 9-year olds were punished, the more aggressive and antisocial they were in late adolescence and young adulthood. Afifi and colleagues (2006) also found individuals who were physically punished, as compared to those who were not, had higher riskiness for major depression, inebriant abuse or dependence and externalising problems in adulthood, and these effects were not attenuated afterward controlling for sociodemographic variables and enatic bonding. In addition, Straus (1995) found o perative positive correlation among the level of punishment experienced as a child and level of depressive symptoms and thoughts of committing suicide in adulthood, after controlling for socioeconomic status (SES), warlike violence, and witnessing violence as a child.In the past decade, at least three meta-analyses were conducted to review question on the effects of physical punishment. Larzelere (2000) reviewed a total of 38 studies and found two beneficial (as discussed above) and negative effects of physical punishment. From 17 causally relevant studies, the author highlighted apparent detrimental effects of physical punishment. He first pointed out that physical punishment predicted increased subsequent negative externalising behaviour, supporting the violence begets violence viewpoint. One of the studies reviewed was the controlled longitudinal studies of the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (Larzelere Smith, as cited in Larzelere, 2000), which provided not only consist ent but also causally relevant evidence that physical punishment is associated to subsequent increase in antisocial behaviour. Secondly, Larzelere (2000) indicated that physical punishment predicted increased mental health problems. The links surrounded by physical punishment and both increased negative externalising behaviour and mental health problems were further support by other meta-analysis, which evaluated 88 published works spanning a 62 year period. Gershoff (2002) found that physical punishment was indeed epochally associated to increased aggression, increased delinquency, increased antisocial behaviour, and decreased mental health, to squall a few.All 20 studies involving mental health in Gershoffs (2000) meta-analysis found frequency of corporal punishment to be positively and significantly cerebrate to a decrease in childrens mental health. Straus and Kantor (1994) reported that after controlling for low SES, those who experienced corporal punishment in adolescence were solace at higher risk for depression, suicidal thoughts and alcohol abuse. Although Paolucci and Violato (2004), who conducted another meta-analyses and evaluated 70 studies amidst 1961 and 2000, did not find exposure to corporal punishment led to increased risk of arresting cognitive problems (e.g., suicidal thoughts and attitudes toward violence), they found that people who experienced corporal punishment were at a small but increased risk for developing behavioural (e.g., aggression and antisocial behaviours) and affective problems (e.g., psychological impairment and low self-pride).Physical punishment appears to have a stamp down effect on self-esteem in its victims. However, studies have been inconclusive and evidence-based literature in this area is untold thinner, as compared to the large number of published articles on physical punishment and increased externalising behaviours, such as childrens aggression, which is one of the most studied in the literature on pa renting (Paolucci Violato, 2004). Only 3 studies (Adams, 1995 Larzelere, Kein, Schumm, Alibrano, 1989 Sears, 1970) cited in Larzeleres (2000) meta-analysis, investigated the connection mingled with physical punishment and self-esteem. Specifically, Larzelere et al. (1989) found the amount of spanking received negatively predicted self-esteem but the negative correlations between punishment, self-esteem, and perception of fairness of punishment were reduced to non-significance after controlling for parental positive communication. The other study included in the meta-analysis did not find a significant correlation between physical punishment and subsequent self-esteem (Sears, 1970). Jouberts (1991) study, which was not included in the meta-analysis, also found no evidence indicating spanking to have any effect on childrens self-esteem scores, regardless whether spanking was administered by mothers or fathers, or both.On the other hand, one of the three studies as cited in Larzele res (2000) meta-analysis found overturn self-esteem among 6- to 12-year olds, especially those who were hit with high frequency (twice a week), even after controlling for ethnicity, cognitive enrichment and poverty (Adams, 1995). Furthermore, recent studies, which were not included in the meta-analysis, also found similar results. Using entropy from 1,397 children, Eamon (2001) found 4- to 9-year-old children who received more frequent spanking manifested more socio-emotional problems like low self-esteem. In another study, Amato and Fowler (2002) investigated the kinship between parental use of corporal punishment and childrens self-esteem, using entropy collected from 3,400 households with a child within the age range of 5-18. Similarly, parents use of corporal punishment was found to predict press down self-esteem.Bauman and Friedman (1998) argued that physical punishment retards the development of self-esteem, and Paolucci and Violato (2004) used findings of corporal punis hment being associated with psychosocial problems, such as depression, as supporting evidence that physical punishment is related to impaired self-esteem. Coercive disciplinary techniques are also linked to decreases in childrens level of confidence and assertiveness, and increases in aspectings of humiliation and helplessness (Gershoff, 2002). One explanation for these findings is the business concern of punishment makes people attempt to escape. However, when escaping from punishment is not possible, feelings of learned helplessness and depression may develop (Paolucci Violato, 2004).Self-esteem, as defined by Rosenberg (1965), is a positive or negative attitude towards the self. Interestingly, self-esteem stability in childhood and adolescence does not differ between genders (Trzesniewski, Donnellan, Robins, 2003). Research has shown that self-esteem has a pervasive uphold on an individuals life in numerous areas. Emotionally, individuals with low self-esteem have a tendenc y to exhibit higher levels of anxiety, experience more frequent psychosomatic symptoms, feelings of depression, lack of personal borrowing and submissiveness (Battle, 1992). Low self-esteem is also an weighty predictor for disruptive and maladaptive behaviours (Aunola, Stattin, Nurmi, 2000 Vandergriff Rust, 1989). An individuals social functioning can also be affected by his level of self-esteem. Children with high self-esteem are more popular among peers and participate more actively in social congregations, unlike those with low self-esteem, who experience more difficulties forming friendships (Battle, 1992 Growe, 1980). Self-esteem has also been back up by research evidence, to be positively related to academic self-efficacy. This significant relationship is found in Western countries (Jonson-Reid, Davis, Saunders, Williams, Williams, 2005 Smith, Walker, Fields, Brookins, Seary, 1999), as well as in capital of capital of Singapore (Ang, Neubronner, Oh, Leong, 2006).An im portant trend in the international research focuses on the effects of physical punishment on children (Ripoll- Nez Rohner, 2006). Considering that self-esteem has a wide range of influence on an individuals life and the current literature re principal(prenominal)s inconclusive on the effects physical punishment have on self-esteem, we chose to investigate the relationship between non-abusive physical punishment administered by adolescents main moralist and adolescents level of self-esteem. Self-esteem spiels a vital role in an individuals development, and if physical punishment has negative effects on adolescents self-esteem, it is likely that his level of self-esteem will affect his psychosocial and educational development, and his boilers suit well-being. For instance, his academic success and ability to socialise contribute to his current and future well-being.The relationship between physical punishment and adolescents outcome cannot be simply described as two distinct cate gories, such that physically punished adolescents will experience negative outcomes, and adolescents who have never been physically punished will not. Instead, this relationship may lie on a continuum and the frequency of physical punishment may play an important role in the punishment-outcome link, such that increase in frequency of punishment will lead to increased probability of negative outcomes. Since a dose response towards physical punishment was suggested by Straus et al. (1997), and a positive relationship between the frequency of physical punishment and negative outcomes was concurred by Larzelere (2000) and Gershoff (2002), and more specifically, Adams (1995) and Eamon (2001) found lower berth self-esteem, especially among those who experienced frequent use of physical punishment, we chose to investigate the punishment-self-esteem link by focusing on the frequency of punishment. With increased frequency of physical punishment, lower self-esteem can be expected.The weight of the active research seems to favour the viewpoint that non-abusive physical punishment carries with it negative baggage. However, unlike physical abuse, the conclusion that non-abusive physical punishment indeed has detrimental consequences on adolescents well-being cannot be substantiated. Researchers at the opposite end of the dig cite conflicting evidence and physical punishment remains the most controversial topic in the domain of parental discipline (Holden, 2002 Larzelere, 1996).The main debate remains on whether non-abusive physical punishment is entirely harmful or it has negative effects only when used within certain conditions. As summarised by Ripoll- Nez and Rohner (2006), the conditional defenders of corporal punishment argued that the effects of punishment may be positive, negative, or both depending on the conditions in which it was administered. As proposed in Gershoffs function- exemplify setting model (2002), the link between physical punishment and its v iolation on the child is not direct and isolated. Instead, contextual factors of varying levels of influence may moderate the processes linking punishment and child constructs (Gershoff, 2002). This is supported by the fact that majority of the 94% of 3- and 4-year-old Americans who experienced physical punishment did not experience negative outcomes, such as developing into clinically aggressive adults or criminals. Critics of past research argued that many studies which linked physical punishment to negative effects have methodological flaws because they did not imply into account the influence of lead variables, which when included, tended to attenuate the relationship between punishment and negative outcomes (Rohner, Bourque, Elordi, 1996). Since not all individuals who experienced non-abusive physical punishment experienced negative outcomes, the present study further examined two potential moderators of the punishment-self-esteem link namely, adolescents perceptions on the fairness of physical punishment and caregiver acceptance-rejection.Typically, research in this area has relied on parental reports of physical punishment. However, parents may underreport the use of physical punishment due to social desirability. Parents may feel threaten to disclose the frequency with which they physically punish their children because it is not advocated in contemporary society, hence providing wide of the mark data (Shum-Cheung, Hawkins, Lim, 2006). Moreover, if parent is the source of data on both the punishment and childrens behaviours, they may attempt to pardon their punishment by the parental report of child behaviour (Bauman Friedman, 1998). Following, we collected retrospective account of physical punishment from the recipients of the disciplinary practice, and further explored the possible moderating effect their cognitive perceptions on the punishment, may use on the punishment-self-esteem link.The impact of punishment on adolescents is not unidir ectional because adolescents are not simply still recipients of the punishment. Instead how adolescents recognize the punishment may affect the impact it has on their outcomes. As noted by Holden (2002), noticeably absent from research is studies of childrens perceptions and reactions to punishment. It has been suggested that effects of physical punishment may be moderated by the substance children ascribes to the punishment (Benject Kazdin, 2003). Ignorance of this may lead to an inaccurate picture on the effects of punishment because the key to savvy how physical punishment affects its victims lies in understanding how they react to the punishment physiologically, affectively, and cognitively (Gershoff, 2002). Holden (2002) further posited that this reaction involves at least two processes, namely, immediate physiological and sensory reaction, followed by the secondary cognitive appraisal stage. In line with Ripoll- Nez and Rohners (2006) suggestions on variables that are imp ortant in the research of physical punishment and its effects on children, we explored the potential moderating effect of adolescents perceptions of fairness of physical punishment, which has been considered to ameliorate the negative outcomes of punishment (Rohner et al., 1991 Rohner et al., 1996). Grusec and Goodnow (1994) suggested that children, who perceive punishment as fair, will be more willing to accept the intended disciplinary message, which therefore facilitates internalisation. Since adolescents are the recipients of parental disciplinary practices, the knowledge of their perceptions on the fairness of punishment will open the window to their internal mental processes, which is how they interpret and internalise the punishment. This provides a more complete understanding of the relationship between punishment and self-esteem. Concerns regarding whether adolescents are mature enough to make sensible judgments about the fairness of discipline can be allayed because Kons tantareas and Desbois (2001) found 4-year-old preschoolers capable of making judgments about the fairness of discipline by mothers, and in a study conducted in Singapore, parents and 10- to 12-year-old childrens responses on fairness of discipline were similar (Shum-Cheung et al., 2006). Therefore, if adolescents perceive physical punishment as fair, the effects of punishment on their self-esteem may not be deleterious. Following, the negative association between physical punishment and self-esteem can be expected to be stronger at lower levels, as compared with higher levels of perceive fairness.Little is also known about the conditions under which punishment occurs (Bauman Friedman, 1998) and if information regarding the context in which the punishment is meted out is not captured, only a snapshot of the impact of punishment on adolescents will be known. Opponents of physical punishment have acknowledged that physical punishment by itself is supposed(prenominal) to produce nega tive child outcomes. However, when combined with other risk factors in the family, negative effects of physical punishment may surface (Bauman Friedman, 1998). Therefore, certain factors in the adolescents family may influence the cognitive appraisal process of the punishment and, consequently, buffer the negative effects.Corporal punishment is considered to be beneficial when administered by emotionally substantiative parents who share positive interactions with their children (Paolucci Violato, 2004). As discussed above, Larzelere et al. (1989) reported that positive parental communication moderated the punishment-self-esteem link. Therefore, information regarding other aspects of parenting, such as the transport dimension, will provide a much fuller understanding towards the relationship between physical punishment and self-esteem.As construed in the parental acceptance-rejection theory (PARTheory), parental acceptance and rejection form the warmth dimension of parenting (Roh ner, 1991). Perceived parental acceptance-rejection may be one of the most important parenting dimensions to consider because no ethnic or ethnic collection was found where comprehend parental acceptance-rejection failed to correlate with the predicted personality dispositions (Rohner Britner, 2002). PARTheory predicted jilted children, as compared to children who perceive themselves as being accepted, are more likely to have an impaired scent out of self-esteem, amidst other negative effects (Rohner, 1991 Rohner Britner, 2002). Rohner (1991) used Meads (1934) significant other impression to explain how parental rejection may affect self-esteem. PARTheory assumed that everyone tends to view ourselves as we imagine significant others view us. Therefore, if parents who are childrens most significant other reject them, they are more likely to define themselves as unworthy, and consequently develop an boilersuit sense of negative self-evaluation, including feelings of negative self-esteem and self-adequacy (Rohner, 1991). Although the term parent is used in PARTheory, Rohner (1991) explained it refers to the major caregiver of the child, not necessarily the parents. Therefore, we used the term caregiver instead of parent in this study.Variations in perceived caregiver acceptance-rejection among adolescents may magnify or minimise the effects of physical punishment and this has been supported by cross-cultural evidence. Rohner et al. (1991), for example, found severe physical punishment to be related to psychological maladjustment among Kittitian youths and the effects became more substantial when it was paired with caregiver rejection. Similarly, results from another study conducted in Georgia showed that the association between perceived harshness of punishment and psychological maladjustment disappeared once perceptions of caregiver acceptance-rejection were accounted for (Rohner et al., 1996). In the context of Singapore, perceived parental acceptance- rejection was also found to play an important moderating role. Sim and Ong (2005) found perceived fathers rejection moderated the link between slapping and daughters level of aggression, and perceived mothers rejection moderated the canning-aggression link among Singapore Chinese preschoolers of both genders. All these studies uniformly showed that childrens perception of caregiver acceptance-rejection has a significant impact on the association between physical punishment and its outcomes. Thus, at higher compared to lower levels of perceived caregiver rejection, a stronger negative association between physical punishment and self-esteem can be expected.We collected data on adolescents perceptions of caregiver acceptance and rejection, and frequency of physical punishment by their main disciplinarian, rather than their main caregiver. This is because our study used a Singapore Chinese sample, and it is common within this group that the main disciplinarian may not be the main caregi ver. In Chinese societies, traditional roles of disciplinarian and caregiver are respectively played by fathers and mothers, and this role differentiation still applies in Singapore (Quah, 1999). In cases where the disciplinarian and caregiver are different persons, the adolescent may experience more punishment from the disciplinarian as compared to the caregiver, and the impact of punishment from the main disciplinarian will not be reflected if punishment administered by the caregiver was measured.Since the main disciplinarian is the adult who administers punishment, effects of punishment may be moderated by the adolescents perceived acceptance from his main caregiver, who plays the key caring role and spends the most time with him. Collecting data on adolescents perceptions of caregiver acceptance-rejection allowed us to examine the punishment-self-esteem link through the relationship between caregiver and adolescent.As pointed out by Larzelere (2000), one of the needs in the rese arch on physical punishment is for studies to oblige a developmental perspective because reviews by Larzelere (2000) and Gershoff (2002) found outcomes of punishment varied by the childs age. For example, Gershoff (2002) found that with increased age, the association between corporal punishment and aggressive and antisocial behaviours became stronger. Following, we used a retrospective object to investigate the association between physical punishment and self-esteem, and the impact the two proposed moderators may have on this link, at two age frames, namely when the individual was 11- to 12-years old (early adolescence) and 15- to 16-years old ( middle adolescence). Although physical punishment is at its zenith when children are aged 3-5 (Straus Stewart, 1999), and its frequency decreases as children grow older, physical punishment is still prevalent during adolescence (Straus et al., 1997). Straus (1994) found more than 60% of parents in America reported hitting 10- to 12-year o lds, and even at ages 15-17, one out of four adolescents is still physically punished.The two age frames were chosen partly because this study was retrospective in nature, and memories of punishment incidents during early childhood may be weak due to the long time changeover that passed. Additionally, an average Singapore student aged 11- to 12-years old and 15- to 16-years old, is in preparation for the national examinations, namely, the Primary rail Leaving Examination and GCE O Levels, respectively. Being the periods of their major examinations, memories during these periods may be much clearer and distinct, and this will provide the study with more accurate data.Children below age 8 have not developed the concept of global self-esteem, thus another reason for focusing at these two age frames is that at ages 11-12 and 15-16, adolescents will have developed the ability to view themselves in terms of stable dispositions, which permits them to combine their separate self-evaluatio ns into an overall sense of self-esteem (Berk, 2006, p.449). Moreover, unlike in early childhood, individual differences in self-esteem from early to middle adolescence become increasingly stable (Trzesniweski et al., 2003), which allowed us to explore the punishment-self-esteem link more precisely.According to Eriksons stages of psychosocial development (as cited in Berk, 2006), he organised life into eight stages that extend from birth to death, of which two stages were related to the present study. During the reaction time stage, where 11- and 12-year olds will be categorized, they enter school and are required to develop a sense of competence through the social interactions in school. With a wider range of socialisation opportunities, their relationships with parents may no longer be the most significant but it remains influential because little or no encouragement from parents, teachers, or peers may lead them to doubt their ability to succeed (Berk, 2006). However, 15- and 1 6-year olds are in the adolescence stage, where the need to develop an freelance identity that is separated from the family, becomes the key developmental task, and relationships with peer groups become the most significant relationship. Hence the fading of familial influence for adolescents aged 15-16 may decrease as compared to when they were 11- to 12-years old.Moreover, 15- and 16-year olds fall in Piagets formal useable stage, which represents the apex of cognitive development (Siegler Richards, 1982). Unlike the subsequent stage, 11- and 12-year olds are in the concrete operational stage and can only operate on reality. But formal operational adolescents developed the ability for abstract thinking and can engage in hypothetico-deductive reasoning and propositional thought, to conjure more general logical rules through internal reflection (Berk, 2006). Additionally, they can apply their abstract reason abilities to all areas of life (Siegler Richards, 1982). Following, it may be the case that adolescents perceptions of caregiver acceptance-rejection play a greater role, than perceived fairness of punishment, in moderating the link between punishment and self-esteem, when they are aged 11 to 12. Because their social circle though expanded, still centres around their parents and how accepted or rejected they perceived their caregiver to be may still play a significant role unlike during middle adolescence. At ages 15-16, adolescents perceived fairness of punishment may matter more than perceived caregiver acceptance because their relationship with their caregiver is not the most exact factor in their psychosocial development. Additionally, their growing need for independence from their parents as well as their capacities to think through their own best interests with their greater cognitive awareness, may influence them to place more emphasis on their personal thoughts, and on their friends views but less on what their caregiver thinks of them.Within the realm of punishment research, it is also important to acknowledge the existing attitudes towards physical punishment within the particular culture. As pointed out by proponents of physical punishment, aside from the family, the cultural context also buffers potential negative consequences of physical punishment (Bauman Friedman, 1998). word sense of physical punishment varies across cultures and it may contribute to variations in child outcomes across different groups because cultural values and beliefs affect whether punishment is used more instrumentally or emotionally, and how children emotionally respond to it (Gershoff, 2002 Larzelere, 2000). Larezeleres (2000) highlighted five studies which presented evidence of significantly differential effects of spanking by ethnicity. Deater-Deckard et al. (1996), for example, found maternal use of physical punishment predicted externalising behaviours only for European American, but not African American children. The authors suggest ed that this may be due to the stronger acceptance and preference for physical punishment among African American, in contrast to European American parents, hence affect the manner in which punishment is used and childrens perceptions of its appropriateness. Similarly, Gunnoe and Mariner (1997) found spanking to be negatively related to African American girls after aggressive behaviours, but positively related to European American boys later aggressive behaviours.Majority of the studies, which investigated the link between physical punishment and self-esteem, were conducted in Western countries, such as America. However, attitudes towards childrearing in Western countries are different from those of the Asian cultures in Singapore (Tong, Elliot, Tan, 1996). Unlike Western cultures, which boast a lower tolerance of physical punishment, this form of discipline is popular within the Asian culture. well-kept the rod and spoil the child is an old saying which reflects the prevalent pa rental attitude, especially among Singapore Chinese parents, who continue using caning to discipline children and view physical punishment as an effective disciplinary method (Elliot, Thomas, Chan, Chow, 2000). Being a multi-ethnic society, ethnic differences exist in childrearing techniques, which may lead to differences in usage of physical punishment across ethnic groups. A study conducted by Quah (1999) on the Singapore family found Chinese parents tended to use physical punishment more than other parents, while Malay and Indian parents were most likely to use reasoning, and authority was most frequently used by parents in the group Other. Considering that ethnicity may affect the outcome of physical punishment, this research recruited only Singapore Chinese participants.