Ethnic Differences in Externalizing Outcomes of Physical Punishment: A Meta-Analysis of Controlled Longitudinal Studies

• In Event: Poster Session 08
  In Poster Session: PS 08 Topic - Race, Ethnicity, Culture, Context

Abstract

Although the social sciences strive to overcome racism, values of the dominant culture can create unintended biases against people of color. The example herein concerns physical discipline.

In 2018, the APA Task Force on Physical Punishment concluded that the evidence against physical discipline was sufficient to oppose all spanking (Gershoff et al., 2018). They relied primarily on a meta-analysis based on unadjusted correlations, which did not investigate variations by ethnicity (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016b). The APA Task Force addressed cultural variations (Gershoff et al., 2018), but misrepresented some studies and cited a meta-analysis of correlations from only five studies, which found no racial differences (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016a). Several early studies found adverse associations between physical punishment and externalizing problems in European-Americans but not in African-Americans (e.g., Deater-Deckard et al., 1996; McLeod et al., 1994). Beneficial effects were found for African-Americans when distinct sources were used for physical punishment and the outcome (e.g., Gunnoe & Mariner, 1997; Lansford et al., 2004; Polaha et al., 2004).

This meta-analysis therefore investigates all known controlled longitudinal studies of physical punishment and externalizing behavior problems in African Americans or Hispanics (Table 1: still being updated).

The mean effect size was similar to the tiny adverse effect size in meta-analyses of controlled longitudinal studies of spanking (Ferguson, 2013; Larzelere et al., 2018): d+ = .10 for African-Americans and Hispanics, equivalent to =.05 (half of Cohen’s, 1986, small effect size). The effect sizes varied for African-Americans by the type of physical punishment and whether distinct information sources were used for physical punishment and the outcome. Effect sizes were smaller for customary physical punishment (d = .07) than for severe physical punishment (d = .17, p < .01), and smaller for distinct information sources (d = .05) than in studies using the same information source (d = .10) or that combined information sources, d = .44, p < .01. The effect sizes did not vary by child age or calendar year. Thus the effect sizes of the link between physical punishment and externalizing problems are adverse but tiny overall and are even smaller for customary spanking and in studies with distinct sources for their disciplinary and outcome data. There were no significant moderators for Hispanics.

In contrast to older findings, the outcomes of physical punishment were similar across the three major American ethnic groups, even when distinct sources were used for spanking and the outcome. However, the effect size is so small that it is easily explained by residual confounding (Rothman et al., 2008) and likely reverses to a tiny beneficial effect when predicting simple change scores (Larzelere et al., 2018). Further, the specific effect of spanking in any particular case may be as likely to be beneficial as it is to be detrimental, given a mean effect size so close to zero. Therefore more research is needed to distinguish between effective and counterproductive physical punishment, depending on the context of the disciplinary situations and the cultural context.

Authors

• Robert E Larzelere, Oklahoma State University - Stillwater
  Presenting Author

• Carla Adkison-Johnson, Western Michigan University
  Non-Presenting Author