Family Comm. &Violence 2
administered deliberately and with professions of love and care for the child is in fact not
only an effective way of behavior modification, but also is associated with positive long
term outcomes for the child (Trumbull & Ravenel, 1996). In other words, there is no
direct effect of corporal punishment on child outcomes. Rather, the family environment
in which corporal punishment occurs determines wither the consequences of corporal
punishment are positive or negative. The goal of the current study is to investigate this
claim.
Violence and Corporal Punishment in Families
Also clearly distinct theoretical concepts, behaviorally the distinction between
violence and corporal punishment is less clear. Straus (1994) definitions of both corporal
punishment and violence illustrates the ambiguous nature of these two acts. “Corporal
punishment is the use of physical force with the intention of causing a child to experience
pain, but not injury, for the purpose of correction or control of the child’s behavior” (p.
4). “Violence is an act carried out with the intention, or perceived intention, of causing
physical pain or injury to another person” (p. 7). Thus, the distinction between these two
acts is in the intention of the actor to inflict pain or injury. Because intention is not
directly observable, this suggests that while the actors (usually the parents) should be able
to distinguish between violence and corporal punishment, the recipients (usually the
children) might not be able to because they necessarily rely on their inferences and
attributions when assigning intent to their parents’ behaviors.
Thus, while parents who utilize corporal punishment believe in the virtues of this
disciplinary practice, namely immediate compliance and long-term socialization (Holden,
Miller, & Harris, 1999), whether they behavior functionally is corporal punishment or
Convention