Corporal Punishment and Communication in Father‐Son Dyads

Corporal Punishment and Communication in Father-Son Dyads

Jeffrey W. Kassing Kevin J. PearceArizona Sta te University West Bryant College

Dominic A. InfanteKent State University

This study was based on a communication-oriented perspective ofcorporal punishment of children. The perspective posits that physi-cally aggressive influence tactics would be associated with aggressivecommunication and a set of communication outcomes. The percep-tions of 74 father-son dyads were solicited to test these relationships.Results indicated that when there was lower argumentativeness andhigher verbal aggressiveness in father-son communication there wasmore corporal punishment as an influence tactic and that fathers andsons perceived the relationship as less favorable in terms of influencesuccess, communication competence, affirming style, and credibility.

Gairung children's compliance in a variety of instances is a fundamental characteristicof parenting. Parents may choose from a variety of verbal tactics for gaining compliance (e.g.,promising to reward a child for completing chores, threatening to withhold allowance).However, when these tactics fail or are unsuccessful, parents may resort to using physicalaggression in the form of corporal punishment to gain compliance. Parents may choose touse corporal punishment because they believe it sends a clear message to children that theymust comply (Straus, 1994). In such instances, corporal punishment represents a tactilic.

Jeffrey W. Kassing (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1997) is an Assistant Professor in the Departmentof Communication Studies, Arizona State University West, Phoenix, AZ 85069-7100. Kevin J.Pearce (Ph.D. Kent State University, 1999) is an Assistant Professor of Communication in the De-partment of English and Humanities at Bryant College, Smithfield, RI 02917. Dominic A. Infante(Ph.D. Kent State University, 1971) is Emeritus Professor in the School of Communication Studies atKent State University, Kent, OH, 44242.COMMUNICATION RESEARCH REPORTS, Volume 17, Number 3, pages 237-249

Page 238 - Communication Research Reports/Summer 2000

nonverbal message. Recent research illustrated that tactilic, nonverbal messages designed tosolicit compliance generated negative impressions in recipients. Additionally, receipt oftactilic, nonverbal messages was associated with family commurucation climates that con-doned physical and verbal aggression (Kassing, Pearce, Infante, & Pyles, 1999). The purposeof the current study is to explore further the commurucative nature of corporal punishmentby employing a dyadic perspective.

Further testing a line of research that frames corporal punishment as a problematiccompliance-gaining message tactic (Kassing et al., 1999), we propose to examine how corpo-ral punishment relates to communication within father-son dyads. We chose father-sondyads for several reasons. First, research indicates that boys are subjected to aggressivecompliance-gaining tactics more than girls (MacDonald, 1971; Straus, 1994). This may bedue a cultural belief that boys should be toughened, or it may be that boys simply misbehavemore often than girls do (Straus, 1994). Second, research indicates that males support the useof corporal punishment more than females (Flyrm, 1998). Third, previous research has shownthe importance of the father-son relationship when examining the son's communicationbehavior (Beatty & Dobos, 1992,1993; Beatty, Zelley, Dobos, & Rudd, 1994). For example,Beatty and Dobos (1992) found that the more anxiety felt between fathers and sons, the lesssatisfied sons were with the father-son relationship. Also, satisfaction was positively relatedto increased supportive messages and decreased levels of criticism. Beatty and Dobos (1993)also found that the father-son relationship Influenced the son's communication with others.The more confirming messages received as a child from fathers, the less reluctant sons wereto enter relationships as adults. Similarly, Aken and Asendorpf (1997) found that low socialsupport from parents related to feelings of low self-worth in children.

Research indicates that parents communicate with their children successfully about avariety of issues (Booth-Butterfield & Sidlinger, 1998; Henriksen & Jackson, 1998; Rimal &Flora, 1998). Parental communication related to college-aged children's behavior regardingsex and alcohol (Booth-Butterfield & Sidlinger, 1998), deterred grade school children fromsmoking (Henriksen & Jackson, 1998), and related to the adoption of dietary behaviors (Rimal& Flora, 1998). Father-son communication also appears to influence how siblings relate toone another and how children relate to peers (Bhavnagri & Parke, 1991; Stocker & McHale,1992). Stocker and McHale (1992) found that people that perceived they had positive, warmrelationships with their fathers reported having the most positive and least negative rela-tionships with their siblings. Bhavnagri and Parke (1991) reported that children were moresocially competent when their fathers and mothers facilitated peer interactions.

Corporal PunishmentResearchers have noted that three distinct attitudes toward corporal punishment exist:

(a) corporal punishment as morally sanctioned behavior, (b) corporal punishment as a toolfor controlling behavior, and (c) corporal punishment as abusive (Evans & Fargason, 1998).Kelly, Weir, and Fearnow (1985) found that a majority of parents favored the use of corporalpunishment in schools. Other findings indicated that parents believed corporal purushmentuse in the home resulted in child compliance and better child behavior (Holden, Miller, &Harris, 1999) and that people felt that corporal punishment use was more appropriate withyounger rather than older children (Flyrm, 1998). Flynn (1996) concluded that considerablenormative support exists for the use of corporal punishment in American society. Taken

Corporal Punishment - Page 239

together, these findings reveal that people believe corporal purushment is acceptable, appro-priate, and effective.

Although corporal punishment remains a prevalent, and often condoned, form of physi-cal aggression within families (Finkelhor & Dziuba-Leatherman, 1994; Straus & Gelles, 1990)researchers have challenged traditional views concerrung the use of corporal punishmentas a means for disciplining children (Finkelhor & Dzuiba-Leatherman, 1994; Infante, inpress; Straus, 1994). Straus (1994) refuted the myth that corporal punishment is extremelyeffective, by empirically demonstrating that it is actually orUy effective 53%, or just over half,of the time. Straus also refuted the myth that corporal punishment is acceptable as a lastresort when all else fails, by suggesting that corporal punishment teaches children thathitting, losing your temper, and resorting to violence when overwhelmed by frustration arepermissible behaviors.

Straus (1994) noted that parents, who themselves were subjected to corporal punish-ment, reason that they were spanked and did not develop any significant problems. On thecontrary, research suggests that experiencing more corporal punishment as a child resultsin higher levels of alienation and lower levels of occupational and economic achievement asan adult (Straus & Gimpel, 1994). Furthermore, frequently spanked children are two and ahalf times more likely to hit their spouse later in life, and four times more likely to be highlyaggressive (Straus, 1993). In a nationally representative sample, Straus (1993) found thatboth depressive symptoms and thoughts concerrung suicide increased as amounts of corpo-ral purushment increased. This finding held for both men and women and regardless ofwhether the father or mother administered the corporal punishment. These findings seri-ously challenge what Strauss (1994) refers to as the "myth of harmlessness" associated withcorporal purushment.

Corporal Punishment and CommunicationCommunication scholars have conceptualized corporal purushment of children as a

form of communication within families (Kassing et al., 1999; Infante, in press). Corporalpunishment represents a form of communication because it constitutes a tactilic message(i.e., it is symbolic and certain meanings are intentional). Moreover, the receiver of corporalpurushment reacts as if it is a message (i.e., complies with or resists the explicit demands ofthe message). The conceptualization suggests that corporal punishment is a type of nonver-bal, tactilic compliance-gaining tactic.

Corporal punishment represents incompetent communication because it is not effective 'or appropriate, two primary components of communication competence (Rubin, 1990;Wiemarui, 1977). Corporal punishment is not effective because while it can create immediatecompliance, effectiveness diminishes over time because reasons for the influenced behaviorare not internalized (Straus, 1994). Corporal punishment is not relationally appropriatecommunication because several additional relational meanings of the message, other thanthe primary compliance meaning intended by the parent of "do this" or "stop doing that,"may be generated (e.g., "If my parents love me, why do they hit me?", "My parents must thifikI'm a bad person since I have to be beaten like this." "Hitting is acceptable when you lovesomeone."). These additional interpretations can be harmful to the child and destructive tothe parent-child relationship (Kassing et al., 1999). Furthermore, corporal punishment is notcompetent communication because long-term negative effects may accompany immediatesuccess. Research indicates that these include psychological distress, depression, and sui-


cidal thoughts (Straus, 1993; Turner & Finkelhor, 1996), higher levels of social alienationand lower levels of economic achievement and occupational success as an adult (Straus &Gimpel, 1994), and more spousal physical abuse (Straus, 1993). Recent research (Kassing etal., 1999) reinforced previous findings of psychological and physical harm. Persons whoreceived the most corporal purushment were higher on assault tendencies, anger, and inten-tions of using corporal punishment with their children.

Previous research suggests that argumentative skill deficiency can lead to physical ag-gression within the family context (Infante, Chandler, & Rudd, 1989). Ixxfante (in press)posits that the same relationship may be present between corporal punishment,argumentativeness, and verbal aggressiveness. That is, parents who are more skilledargumentatively are able to deterniine the arguments needed to convince a child to do or stopdoing something without feeling the need to resort to corporal purushment. Conversely,parents that are less skilled argumentatively may rely more heavily on verbal aggressionand eventually physical aggression (i.e., corporal punishment) to achieve compliance.

Argumentativeness is a constructive communication trait that involves attackinganother's arguments (Infante & Rancer, 1996), whereas verbal aggressiveness is a destruc-tive communication trait that involves attacking the self-concept of another person in orderto stimulate psychological pain (Infante & Wigley, 1986). Research suggests that there is alink between verbal aggression and physical aggression (Bookwala, Frieze, Smith, & Ryan,1992; Burman, John, & Margolin, 1992; Infante et al., 1989; Infante, Sabourin, Rudd, & Shan-non, 1990; Sabourin, Infante, & Rudd, 1993). Research also suggests that exposure to verbalaggression related to decreased self-esteem (Rancer, Kosberg, & Silvestri, 1992), experienc-ing less verbal affection (Shuntich & Shapiro, 1991), and depression in marital couples(Segrin & Fitzpatrick, 1992). Furthermore, research indicates that when children are exposedto verbal aggression they are more likely to become involved in delinquency, to developinterpersonal problems, and to resort to physical aggression (Vissing & Straus, 1991). Thus,there is a clear relationship between the destructive trait of verbal aggression and the poten-tial for both negative consequences and physical aggression.

According to thinking outlined here, therefore, we would expect that when parents usephysical aggression to influence children's behavior a pattern of accompanying communi-cation involves lower argumentativeness and higher verbal aggressiveness. This is in linewith other family communication research based on an argumentative skill deficiency model(Infante et al., 1989; Infante, Myers, & Buerkel, 1994; Sabourin et al., 1993), which suggeststhat violence and other forms of aggression are more likely in families where skill in con-structive argumentation is lacking. The conditions, then, of lower argumentativeness, higherverbal aggressiveness, and the use of corporal punishment should result in less effective-ness in influencing the child because the overall pattern suggests less communication com-petence.

Besides less influence and lower communication competence, other relevant and impor-tant perceptions are likely to be less favorable, specifically, those pertaining to credibilityand affirming style. Credibility was considered as a communication outcome associatedwith efforts to influence children's behavior because research suggests that source credibil-ity is affected negatively by the use of verbal aggression (Infante, Hartley, Martin, Higgins,Bruning, & Hur, 1992), but positively by argumentativeness (Infante, 1985; Onyekwere, Rubin,& Infante, 1991). Additionally, we expect that credibility perceptions will be unfavorable


when physically aggressive influence tactic use occurs because interactants may view physi-cal aggressiveness as coercive rather than believable and trustworthy.

Affirming style (Norton, 1978) consists of relaxed, friendly, and attentive behaviors andhas been associated with satisfying commurucation between superiors and their subordi-nates (Infante, Anderson, Martin, Herington, & Kim, 1993; Ir\fante & Gorden, 1989,1991).Because the parent-child dyad is a type of superior-subordinate relationship, a similar posi-tive relationship between affirming style and satisfaction could be expected. Along this line,Bayer and Cegala (1992) found that parents who were higher in argumentativeness andlower in verbal aggressiveness were more affirming in their style of dealing with their chil-dren. Kandel and Wu (1995) found that more positive and affirnaing methods for controllinga child reduced control problems and produced more closeness with the child. In contrast,aggressive and negative tactics exacerbated the child's conduct problems, which led toincreased aggressive parenting and less closeness.

The thinking outlined here produced the following research hypothesis:HI: When father-son dyads report lower argumentativeness, higher verbal aggressive-

ness and physical aggressiveness, they will also report less parental influence success, lessfavorable perceptions of communication competence, credibility, and affirming style.

METHODParticipants

The sample was composed of father-son dyads. The sons in our study were studentsenrolled in an introductory course in communication at a large Midwestern state universitywho took part in the study in order to satisfy a course research requirement. The mean age ofthe students was 20.7, SD = 4.9. A total of 109 participants completed questiormaires report-ing communication in their father-son relationships. The researchers asked permission tomail a similar questionnaire to the fathers. Seven of the participants chose not to have ques-tiormaires sent to their fathers. Of the 102 questiormaires sent to fathers, 74 were returned.Thus, the sample consisted of 74 father-son dyads. For each variable of interest, scores fromthe group of respondents whose fathers participated were compared with scores from thegroup of respondents whose fathers did not participate (n = 37). No significant differenceswere observed.

ProceduresTwo questionnaires were prepared for data collection. One version was designed for

sons to complete. Sons were asked to report about their fathers' use of influence tactics, theirfathers' influence success, and their perceptions of their fathers' communicator style, com-petence, and credibility. The other version was designed for fathers to complete. It askedfathers to report about their use of irifluence tactics, their influence success, and their percep-tions of their sons' commurucator style, competence, and credibility. With the exception ofthe father/son wording, the two versions of the questionnaire were identical.

Sons completed questionnaires in a scheduled session in the department's researchcenter in groups with about 15 other students. The researchers asked the subjects to sign aconsent form that provided permission to mail a questionnaire to their fathers. The partici-pants were informed that their responses would be confidential and that the fathers wouldnot see the sons' responses. To encourage fathers to respond, each son wrote a brief, person-alized note to his father asking him to complete the questiormaire sent. Fathers were in-


formed in the cover letter from the researchers that the fathers' responses would be anony-mous and that sons would not see the fathers' responses.

In line with methods employed by Straus (1993), the sons were asked to recall a typicalmonth in their lives between the ages of 6 and 12 years old. They were instructed: "Thinkback to this time in terms of how your father tried to influence you to do something that youdid not want to do or to stop doing something." These instructions were intended to stimu-late perceptions of typical parental behavior rather than memory of a traumatic experience.Next, they rated 21 influence tactics in terms of the frequency that each typically was used bythe father in an influence attempt. The scale ranged from never used (0) to used very often (5).Generally, this method is similar to that used by Straus (1993), Hemenway, Solnic, andCarter (1994), and Rorty, Yager, and Rossotto (1995). Straus (1993) and a study by Stattin,Janson, Klackenberg-Larson, and Magnusson (1995) presented evidence on the validity ofasking children about corporal pimishment. In the father-version of the questiormaire fa-thers were provided with the same directions and were asked to report the frequency withwhich they used each tactic in an influence attempt.

Three items were used to measure physically aggressive influence tactics: (a) corporalpunishment usage ("you were given a spanking to get you to comply"), (b) force ("you werepushed, shaken, or held down to get you to comply"), and physical discomfort ("you werepinched, squeezed, or had your hair pulled to get you to comply"). The wording of theseitems for fathers was from their perspective. We performed coefficient alpha analyses on thesons' and fathers' responses to these items to determine if the three items should be summedor analyzed separately as three independent forms of physical aggression. Results indicated(coefficient alpha of .35 for sons and .55 for fathers when items were summed as an index)that the items should be treated independently as three different types of aggressive influ-ence tactics.

Three items were used to measure argumentative influence tactics ("your father askedyou to debate why you should comply"; "you were asked to discuss the issues concerningwhy you should comply"; "reasoris for compliance were given and you were asked to try torefute them") and three items were used to assess verbally aggressive influence tactics ("youwere told you were bad for not complying"; "cursing and swear words were used to get youto comply"; "you were told you are dumb, stupid, or ignorant if you did not comply"). Here,also, the wording for the fathers' questionnaires was from their perspective. Coefficientalpha analyses suggested that summing only the first two argumentativeness items and thesecond and third verbal aggressiveness items to create summated indexes of argumentativeinfluence tactics and verbally aggressive influence tactics was warranted. The respectivealphas for the argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness indexes were .73 and .70 forsons and .75 and .78 for fathers.

The remaining 12 items were adopted from Marwell and Schmitt's (1967) taxonomy ofcompliance-gaining strategies and included: promise, threat, debt, liking, moral appeal,positive self-feeling, negative self-feeling, pre-giving, positive esteem, negative esteem, altru-ism, and aversive stimulation. These items served as filler items and were used to make thefocus of the study less apparent.

The measure of influence success involved asking sons to specify the percentage ofsituations from ages 6 to 12 where the father typically was successful in influencing the sonto comply with the father's wishes. Fathers responded to a similar item reporting the fre-quency with which they were successful in influencing their sons.


To measure communicator style, items from the relaxed, friendly, and attentive dimen-sions of a modified version of the Communicator Style Scale (Montgomery & Norton, 1981)were used. Previous researchers have used these components of communicator style asindices of an affirming style, which is particularly relevant to argumentativeness and verbalaggressiveness (Infante & Gorden, 1989). Participants read descriptive paragraphs abouteach communicator style and responded to a single item in which they rated their father's/son's communication as more/less indicative of friendly, attentive, and relaxed commuru-cator styles in comparison to a random group of six people. Because these were single itemindexes alpha reliabilities were not computed. Respondents used a 6-point Likert-type scaleranging from 5 of them (5) to none of them (0) to respond.

Communication competence was measured by the 10-item Interpersonal Commuruca-tion Competence Scale (Rubin & Martin, 1994). Coefficient alpha was .67 for sons' ratings offathers and .64 for fathers' ratings of sons. The credibility of sons and fathers in influencesituations was assessed with a 6-item semantic-differential measure of credibility (Infante,1980). Three semantic differential-type scales were used to assess character (insincere-sin-cere, honest-dishonest, untrustworthy-trustworthy) and three were used to assess compe-tence (skilled-unskilled, unqualified-qualified, informed-uninformed). The credibility scaleswere validated in earlier research (Infante, 1980). Coefficient alphas for sons' ratings offathers' character and competence were .85 and .69 while the respective alphas for fathers'ratings of sons were .74 and .74.

TABLE 1Means, standard deviations, and range of possible scores for dyadic measures.

M SD Range of Scores

Corporal PunishmentForcePhysical DiscomfortArgumentativenessVerbal AggressivenessInfluence SuccessCommunication CompetenceRelaxed StyleFriendly StyleAttentive StyleCredibility ̂ character)Credibility (competence)

For data analysis, measures of fathers' and sons' reports were summed to form dyadicindexes for each variable of interest. Means, standard deviations, and the range of possiblescores for the dyadic measures appear in Table 1.

RESULTSThe hypothesis offered predicted that a variate would be identified in the reports of sons

and fathers that would situate physical aggressiveness with lower argumentativeness andhigher verbal aggressiveness in the father-son dyad. The hypothesis further specified thatwhen such conditions occur in the dyad, less parental influence success would be evidentand less favorable perceptions of communication competence, credibility, and affirmingstyle would be present.

1.12.23.08

4.682.24

157.8273.437.437.246.89

36.2434.27

.24

.04

.014.033.33

23.647.611.611.721.554.193.68

2-102-102-104-204-20

0-20020-100

0-100-100-10642642

Page 244 - Commimication Research Reports/Summer 2000

The hypothesis was tested using canonical correlation analysis. The results revealedthat two variates were identified which correlated significantly. Re = .70, Rc^ = .49, p < .001.

TABLE 2Canonical Variable Loadings for H,

Influence Tactics VariatePhysical aggressiveness

Corporal PunishmentrorcePhysical DiscomfortArgumentativenessVerbal Aggressiveness

Communication and Outcomes VariateInfluence Success

. Communication CompetenceRelaxed StyleFriendly StyleAttentive StyleCredibility ^character)Credibility (competence)

Loadings

.42.08

41-.65.61

-.51-.71-.19-.53-.65-.71-.58

Redundancy Index

.16

.17

The structures of the variates, which comprised the significant root, were aligned ratherclosely with the hypothesis. The canonical loadings are presented in Table 2.

Of the three forms of physical aggression assessed, force (i.e., being pushed, shaken, orheld down) was substantially related to the variate while corporal purushment (i.e., beingspanked) and physical discomfort (i.e., being pinched, squeezed, having hair pulled) weremoderately related. Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness were correlated substan-tially with the variate as predicted, the former negatively and the latter positively. The struc-ture of the outcomes variate was as predicted. Ur\favorable perceptions of character, of com-mimication competence, and of attentive style were related substantially, while unfavorableperceptions of the competence dimension of credibility, less friendly style, and less influencesuccess were related moderately. While all were in the direction predicted, the relationshipsvaried in strength and therefore, as specified above, some provided stronger support for thehypothesis than others.

DISCUSSIONThe results of this study were considerably congruent with the emerging perspective

that corporal punishment represents a nonverbal, tactilic form of compliance gaining thatassociates with verbal aggressiveness (Kassing et al., 1999) and argumentative skill defi-ciency (Infante, in press). The findings provide support for the notions that physical aggres-sion in the father-son dyad, in general, and corporal punishment, in particular, representtactilic messages that equate to neither competent nor constructive communication. Rather,they represent ineffective irifluence attempts that can be destructive because they place chil-dren at risk of physical and psychological harm. Abundant evidence pertains to the claim ofphysical and psychological harm (e.g., Kassing et al., 1999; Straus, 1991,1993,1994).


The emerging perspective tested here emphasizes an argumentative skill deficiency in-terpretation of the dynamics of the parent-child ir\fluence situation. This says, basically, thatphysical aggression is more likely when parents are verbally aggressive and lack argumen-tative skills. Potentially, argumentative skill deficiency results in parents coming to a verypremature conclusion, when attempting to influence children, that if verbal tactics are notsuccessful, then there is little more to say and, therefore, physical aggressiveness is justifiedas an influence tactic.

When this pattern of aggressive commurucation conditions exists, the emerging per-spective predicts that ur\favorable commimication effects follow. Earlier research (Kassinget al., 1999; Infante, Pearce, Pyles, Kassing, & Barta, 1996) observed some support for theseideas. However, the data were only from one perspective, that of the recipient. The presentstudy went beyond the unilateral approach and found rather extensive evidence supportingthe framework from a parent-child dyadic perspective.

Although the findings support the framework developed herein, the study containssome notable limitations. First, the data collection techniques employed can be supplementedby considering data collection techniques that do not rely on retrospective accounts (e.g.,observation techniques). Second, the study focused on a particular time period during thefather-son relationship. The ideas tested here may or may not apply when the parent-childrelationship is examined across time. Research indicates that people reported being moresupportive of corporal punishment use with younger rather than older children (Flyrm,1998). A broader life span perspective might reveal that aggressive influence tactics varyconsiderably with the age of the child. For example, argumentative communication may bemore pervasive with post as compared to pre-adolescent boys. Because verbal ability tendsto develop earlier in girls than in boys, the use of argument in persuasion situations may bemore likely with younger girls than with younger boys. Third, although the present studyachieved some control by limiting the sample to father-son pairs, it may be worthwhile tostudy possible interactions of parent and child gender with aggressive commurucation.Fourth, there may be a subject-mortality limitation because 28 out of 102 fathers did notreturn questionnaires and 7 students did not give us permission to mail questionnaires totheir fathers. While there probably are several explanations for this, a troubling one is thatthere was a reluctance to report highly aggressive and/or abusive influence attempts. Per-haps the data obtained represent only the mildest cases of corporal punishment. In thefuture, research samples that include other populations such as juvenile delinquents andabusive parents may be worthwhile to study.

A major implication of this work is that corporal punishment usage and hence, itsharmful effects, would be reduced if parents were trained to argue constructively with theirchildren as a primary influence tactic. According to superior-subordinate research, such astyle is most productive when used in a very low verbally aggressive manner with a highlyaffirming communicator style (Infante & Gorden, 1989,1991). Of course, children can benefitfrom being taught these skills and recent research demonstrates that they can successfullylearn and use argumentative skills (Rancer, Whitecap, Kosberg, & Avtgis, 1997). The currentfindings and previous work exploring these issues (Kassing et al., 1999; Infante et al., 1996)provide justification for further research to address corporal punishment as a commuruca-tive phenomenon and to address what Straus (1994) suggested looms as the most importantunsolved problem in contemporary society.


REFERENCESAken, V., & Asendorpf, J. (1997). Support by parents, classmates, friends and

siblings in preadolescence: Covariation and compensation across relationships.. fournal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 79-93.

Bayer, C. L., & Cegala, D. J. (1992). Trait verbal aggressiveness andargumentativeness: Relations with parenting style. Western Journal of Communica-tion, 56, 301-310.

Beatty, J. M., & Dobos, J. A. (1992). Adult sons' satisfaction with their relation-ships with fathers and person-group (father) commurucation apprehension. Com-munication Quarterly, 40,162-176.

Beatty, M. J. & Dobos, J. A. (1993). Adult males' perceptions of confirmation andrelational partner communication apprehension: Indirect effects of fathers onsons' partners. Communication Quarterly, 41, 66-76.

Beatty, J. M., Zelley, J. R., Dobos, J. A., & Rudd, J. E. (1994). Fathers' trait verbalaggressiveness and argumentativeness as predictors of adult sons' perceptions offathers' sarcasm, criticism, and verbal aggressiveness. Communication Quarterly,42,407-415.

Bhavnagri, N. P., & Parke, R. D. (1991). Parents as direct facilitators of children'speer relationships: Effects of age of child and sex of parent, fournal of Social andPersonal Relationships, 8,423-440.

Booth-Butterfield, M., & Sidlinger, R. (1998). The influence of family communi-cation on the college-aged child: Openness, attitudes and actions about sex andalcohol. Communication Quarterly, 46, 295-308.

Bookwala, J., Frieze, I. H., Smith, C, & Ryan, K. (1992). Predictors of datingviolence: A multivariate analysis. Violence and Victims, 7,297-311.

Burman, B., John, R. S., & Margolin, G. (1992). Observed patterns of conflict inviolent, nonviolent, and nondistressed couples. Behavioral Assessment, 14,15-37.

Evans, H. H., & Fargason, C. A. (1998). Pediatric discourse on corporal punish-ment: A historical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3, 357-368.

Finkelhor, D. & Dziuba-Leatherman,}. (1994). Victimization of children. Ameri-can Psychologist, 49,173-183.

Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1988). Between husbands and wives: Communication in marriage.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Flynn, C. P. (1996). Normative support for corporal punishment: Attitudes,correlates, and implications. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1, 47-55.

Flynn, C. P. (1998). To spank or not to spank: The effect of situation and age ofchild on support for corporal punishment, fournal of Family Violence, 13, 21-37.

Hemenway, D., Solnic, S., & Carter, J. (1994). Child-rearing violence. Child Abuse& Neglect, 18,1011-1020.

Henriksen, L., & Jackson, C. (1998). Anti-smoking socialization: Relationship toparent and child smoking status. Health Communication, 10,87-101.

Infante, D. A. (1980). The construct validity of semantic differential scales for themeasurement of source credibility. Communication Quarterly, 28,19-26.

Infante, D. A. (1985). Inducing women to be more argumentative: Source cred-ibility effects, fournal of Applied Communication Research, 13, 33-44.


Infante, D. A. (In press). Corporal punishment of children: A communicationtheory perspective. In M. Donnelly & M. A. Straus (Eds.), Corporal punishment ofchildren in theoretical perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Infante, D. A., Anderson, C. M., Martin, M., Herington, A. D., & Kim, J. (1993).Subordinates' satisfaction and perceptions of superiors' compliance-gaining tac-tics, argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, and style. Management Communi-cation Quarterly, 6, 307-326.

Infante, D. A., Chandler, T. A., & Rudd, J. E. (1989). Test of an argumentativeskill deficiency model of interspousal violence. Communication Monographs, 56,163-177.

Infante, D. A., iSt Gorden, W. I. (1981). Similarities and differences in the commu-nicator styles of superiors and subordinates: Relations to subordinate satisfaction.Communication Quarterly, 30, 67-71.

Infante, D. A., & Gorden, W. I. (1989). Argumentativeness and affirming com-municator style as predictors of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with subordinates.Communication Quarterly, 37, 81-90.

Infante, D. A., & Gorden, W. I. (1991). How employees see the boss: Test of anargumentative and affirming model of supervisors' communicative behavior.Western fournal of Speech Communication, 55, 294-304.

Infante, D. A., Hartley, K. C, Martin, M. M., Higgins, M. A., Bruning, S. D., &Hur, G. (1992). Initiating and reciprocating verbal aggression: Effects on credibil-ity and credited valid arguments. Communication Studies, 43,182-190.

Infante, D. A., Myers, S. A., & Buerkel, R. A. (1994). Argument and verbalaggression in constructive and destructive family and organizational disagree-ments. Western fournal of Communication, 58, 73-84.

Infante, D. A., Pearce, K. J., Pyles, S. M., Kassing, J. W., & Barta, A. L. (1996,November). Corporal punishment of children and perceptions of parents' communica-tion. Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association Convention. SanDiego, CA.

Infante, D. A., Sabourin, T. C, Rudd, J. E., & Shannon, E. A. (1990). Verbalaggression in violent and nonviolent marital disputes. Communication Quarterly,38, 361-371.

Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J. Ill (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interper-sonal model and measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61-69.

Kandel, D. B., & Wu, P. (1995). Disentangling mother-child effects in the devel-opment of antisocial behavior. In J. McCord (Ed.), Coercion and punishment in long-term perspectives (pp. 106-123). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Kassing, J. W., Pearce, K. J.,, Infante, D. A., & Pyles, S. M. (1999). Exploring thecommunicative nature of corporal punishment. Communication Research Reports,16,18-27.

Kelly, P. C, Weir, M. R., & Fearnow, R. G. (1985). A survey of parental opinionson corporal punishment in schools, fournal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediat-rics, 6,143-145.

MacDonald, A. P. (1971). Internal-external locus of control: Parental anteced-ents. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 37,141-147.


Marwell, G., & Schmitt, D. R. (1967). Dimensions of compliance-gaining behav-ior: An empirical analysis. Sociometry, 30, 350-364.

Montgomery, B. M., & Norton, R. W. (1981). Sex differences and similarities incommunicator style. Communication Monographs, 48,121-132.

Norton, R. W. (1978). Foundations of a communicator style construct. HumanCommunication Research, 4, 99-112.

Onyekwere, E. O., Rubin, R. B., & Infante, D. A. (1991). Interpersonal percep-tion and communication satisfaction as a function of argumentativeness and ego-involvement. Communication Quarterly, 39, 35-47.

Rancer, A. S., Kosberg, R. L., & Silvestri, V. N. (1992). The relationship betweenself-esteem and aggressive communication predispositions. Communication Re-search Reports, 9, 25-32.

Rancer, A. S., Whitecap, V., Kosberg, R. L., and Avtgis, T. A. (1997). Training inargumentativeness: Testing the efficacy of a communication training program toincrease argumentativeness and argumentative behavior. Communication Educa-tion, 46, 273-286.

Rimal, R. N., & Flora, J. A. (1998). Bidirectional familial influences in dietarybehavior: Test of a model of campaign influences. Human Communication Research,24, 610-637.

Rorty, M., Yager, J., & Rossotto, E. (1995). Aspects of childhood physical punish-ment and family environment correlates in bulimia nervousa. Child Abuse & Ne-glect, 19, 659-667.

Rubin, R. B. (1990). Commimication competence. In G. M. Phillips & J. T. Wood(Eds.), Speech Communication: Essays to commemorate the 75th anniversary of theSpeech Communication Association (pp. 94-129). Carbondale, IL: Southern IllinoisUniversity Press.

Rubin, R. B., & Martin, M. (1994). Development of a measure of interpersonalcommunication competence. Communication Research Reports, 11, 33-44.

Sabourin, T. C, Infante, D. A., & Rudd, J. E. (1993). Verbal aggression in mar-riages: A comparison of violent, distressed by nonviolent, and nondistressedcouples. Human Communication Research, 20, 245-267.

Segrln, C, & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1992). Depression and verbal aggressiveness indifferent marital couple types. Communication Studies, 43, 79-91.

Shuntich, R. J., & Shapiro, R. M. (1991). Explorations of verbal affection andaggression, fournal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6,283-300.

Stattin, H., Janson, H., Klackenberg-Larson, I., & Magnusson, D. (1995). Corpo-ral punishment in everyday life: An intergenerational perspective. In J. McCord(Ed.), Coercion and punishment in long-term perspective (pp. 315-347). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Straus, M. A. (1991). Discipline and deviance: Physical punishment of childrenand violence and other crime in adulthood. Social Problems, 38,101-123.

Straus, M. A. (1993). Corporal punishment of children and depression and sui-cide in adulthood. InJ. McCord (Ed.), Coercion and punishment in long term perspec-tive (pp. 1-24). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Straus, M. A. (Ed.) (1994). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment inAmerican families. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.


Straus, M. A. & Gimpel, H. S. (1994). Alienation and reduced income. In M.Straus (Ed.), Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in American families(pp. 137-146). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Stocker, C. M., & McHale, S. M. (1992). The nature and family correlates ofpreadolescents' perceptions of their sibling relationships, fournal of Social and Per-sonal Relationships, 9,179-195.

Turner, H. A., & FLnkeUior, D. (1996). Corporal punishment as a stressor amongyouth, fournal of Marriage and the Family, 58,155-166.

Vissing, Y. M., & Straus, M. A. (1991). Verbal aggression by parents and psycho-social problems of children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 15,223-238.

Wiemann, J. (1977). Explication and test of a model of communicative compe-tence. Human Communication Research, 3,195-213.

Documents

Corporal Punishment and Communication in Father‐Son Dyads