Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 141–152 | Cite as

An analysis of the physical punishment component of a parent training program

  • Dan E. Day
  • Mark W. Roberts


One component of a well-researched, standardized parent training program is to spank children for escape from time-out. The contribution of the spanking component to compliance acquisition in a clinic analog setting was evaluated. Time-out duration and child disruption at time-out release were balanced across spank and no-spank (“barrier”) conditions. Sixteen noncompliant, clinic-referred preschool children participated. The data indicated that both spank and barrier procedures were equally effective at increasing compliance ratios. Physical punishment did not appear to be a critical component. Given prior research, it was concluded that the enforcement of a minimum time-out duration is critical for compliance acquisition within the analog setting.


Training Program Preschool Child Critical Component Parent Training Standardize Parent 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference note

  1. 1.
    Hanf, C.A two-stage program for modifying maternal controlling during mother-child (M-C) interaction. Paper presented at the Western Psychological Association Meeting, Vancouver, B.C., 1969.Google Scholar


  1. 2.
    Baum, C. G., & Forehand, R. Long term follow-up assessment of parent training by use of multiple outcome measures.Behavior Therapy, 1981,12, 643–652.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    Bean, A. W., & Roberts, M. W. The effect of timeout release contingencies on changes in child noncompliance.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1981,9, 95–105.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    Bernai, M. E., Duryee, J. S., Pruett, H. L., & Burns, B. J. Behavior modification and the brat syndrome.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1968,32, 447–455.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    Drabman, R. S., & Creedon, D. L. “Marking timeout” A procedure for away from home disruptive behavior.Child Behavior Therapy, 1979,1, 99–101.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    Eyberg, S. M., & Ross, A. W. Assessment of child behavior problems: The validation of a new inventory.Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 1978,7, 113–116.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Forehand, R. Child noncompliance to parent commands: Behavioral analysis and treatment. In M. Hersen, R. M. Eisler, and P. M. Miller (Eds.),Progress in behavior modification. Vol. 5. New York: Academic Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    Forehand, R., & King, H. E. Noncompliant children: Effects of parent training on behavior and attitude change.Behavior Modification, 1977,1, 93–108.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    Forehand, R. L., & McMahon, R. J.Helping the noncompliant child: A clinician's guide to parent training. New York: Guilford Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    Forehand, R., Wells, K. C, & Griest, D. L. An examination of the social validity of a parent training program.Behavior Therapy, 1980,11, 488–502.Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    Hays, W. L., & Winkler, R. L.Statistics: Probability, inference, and decision. (Vol. II). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1970.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    Hobbs, S. A., & Forehand, R. Effects of differential release from time-out on children's deviant behavior.Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 1975,6, 256–257.Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    Hobbs, S. A., Forehand, R., & Murray, R. G. Effects of various durations of timeout on the noncompliant behavior of children.Behavior Therapy, 1978,9, 652–656.Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    Lavigueur, H., Peterson, R. F., Sheese, J. G., & Peterson, L. W. Behavioral treatment in the home: Effects on an untreated sibling and long-term follow-up.Behavior Therapy, 1973,4, 431–441.Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    Roberts, M. W. Resistance to timeout: Some normative data.Behavioral Assessment, 1982,4, 237–246.Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    Roberts, M. W. The effects of warned versus unwarned time-out procedures on child noncompliance.Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 1982,4, 37–53.Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    Roberts, M. W., Hatzenbuehler, L. C, & Bean, A. W. The effects of differential attention and time out on child noncompliance.Behavior Therapy, 1981,12, 93–99.Google Scholar
  17. 18.
    Wells, K. C., Griest, D. L., & Forehand, R. The use of a self-control package to enhance temporal generality of a parent training program.Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1980,18, 347–358.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dan E. Day
    • 1
  • Mark W. Roberts
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentIdaho State UniversityPocatello

Personalised recommendations