Severity levels of physical punishment of children/adolescents: cluster analysis

AZEVEDO, Roberta Noronha; BAZON, Marina Rezende

doi:10.1590/1982-0275202138e190088

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Estudos de Psicologia (Campinas)

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

PSYCHOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT • Estud. psicol. 38 • 2021 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0275202138e190088 copy

Severity levels of physical punishment of children/adolescents: cluster analysis

Níveis de gravidade da punição física de crianças/adolescentes: análise de clusters

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Physical punishment – corporal punishment – of children/adolescents is highly prevalent. The objective of this study was to verify if, in a sample of parents/caregivers, there would be subgroups that would differentiate themselves regarding the behavior of physically punishing the children, in terms of modalities, frequency, body parts of the child affected, and presence of parental anger in the act of punishing, denoting severity levels associated with differences in the psychosocial variables pointed out in the literature as risk factors for physical abuse. A quantitative approach was adopted, with a cross-sectional design and cluster method. The study included 87 parents/caregivers who practice physical punishment. The analyses indicated the existence of three clusters that differed in the level of severity of corporal punishment and some of the psychosocial variables, denoting the importance of developing services/programs to cope with violence against children/adolescents and specific psychosocial intervention strategies.

Keywords
Child abuse; Family relations; Punishment; Social services

Modality of punishment	Scores
Kneeling	1
Pulling hair	1
Pulling the ear	1
Pinching	1
Tying up	2
Spanking	2
Slapping	3
Giving “croques” (hitting the head with knuckles)	4
Shaking	5
Pushing	5
Throwing objects	6
Lashing	7
Punching	7
Beating	7
Strangling	8
Banging the head against the wall	8

Variables	Cluster 1 (n = 12)			Cluster 2 (n = 44)			Cluster 3 (n = 31)			H	p
Variables	M	DP	Mean Rank	M	DP	Mean Rank	M	DP	Mean Rank	H	p
Age	31.6	9.6	33.7	38.8	12.2	49.0	33.7	8.5	40.9	4.22	0.12
Age 1^st child	19.9	3.7	44.0	20.7	6.3	43.4	20.3	4.7	43.5	0.02	1.00
No of children	2.7	1.0	43.6	3.2	3.0	42.4	3.3	3.3	45.0	0.20	0.91
Years of schooling	7.4	2.9	49.6	6.6	3.7	43.3	6.4	2.5	42.9	0.69	0.71
Modality of punishment	-0.5^a	0.7	29.5	-0.5^a	0.6	31.9	0.9^b	0.9	66.7	39.3	0.00^ Statistically significant at the level of 0.01. In the lines, the means with the same letters are not different among them by the Tukey post-test (p < 0.05), in which: a < b < c.
Body regions	-0.3^a	0.7	37.3	-0.4^a	0.6	34.6	0.7^b	1.1	59.9	19.7	0.00^ Statistically significant at the level of 0.01. In the lines, the means with the same letters are not different among them by the Tukey post-test (p < 0.05), in which: a < b < c.
Frequency of punishment	-0.2^b	1.0	38.1	-0.7^a	0.5	28.2	1.0^c	0.6	68.7	53.0	0.00^ Statistically significant at the level of 0.01. In the lines, the means with the same letters are not different among them by the Tukey post-test (p < 0.05), in which: a < b < c.
Feeling anger	-2.3^a	0.0	7.5	0.4^b	0.0	51.0	0.3^b	0.7	48.2	72.3	0.00^ Statistically significant at the level of 0.01. In the lines, the means with the same letters are not different among them by the Tukey post-test (p < 0.05), in which: a < b < c.

Scales and subscales	Cluster 1 (n = 12)			Cluster 2 (n = 44)			Cluster 3 (n = 31)			H	p
Scales and subscales	M	DP	Mean Rank	M	DP	Mean Rank	M	DP	Mean Rank	H	p
Abuse	202.0^a	106.7	34.4	226.2^a	106.0	39.9	281.7^b	95.2	53.5	7.25	0.03^* * Statistically significant at the level of 0.05;
Distress	107.8	67.8	34.5	127.9	72.6	40.7	162.6	71.7	52.4	5.89	0.05
Rigidity	33.1^a	17.5	36.5	4.2^a	14.0	36.8	45.6^b	13.8	57.1	13.06	0.00^ Statistically significant at the level of 0.01. In the lines, the means with the same letters were not different among them by the Tukey post-test (p < 0.05), in which: a < b < c.
Unhappiness	27.0	21.3	41.1	26.1	16.6	41.3	30.1	15.0	48.9	1.83	0.40
Problems oneself / child	4.0	6.5	36.0	5.3	6.5	44.4	5.4	6.1	46.6	1.61	0.45
Family problems	14.7	16.2	38.9	17.4	13.9	43.8	19.3	14.0	46.2	0.74	0.69
Problems with others	15.5	7.8	41.2	1 4.7	7.7	38.9	18.7	7.0	52.4	5.54	0.06
Ego strength	21.6^b	8.8	53.7	19.3^b	10.2	48.5	13.6^a	9.6	33.8	8.20	0.02^* * Statistically significant at the level of 0.05;
Loneliness	8.2	4.5	38.3	8.5	4.4	40.1	10.5	4.3	51.8	4.67	0.10

Scales	Cluster 1 (n = 12)			Cluster 2 (n = 44)			Cluster 3 (n = 31)			H	p
Scales	M	DP	Mean Rank	M	DP	Mean Rank	M	DP	Mean Rank	H	p
Cohesion	27.4^b	6.5	54.0	26.8 b	5.3	47.7	23.2^a	7.3	34.9	6.95	0.03^* * Statistically significant at the level of 0.05. In the lines, the means with the same letters were not different among them by the Tukey post-test (p < 0.05), in which: a < b < c.
Flexibility	23.1	5.3	47.8	23.4	5.1	48.9	20.3	5.8	35.5	5.44	0.07
Disengaged	17.0	6.6	37.9	17.2	6.0	39.9	19.8	6.5	52.1	5.10	0.08
Enmeshed	20.1	4.9	49.7	19.3	5.0	45.6	18.1	5.1	39.5	1.79	0.41
Rigid	17.9	5.7	36.8	18.5	3.5	43.9	19.3	4.3	47.0	1.42	0.49
Chaotic	15.9	5.6	36.7	17.9	5.3	43.3	19.1	6.2	47.8	1.75	0.42
Communication	34.3	10.3	50.6	33.3	8.1	48.3	29.2	7.4	35.3	5.82	0.05
Satisfaction	29.4^b	9.1	46.6	28.9 b	7.4	50.0	24.5^a	7.3	34.4	7.14	0.03^* * Statistically significant at the level of 0.05. In the lines, the means with the same letters were not different among them by the Tukey post-test (p < 0.05), in which: a < b < c.

Network and Social Support		Cluster 1 (n = 12)			Cluster 2 (n = 44)			Cluster 3 (n = 31)			H	p
Network and Social Support		M	DP	Mean Rank	M	DP	Mean Rank	M	DP	Mean Rank	H	p
Network
	Parents	1.4	1.7	44.0	1.6	1.8	46.9	1.0	0.9	39.9	1.50	0.47
	Friends	1.6	1.7	47.3	1.4	1.5	45.6	1.1	1.2	40.5	1.08	0.58
Activities
	Sports	0.1	0.3	44.6	0.0	0.2	43.0	0.1	0.3	45.2	0.78	0.68
	Association	0.0	0.0	43.5	0.0	0.2	44.5	0.0	0.0	43.5	0.98	0.61
	Voluntary	0.1^b	0.3	47.1	0.0^a	0.0	43.5	0.0^a	0.0	43.5	6.25	0.04^* * Statistically significant at the level of 0.05. In the lines, the means with the same letters were not different among them by the Tukey post-test (p < 0.05). in which: a < b < c.
Social Support
	Material	17.7^b	3.3	54.3	16.5^b	3.9	47.7	14.2^a	4,9	34.8	7.47	0.02^* * Statistically significant at the level of 0.05. In the lines, the means with the same letters were not different among them by the Tukey post-test (p < 0.05). in which: a < b < c.
	Emotional	10.3	3.7	40.8	11.4	3.7	46.7	10.7	4.3	41.4	1.02	0.60
	Informational	11.3	3.6	39.7	12.1	3.2	47.0	11.5	3.7	41.4	1.35	0.51
	Affective	10.9	4.2	49.4	11.0	3.2	47.4	9.8	3.0	37.1	3.75	0.15
	Social I. Positive	10.7	4.6	42.7	12.0	4.5	47.6	10.4	4.0	39.4	2.00	0.37
Total Score		60.9	14.6	44.3	63.3	14.5	48.4	56.5	16.8	37.7	3.24	0.20

Programa de Pós-Graduação em Psicologia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Campinas Núcleo de Editoração SBI - Campus II, Av. John Boyd Dunlop, s/n. Prédio de Odontologia, 13060-900 Campinas - São Paulo Brasil, Tel./Fax: +55 19 3343-7223 - Campinas - SP - Brazil
E-mail: psychologicalstudies@puc-campinas.edu.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Correspondence to: M.R. BAZON. E-mails: <mbazon@ffclrp.usp.br>,<rn_azevedo@yahoo.com.br>.