618836

research-article2015
YASXXX10.1177/0044118X15618836Youth & SocietyLiu

Article
Youth & Society
1 ­–20
Physical Discipline and © The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
Verbal Punishment: An sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0044118X15618836
Assessment of Domain yas.sagepub.com

and Gender-Specific
Effects on Delinquency
Among Chinese
Adolescents

Ruth X. Liu1

Abstract
This study assesses the effects of physical and verbal discipline on delinquency
among Chinese adolescents and whether parent–adolescent influences are
domain and gender-specific. Data drawn from more than 2,700 middle school
students from Fuzhou City, China yield results as follows: Parental use of physical
and verbal discipline each increases the risk of delinquency in three domains
after controlling for common correlates. Physical discipline exerts generally
stronger effects than verbal punishment except for substance use, where verbal
discipline is slightly stronger. The effects of physical and verbal discipline are
domain- and gender-specific. While father’s physical discipline predicts son’s
delinquency in three domains, mother’s physical discipline is associated with
aggression and substance use among daughter. Contrarily, for verbal discipline,
maternal punishment is associated with son’s delinquency, whereas paternal
verbal discipline predicts daughter’s aggression. These results along with others
are discussed in light of theoretical importance and policy implications.

Keywords
delinquency, families, domestic violence, parenting

1San Diego State University, CA, USA

Corresponding Author:
Ruth X. Liu, Department of Sociology, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Dr., San
Diego, CA 92182-4423, USA.
Email: rliu@mail.sdsu.edu

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on March 20, 2016
2 Youth & Society 

The effect of punitive parenting on adolescent offending has generated a long

trail of research. While early work primarily examines parent use of physical
discipline (Brezina, 1998; Simons, Wu, Lin, Gordon, & Conger, 2000) or puni-
tive parenting that combines both physical and verbal discipline in a single
index (McKee et al., 2007), more recently, however, attention has been directed
to verbal punishment as a separate domain of punitive parenting practices
(Evans, Simons, & Simons, 2012; McKee et al., 2007; Wang & Kenny, 2014).
Evans et al. (2012) address the rationale for treating verbal punishment as
a separate domain of punitive parenting. They contend that leaving out verbal
domain may introduce spurious effect because of the joint association
between verbal and physical punishment. Alternatively, the effect of physical
discipline may be detected only if verbal punishment is considered concur-
rently in the model (Evans et al., 2012). Apart from the methodological con-
siderations, these scholars point to the theoretical importance as verbal
punishment may generate as much, if not greater harm, than physical disci-
pline (Evans et al., 2012; Wang & Kenny, 2014).
Consistent with these recommendations, Western studies have examined
verbal discipline either exclusively (Vissing, Straus, Gelles, & Harrop, 1991;
Wang & Kenny, 2014) or independently of physical discipline (Evans et al.,
2012; McKee et al., 2007), and all the studies have confirmed the adverse
impact of verbal punishment. Unfortunately, in non-Western settings, partic-
ularly in China studies, researchers have largely ignored verbal discipline as
a separate domain of punitive parenting (Chang, Schwartz, Dodge, &
McBride-Chang, 2003; Cheng et al., 2011; Xing, Wang, Zhang, He, & Zhang,
2011). This neglect is unfortunate, considering the adversity of verbal pun-
ishment and in a cultural context of mainland China particularly, where
simultaneous assessment of physical and verbal discipline may be in need.
Indeed, data from China indicate that crimes committed by Chinese juveniles
have risen considerably in recent decades, prompting some to speculate that
the surge in youth offenses may be attributed to domestic problems including
family violence and broken home (Sino Daily, 2007). Meanwhile, however,
public awareness of punitive parenting, especially verbal discipline and its
repercussion on youth offenses may be missing (Ogilvy & Mather, 2014).
Given the importance of the family in Chinese culture, it is essential to evalu-
ate the respective effects of verbal and physical discipline on youth offending
with the aim of gaining a better understanding, and hence developing more
effective programs or strategies for crime prevention.
Drawing on the theoretical tradition of anomie or strain, the present study
considers youth offense as corrective action. Hence, domains of delinquency
represent distinct styles of problem-solving strategies (Agnew, 1992, 2001,
2006). This approach from the criminological angle with multiple domains of

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on March 20, 2016
Liu 3

delinquent adaptations (Agnew, 1992, 2001, 2006) sets us apart from studies
that distinguish physical and verbal discipline, but adopt the mental health
perspective by treating problem behaviors as indication of psychiatric disor-
der and/or using a composite index (i.e., a checklist of symptoms) to measure
this disorder (Evans et al., 2012; Liu, Wei, Xing, & Wang, 2012).
Apart from assessing the relative impact of physical and verbal discipline on
domains of delinquency, the present study tests four alternative hypotheses
regarding gender-specific parent–adolescent influences. While a number of
studies acknowledge that maternal and paternal punishments may not exert uni-
form effects on adolescent boys and girls (Liu et al., 2012; McKee et al., 2007),
none have tested a priori theoretical contentions on gender-specific relationship
between punitive parenting and domains of delinquency, particularly in main-
land China. Testing theoretically informed gender-specific hypotheses may be
of special significance in China due to its unique cultural context. Influenced by
Confucius gender ideology, Chinese sex norms are said to be traditional, with a
clear demarcation of the sexes, separate and hierarchical spheres for men and
women (Inglehart & Norris, 2003), and stronger pressures to conform to sex-
typing as personal obligation or duty (Lebra, 1998). Thus, gender-specific par-
ent–adolescent effects, if any, may be more noticeable in Chinese context.

Literature Review and Hypotheses

Physical and Verbal Punishments on Delinquency
Parental punitive practices, be it physical or verbal, are expected to increase the
risk of adolescent offending. These contentions are consistent with criminologi-
cal theories including social learning, social bonds, and strain theories, respec-
tively (Straus, Douglas, & Medeiros, 2014). While social learning theory
postulates that punitive practices may lead to delinquency through mechanisms
of modeling and endorsement of antisocial definitions, social bonds theory
hypothesizes delinquency as a result of reduction in bonds generated by harsh
parenting (Hirschi, 1969; Straus et al., 2014). Furthermore, strain theory asserts
that punitive measures may lead to strained relationship with parents (Agnew,
1992, 2001, 2006) and repeated exposure constitutes as noxious life conditions
calling for adolescents to seek for problem-solving strategies to reduce, divert,
or avoid unpleasant life circumstances (Agnew, 1992, 2001, 2006).

Physical and Verbal Punishments on Domains of Delinquency

According to strain theorists, crime and delinquency represent corrective
actions (Agnew, 1992, 2001, 2006). Thus, domains of delinquency may

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on March 20, 2016
4 Youth & Society 

reflect styles of problem-solving strategies. For example, Agnew (1992,

2001, 2006) claims that when pressured into delinquency, adolescents may
seek to alleviate negative emotions through substance use (escaping), revenge
or retaliate by engaging in violent or aggressive acts (retaliatory), and engage
in delinquent or instrumental acts which may divert or reduce strain. Thus,
these delinquent activities (i.e., substance use, aggression, and other delin-
quent activities) may represent three distinct styles or domains of problem-
solving strategies (i.e., escaping, retaliating, and instrumental delinquency)
adopted by adolescents to cope with strain.
The need to distinguish domains of delinquency is two-pronged. First,
parental punishment may exert stronger effects on aggression than non-
aggressive delinquency. Theoretically, because of the origin of general
strain theory from the thesis of frustration–aggression causation, one may
expect that parental physical and verbal punishments may be more influ-
enced on aggressive (retaliating) than non-aggressive (escaping or instru-
mental) delinquency. Although the majority of empirical studies on strain
and delinquency find support for both aggressive and non-aggressive
delinquency, others note that the impact of strain is not observed in certain
type of delinquency such as drug use (Akers, 1998) or more prominent for
aggressive than non-aggressive delinquency (Brenda & Corwyn, 2002).
Thus, distinguishing domains of delinquency may allow us to examine
whether parental punishment on delinquency may vary by styles of delin-
quent adaptations.
Furthermore, distinguishing domains of delinquency may allow us to
assess whether the relative effects of parental physical and verbal discipline
on delinquency may be domain-specific. Agnew (2001, 2006) claims that the
linkage between strain and delinquency may be modified by the anticipated
rewards associated with delinquent strategies. In other words, adolescents
may be more likely to turn to specific types of delinquency if they anticipate
the outcome to be more effective in coping with strain. Although few studies
have looked into this issue, some (McKee et al., 2007) suggest that physical
discipline with its more direct attack on the body and imposition of bodily
pain may evoke more externalized negative emotions such as anger, resent-
ment, and hostility. This may call for delinquent strategies that serve the pri-
mary needs of externalizing negative emotions by resorting to retaliatory
actions to reduce feelings of anger or minimizing further punishment by
engaging in instrumental delinquency. Contrarily, verbal punishment charac-
terized by scolding, ridiculing, and belittling may bring forth more internal-
ized negative emotions such as shame, anxiety, and depression, which may
call for internalizing behavior such as substance use that may alleviate or
escape from these distressful feelings.

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on March 20, 2016
Liu 5

Thus, considering the potential differences attributed to the perceived

effectiveness of delinquent strategies, we explore the effects of physical dis-
cipline and verbal punishment on a range of delinquent adaptations that
reflect domains of problem-solving strategies, namely, substance use (with
its pharmacological effects may allow adolescents to escape from anxiety and
distressful feelings), aggression (through outbursts or retaliatory acts may
relinquish hostility and anger), and deceitful behavior (through tricks and
conniving acts may divert or reduce punishment). These styles of delin-
quency (escaping, retaliating, and instrumental) have been distinguished by
Agnew (1992, 2001) and used in studies that examine delinquent adaptations
among Chinese adolescents (Liu, 2015).

Gender-Specific Effects
Western literature has documented variations in the respective influences of
father and mother and gender differences in adolescent susceptibility to harsh
parenting practices (McKee et al., 2007). Few studies, however, have laid out
a priori theoretical contentions and tested alternative hypotheses in regard to
gender-specific parent influences on domains of delinquency, particularly
among Chinese boys and girls. We draw on family socialization literature in
deriving four competing relational outcomes for the gender-specific parent–
adolescent influences.
The first hypothetical outcome recognizes the importance of women in the
family and thus, mother–child effects may be more salient. Traditionally, mother
is viewed as the primary source of family’s emotional and social support (Larson
& Richards, 1994) and mother–child connection is credited as most critical to
children’s development (Quiery, 1998). Studies on child-rearing practices in
China also observe that Chinese women tend to be more child-focused than
Chinese men; this is because women traditionally obtain their status security
through child birth and child rearing (Chow & Zhao, 1996). Altogether, these
contentions may indicate that given the importance of female role in the family,
harsh maternal behavior may evoke greater strain among children and hence call
for delinquent coping more than paternal behavior.
The view on maternal dominance has later been challenged by scholars who
believe that father may exert equal if not more important influence than mother
(Harris, Furstenberg, & Marmer, 1998). This contention may apply particularly
to Chinese family where men, being the main bread-winners, are often the most
authoritative person of the family (Sharpe, 1994; Shwalb, Nakawaza, Yamamoto,
& Hyun, 2004). Accordingly, the second hypothetical outcome is that given his
predominant role in the family, father’s punishment may carry more weight or
evoke stronger strain among children than mother’s punishment.

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on March 20, 2016
6 Youth & Society 

The above two hypotheses, however, are problematic as they do not con-
sider the gender of adolescents in addition to parents (Leinonen, Solantaus, &
Punamaeki, 2003; Videon, 2002). Thus, the third hypothesis takes into con-
sideration the gender of both parents and child by expecting predominance of
the same-sex parent–adolescent influences. Due to their role similarities, it is
postulated that children may spend more time in activities and/or be closer
with their same-sex parent (Starrels, 1994). Accordingly, punishment from
the same-sex parent may create greater strain and in turn reduce the time
spent together as well as the connection with the same-sex parent (Ho, 1987;
Lamb, 2004; Walker, 1999). This argument has found support in Western
studies that examine the direct linkage between parent–adolescent relation-
ship and delinquent participation (Liu, 2004).
Similar to the third argument, the fourth hypothesis acknowledges the
importance of same-sex parent–adolescent influences. However, it differs
from the third hypothesis by recognizing the likelihood of cross-sex parent–
adolescent effects under certain conditions (Leinonen et al., 2003; Videon,
2002). Specifically, cross-sex parent–adolescent influences most likely per-
tain to emotional support. Because of women’s greater concern for emo-
tional connectedness, maternal support may promote boy’s resilience to
cultural pressures and enhance son’s psychological and emotional well-
being (Dooley & Fedele, 2001). Similarly, paternal involvement in raising
daughter (such as engaging girls in instrumental activities) may promote
self-esteem and individual confidence among daughter (Sharpe, 1994).
Cross-sex parent–adolescent influences have also been reported in a study
that examines the relationship between perceived parental warmth and sui-
cidal ideation among adolescents (Liu, 2005).
This study thus tests four alternative hypotheses. If the first hypothesis
is valid, the punitive practices of mother may exert stronger effects on
delinquency regardless of adolescent gender. If the second hypothesis is
supported, stronger effects of father-to-adolescent punishment will be
observed on delinquent outcome. Furthermore, if the third argument is
confirmed, paternal punishment may be more strongly related to son’s
delinquency, whereas maternal punishment may be more predictive of
daughter’s delinquency regardless of the type of punitive parenting.
Finally, if the fourth hypothesis is valid, we may observe different patterns
of parent–adolescent influence for physical and verbal punishment. While
the same-sex parent–adolescent influence may be expected of physical
discipline, the predominance of cross-sex effects may be observed con-
cerning verbal discipline because verbal chastise, ridicule, and belittling
may represent deprivation or withdrawal of parent emotional support.
Regardless of domains of discipline (verbal or physical), gender-specific

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on March 20, 2016
Liu 7

effects may be more pronounced in aggressive than non-aggressive delin-

quency, an argument consistent with the original frustration–aggression
thesis of general strain theory.

Method
Sample
Data were drawn from survey responses provided by students attending 7th
to 9th grades in three middle schools located in the outskirt districts of Fuzhou
City, Fujian Province, China. Outskirt schools were selected for a number of
reasons including (a) accessibility, (b) unique school settings, and (c) types of
students and families. For more information on the study sample and design,
please refer to earlier published studies using the same data (Liu, 2015).

Procedure
The study was approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) committee
of the university with which the principal investigator was affiliated.
Permission to conduct the study was obtained from the local education
bureau and school authorities. The schools in turn notified students and
their families. Students with consent provided self-reports to an anonymous
questionnaire that contained questions mostly derived from Western instru-
ments, translated to Chinese by the research team, and pilot tested for
appropriateness and accuracy before the actual study in spring semester
2002. While the format of the questions with their response styles mostly
remained in consistency with Western instruments, occasionally we had to
condense response categories (e.g., from four to three,) due to restrictions
associated with the design and length of the questionnaire. At any rate, stu-
dents were given ample time in a class setting to respond to the questions.
A total number of 2,707 students (about 85% of the target sample) returned
usable questionnaires.

Measures
The dependent variables, domains of delinquency, are reflected in three indi-
ces, substance use, aggression, and deceitful behavior and they are selected
through factor analysis. Substance use is reflected in two items (α = .65) that
measure frequencies in the past year before the study that respondents par-
ticipate in smoking cigarettes and/or drinking alcohol. Although Western
measure of substance use often includes an item on marijuana, in Chinese

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on March 20, 2016
8 Youth & Society 

setting, such substance is mostly inaccessible. Aggression consists of five

items (α = .70) that measure both verbal and physical aggression such as
frequencies in the past year that respondents hit others, and bully or intimi-
date schoolmates, and so on. Deceitful behavior measures six dishonest
behaviors (α = .69) that include lying, stealing, cheating on exams, and fak-
ing illnesses to skip school, and so on. For individual items of the delin-
quency indices, the responses range from “0” indicating “never” to “3”
meaning “frequently.” Higher scores indicate greater levels of participation
in each domain of delinquency.
Independent variables reflect two domains of parental discipline. Physical
discipline is measured by an index of two items (a = .65) that ask respondents
how often their father and mother, respectively, beat, hit, or physically spank
them if they misbehaved in the past year. Verbal discipline is reflected in a
two-item index (α = .73) that reports frequency of father and mother, respec-
tively, in the past year scold, ridicule, or belittle in responding to adolescents’
misbehavior. The responses to the individual items in both indices range from
“1” meaning “never” to “3” indicating “often.” Besides the additive indices,
individual items, physical discipline by father and mother, and verbal disci-
pline by mother and father, respectively, are examined to assess gender-spe-
cific parent–adolescent influences.
Common correlates include socio-demographic variables such as gender
(“1” for “boys” and “0” for “girls”), grade level (“1” to “3” reflecting 7th to
9th grade, respectively), parent education (measured by father’s education
ranging from “1” for “primary school” to “7” for “postgraduate college” and
missing father’s education replaced by mother’s education if available), per-
ceived family financial status (ranging from “1” for “extremely poor” to “6”
for “rich”), whether adolescent is an only child (“1” for “only child” and “0”
for “with sibling”), and the school of their attendance (dummy coding with
reference category set as “0”).
In addition, parent–adolescent relationship is controlled as punitive par-
enting and delinquency may be outcomes of poor relationship between ado-
lescents and parents (McKee et al., 2007). Furthermore, self-control,
frustration in areas outside of home, and association with deviant peers are
controlled as these variables have been considered as likely common corre-
lates of delinquency Liu, 2015).
Parent–adolescent relationship is measured by an index of five questions
(α = .69) with statements such as “whether adolescents respect their parents,”
and “whether parents understand them.” Higher scores indicate good rela-
tionship. Low self-control is measured by an index of seven items (α = .70)
that reflect respondents’ tendency to engage in acts without considering con-
sequences, easy to jump at risks, lacking in patience, and having an explosive

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on March 20, 2016
Liu 9

temper. Frustration is measured by reports of dissatisfactory circumstances in

life domains (other than home) and it is an index of eight items (α = .80) with
higher scores reflecting greater frustration. Association with deviant friends
is measured by an index of two items (α = .65) that ask respondents about the
kinds of friends they have. Higher scores indicate association with deviant
friends.

Analysis
The hypotheses are tested using the OLS regression as this estimation
method has been powerful in previous studies that focus on these depen-
dent variables. First, descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients
among the variables are obtained. Subsequently, the dependent variables,
substance use, aggression, and deceitful behavior, are each regressed on
the independent variables of physical and verbal discipline with or without
controlling for common correlates. Finally, regression models are esti-
mated separately for boys and girls with domains of delinquency regressed
on physical and verbal discipline by each parent while controlling for
common correlates.

Results
We use listwise deletion of missing cases for all variables except for the three
mutually exclusive dependent variables. First, we obtain Pearson correlation
coefficients as well as descriptive statistics (means/proportions and standard
deviations) of the variables. Table 1 shows the p values for tests of statistical
significance of gender differences.
As shown (Table 1), boys report greater participation than girls in all three
domains of delinquency. Boys also report more frequent physical discipline
by both father and mother than girls, but the differences in verbal discipline
by each parent do not reach statistically significant levels. Boys in general
report more positive relations with parents than girls. Regarding common
correlates, boys score lower in self-control, but higher in association with
deviant peers than girls. Finally, the only significant difference in socio-
demographic variables is the proportion of boys (.50) and girls (.45) who are
an only child.

Physical and Verbal Discipline on Delinquency

To address whether physical and verbal discipline each increases the risk
of delinquency and their relative effects, we regress delinquency mea-

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on March 20, 2016
 10
Table 1.  Correlation Coefficients, Means/Proportions, and Standard Deviations of Variables Used in the Analyses.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

  1 Substance use  
  2 Aggression .52*  
  3 Deceitful behavior .43* .57*  
 4 Physical discipline .11* .18* .16*  
  5 Verbal discipline .11* .18* .16* .25*  
  6 Father physical .12* .17* .16* .85* .24*  
discipline
  7 Mother physical .06* .13* .11* .86* .19* .47*  
discipline
  8 Father verbal .10* .17* .14* .22* .88* .26* .12*  
discipline
  9 Mother verbal .10* .15* .15* .23* .89* .17* .22* .58*  
discipline
10 Parent–child relations −.15* −.27* −.32* −.11* −.21* −.13* −.07* −.20* −.17*  
11 Low self- control .26* .43* .33* .12* .16* .12* .08* .15* .13* −.23*  
12 Frustration .11* .13* .23* .11* .11* .11* .08* .11* .08* −.19* .18*  

(continued)

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on March 20, 2016
 Table 1.  (continued)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

13 Deviant friends .23* .25* .26* .09* .11* .10* .05 .10* .10* −.16* .24* .15*  
14 Grade level .16* .14* .20* −.16* .01 −.13* −.15* .03 −.00 −.13* .09* .09* .05  
15 Parent education −.02 −.03 −.11* −.05 −.01 −.05 −.03 −.02 −.00 .09* .03 −.13* −.03 .04  
16 Perceived family −.01 .01 −.03 −.10* −.05 −.10* −.07* −.05 −.04 .08* −.01 −.18* −.05 −.01 .13*  
finances
17 Only child .02 .04 −.04 .02 −.01 .02 .02 −.02 .01 .01 .07* −.05 −.01 .09* .20* .03  
18 School A −.04 .00 .09* −.01 .04 .01 −.02 .02 .05 −.08* .05 .08* .02 .01 −.02 −.01 .06*  
19 School B −.05 −.05 −.02 .09* −.03 .06* .09* −.03 −.02 .10* −.05 −.03 .03 −.29* −.07* .00 −.15* −.40*  
M/proportion SD (girl) .22 1.81 2.92 2.74 2.28 1.33 1.42 1.13 1.15 11.52 11.86 13.82 3.49 1.78 2.44 3.92 .45 .29 .27
.56 1.61 2.05 .91 .67 .51 .56 .37 .40 2.13 2.92 3.26 1.19 .76 1.05 .73 .50 .45 .44
M/proportion SD (boy) .83 2.67 3.59 3.01 2.32 1.51 1.50 1.16 1.16 11.81 12.15 13.68 4.01 1.75 2.47 3.90 .50 .27 .31
1.28 2.24 2.47 .97 .75 .57 .57 .41 .42 2.11 3.10 3.53 1.39 .75 1.16 .86 .50 .44 .46
Tests of gender .00 .00 .00 .00 .16 .00 .00 .09 .56 .00 .02 .33 .00 .39 .47 .52 .03 .15 .06
difference (p values)

*Statistically significant (p < .05).

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on March 20, 2016
11
12 Youth & Society 

Table 2.  The Effects of Physical and Verbal Discipline on Domains of Delinquency
With or Without Common Correlates.
Substance use Aggression Deceitful behavior

without With without With without With

controls controls controls controls controls controls

Variables b/β b/β b/β b/β b/β b/β

Physical .09/.08*** .04/.04* .30/.14*** .20/.09*** .32/.13*** .23/.10***

discipline
Verbal .14/.09*** .06/.05* .40/.14*** .15/.06** .41/.13*** .10/.03*
discipline
Parent– −.03/−.07** −.15/−.15*** −.21/−.10**
adolescent
relation
Low self- .06/.18*** .22/.33*** .16/.21***
control
Frustration .01/.04* .00/.01 .06/.10***
Deviant .09/.11*** .14/.10*** .19/.11***
friends
Gender (boy .55/.36*** .74/.18** .57/.12***
= 1)
Grade level .17/.13*** .26/.10** .59/.20***
Parent −.02/−.02 −.07/−.04* −.16/−.08**
education
Perceived .03/.02 .15/.06*** .10/.03*
family
finance
Only child −.04/−.02 .02/.00 −.25/−.06**
School A −.15/−.07** −.14/−.03* .44/.09***
School B −.09/−.04* −.09/−.02 .40/.08***
Intercept −0.04 −1.14*** 0.41** −1.50*** 1.41*** −0.06
R2 .02 .20 .05 .29 .04 .27
df 2 13 2 13 2 13
N 2,303 2,303 2,287 2,287 2,291 2,291

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (one-tailed).

sures on two indices of parental discipline with and without common cor-
relates. The results are presented in Table 2.
As shown in the first series of regression models (1st column of Table
1), the effects of physical and verbal discipline on domains of delinquency
are positive and all the effects have reached statistically significant level
(p < .05). Thus, these positive effects indicate that higher levels of physical
and verbal discipline tend to be associated with increased risks of delin-
quent participation, but the strength of these effects (see regression coef-
ficients) is quite comparable for both types of discipline across domains of
delinquency.

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on March 20, 2016
Liu 13

In the second series of models (2nd column), when we control for com-
mon correlates, the effects of parental discipline, though slightly weakened,
remain positive and statistically significant (p < .05). These positive and sig-
nificant effects thus indicate that parental punitive measures are associated
with increased risks of delinquency regardless of types of discipline and inde-
pendently of common correlates.
To examine the relative strength of each domain of discipline, we look at
the standardized regression coefficients. As shown (Table 2), parental physi-
cal discipline exerts stronger effect on aggression and deceitful behavior, but
for substance use, the pattern is reverse with verbal discipline slightly stron-
ger than physical discipline.
The effects of common correlates on delinquency are generally consistent
with expectation. Good parent–adolescent relationship is associated with
lower delinquency while low self-control is positively correlated with delin-
quency. Furthermore, adolescents with greater frustration in areas outside
home are more likely to engage in substance use and deceitful behavior and
those with deviant friends engage in higher delinquency in all three domains.
Furthermore, adolescents attending higher grade levels report more delin-
quency. Parental education is inversely related to delinquency in the domains
of aggression and deceitful behavior while those from well-off families tend
to report greater delinquent involvement. In addition, only children are less
delinquent in the domain of deceitful behavior. Finally, students from Schools
A and B report less substance use and aggression, but more deceitful behavior
than the reference school.

Gender-Specific Effects
While the above analyses examine the independent or relative effects of
physical and verbal discipline on domains of delinquency, the next step tests
the four hypotheses regarding gender-specific parent–adolescent influences.
We thus estimate regression models separately for boys and girls with paren-
tal discipline distinguished by each parent (father and mother physical and
verbal discipline, respectively). The results are presented in Table 3.
As shown (Table 3), gender-specific parent–adolescent influences are
observed and these patterns are most consistent with the fourth hypothesis
regarding the simultaneous observation of both same-sex and cross-sex par-
ent–adolescent influences. Regarding physical discipline, father’s punish-
ment is significantly related to son’s delinquency in all three domains.
However, it is not related to daughter’s delinquency in any domain. Contrarily,
mother’s physical discipline is significantly related to daughter’s substance
use and aggression. For deceitful behavior, the effect is positive but not

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on March 20, 2016
14 Youth & Society 

Table 3.  Gender-Specific Effects of Physical and Verbal Discipline on Domains of

Delinquency Controlling for Common Correlates.
Son Daughter

Substance Aggression Deceitful Substance Aggression Deceitful

use behavior use behavior

Variables b/β b/β b/β b/β b/β b/β

Father .11/.05* .31/.08** .38/.09** .01/.01 −.02/.01 .13/.03

physical
discipline
Mother −.07/−.05 .17/.04 .24/.06* .11/.11*** .27/.09*** .12/.03
physical
discipline
Father −.03/−.01 .05/.01 −.25/−.04 .01/.01 .25/.06* −.09/−.02
verbal
discipline
Mother .18/.06* .31/.06* .55/.09** .01/.01 −.04/−.01 .08/.02
verbal
discipline
Parent– −.06/−.10*** −.16/−.15*** −.26/−.22*** −.01/−.05* −.14/−.18*** −.16/−.17***
adolescent
relation
Low self- .08/.20*** .24/.34*** .15/.19*** .04/.20*** .19/.35*** .16/.23***
control
Frustration .01/.02 .02/.03 .04/.06* .02/.10*** −.01/−.02 .09/.15***
Deviant .13/.14*** .18/.11*** .19/.11*** .01/.03 .08/.06* .18/.11***
friends
Grade level .27/.16*** .39/.13*** .69/.21*** .07/.10*** .13/.06* .49/.18***
Parent −.04/−.04 −.08/.04* −.12/−.06* −.00/−.00 −.06/.04 −.20/−.11***
education
Perceived .01/.00 .17/.07** .06/.02 .07/.09*** .12/.06* .16/.06*
family
finance
Only child −.08/−.03 .08/.02 −.24/−.05* −.01/−.01 −.04/−.01 −.25/−.06*
School A −.22/.08** −.18/.04 .57/.16*** −.07/−.06* −.08/−.02 .28/.06*
School B −.09/−.03 −.02/−.00 .66/.12*** −.08/−.06* −.16/−.04 .08/.02
Intercept −0.63 −1.69** 0.79 −0.95*** −0.14 −0.29
R2 .15 .28 .27 .10 .23 .25
df 14 14 14 14 14 14
N 1,183 1,182 1,179 1,119 1,104 1,111

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (one-tailed).

statistically significant. Mother’s physical discipline, however, is related to

son’s deceitful behavior, though the effect is weaker than that of father’s. For
verbal discipline (Table 3), the patterns are opposite with apparent cross-sex
parent–adolescent effects. Son’s delinquency is responsive to mother’s verbal
discipline in all domains of delinquency but not that of father’s. For daughter,
verbal discipline of father is associated with daughter’s aggression only.

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on March 20, 2016
Liu 15

These observations are mostly consistent with the fourth hypothesis, which
expects same-sex parent–adolescent influence in general, but cross-sex par-
ent–adolescent influence under the deprivation of emotional support.
The effects of common correlates by gender are similar to the combined
sample with some exceptions. Among both boys and girls, parent–adolescent
relationship is inversely related to delinquency while low self-control is posi-
tively related to delinquency. Frustration is associated with substance use
among girls, but not boys. Deviant peer association is related to delinquency
and older adolescents report more delinquency. Parental education and per-
ceived financial condition are each significantly related to certain domains of
delinquency. Finally, as in combined sample, singletons engage in less deceit-
ful behavior than non-singletons among both boys and girls.

Discussion
Data provided by 7th- to 9th-grade students from Fuzhou City, China yield
important findings in regard to parental punitive practices on delinquency
among Chinese adolescents: (a) Parental physical and verbal discipline
each increases the risk of delinquency in three domains (i.e., substance use,
aggression, and deceitful behaviors), and these effects are observed after
controlling for common correlates. (b) While physical discipline yields
stronger effects on aggression and deceitful behavior, verbal punishment is
slightly stronger than physical discipline on substance use. (c) For physical
discipline, there is a predominantly same-sex parent–adolescent influence
such that father’s physical discipline is significantly associated with son’s
delinquency in all three domains and mother’s physical discipline predicts
daughter’s delinquency in substance use and aggression, though mother’s
discipline also predicts son’s deceitful behavior. (d) For verbal discipline,
there is a cross-sex parent–adolescent influence, that is, mother’s discipline
is associated with an increased risk of son’s participation in three domains
of delinquency while father’s discipline is predictive of daughter’s
aggression.
That physical discipline and verbal punishment each independently
increases the risk of adolescent offending, this observation confirms the
arguments of various theoretical traditions including social learning, social
bonds, and strain theories, all of which hypothesize the adverse effects of
parental punitive practices on delinquent outcomes (Straus et al., 2014).
Thus, our findings replicate numerous studies performed in Western or non-
Western settings regarding the negative impact of parental disciplinary mea-
sures on delinquent outcomes (Evans et al., 2012; Straus et al., 2014; Vissing
et al., 1991).

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on March 20, 2016
16 Youth & Society 

While the detrimental effect of physical discipline is stronger in two

domains of delinquency (i.e., aggression and deceitful behavior), these
effects may have two possible explanations. On one hand, the stronger
effects of physical discipline may suggest that physical strain is of greater
magnitude to Chinese adolescents. Physical discipline not only generates
bodily pain, it destroys a person’s basic sense of security and such violations
may be more salient in the volatile stage of adolescence. On the other hand,
exposure to physical discipline may call for externalizing style of coping
(McKee et al., 2007), including retaliation or aggression as well as instru-
mental course of action to either release anger through use of forceful acts or
to divert punishment with tricks and conniving acts. Meanwhile, the impact
of verbal discipline on substance use is slightly stronger than physical disci-
pline. This observation may reflect the internalizing nature of substance use.
As suggested earlier, verbal discipline may evoke internalized emotions of
anxiety, distress, and/or depressive affect. Due to the pharmacological
effects, adolescents exposed to verbal punishment and hence with accompa-
nying distress may turn to substance use that allows them to soothe or escape
from these negative emotions. However, it should be noted that the differ-
ence in the relative effects of physical and verbal discipline on substance use
is quite small.
The two opposite observations concerning gender-specific parent–adoles-
cent influences for physical and verbal discipline are especially intriguing as
they are consistent with one of the hypothesized outcomes. As proposed in
the fourth hypothesis, regarding the same-sex effects of physical discipline
on delinquency, adolescents may engage in more activities as well as identify
more strongly with the same-sex parent (Lamb, 2004; Starrels, 1994). Thus,
physical discipline coming from the same-sex parent may be more devastat-
ing or damaging as it not only destroys previously close parent–adolescent
bonds but also creates strain in the relationship to such an extent that it calls
for delinquent coping (Agnew, 1992, 2001, 2006). On the contrary, regarding
verbal punishment, the opposite-sex parent–adolescent influence is salient.
This observation is consistent with the contention that adolescents are likely
to look to the opposite-sex parent for emotional support and complement in
their well-being (Leinonen et al., 2003; Videon, 2002). For adolescent son,
mother’s nurturance and emotional support ensure resilience to cultural pres-
sures and positive development (Dooley & Fedele, 2001). Thus, deprivation
of maternal support incurred through verbal degradation and chastise may be
detrimental to adolescent son. On the other hand, paternal support may pro-
vide basis for girl’s confidence and self-esteem (Sharpe, 1994). Therefore,
emotional deprivation or presence of emotional strain coming from father
may be more damaging to girls.

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on March 20, 2016
Liu 17

These same-sex and cross-sex patterns may be more salient in a rela-

tively traditional society such as that of China. As stated, influenced by
Confucius gender ideology, Chinese sex norms stipulate a clearer demarca-
tion of the sexes and stronger pressures for men and women to conform to
sex-appropriate behavior (Lebra, 1998). Thus, stricter conformity to sex-
typing may result in more noticeable gender-specific patterns. However,
having said that, these gender-specific patterns may not be exclusive to
China as Western studies have noted similar same-sex parent–adolescent
influence concerning delinquency (Liu, 2004) and cross-sex parental effects
in an emotional realm (Liu, 2005).
Comparing results on gender-specific parent–adolescent influences across
two domains of parental discipline, it is evident that same-sex and cross-sex
parent–adolescent effects are more consistent among boys. For girls, similar
patterns are observed in aggression, but not in the other two domains.
Although the observation among girls, particularly on aggressive delin-
quency, is supportive of the frustration–aggression argument, further research
is needed to reach a more definite conclusion.
Overall, the findings reported here should be taken with caution as our
study is embedded with methodological limitations. First, parental punitive
measures are rather crude. While the study differentiates frequency of puni-
tive practices by each parent, it is unable to measure seriousness of punitive
acts, and punitive practices are also reported by adolescents rather than cor-
roborated by parents. Second, the study is cross-sectional with all measures
obtained at the same time. It cannot preclude the competing argument that
delinquent involvement may precede parental discipline. However, the study
does consider theoretically informed common correlates. Finally, the data
were drawn from three middle schools in an outskirt district of a provincial
city in the southeastern part of China. The findings may be limited to this
region and/or to a more rural setting of China where sex norms may be more
traditional.
Despite these limitations, this study fills an important void in the litera-
ture, and the findings, when replicated, have implications for social policies.
As shown, parental punitive practices are harmful for Chinese adolescents.
Whether it is physical or verbal punishment, parent harsh disciplinary prac-
tices should be curbed. In China particularly, verbal discipline and its harmful
effects may have been grossly ignored. This is unfortunate given the strong
focus on familyism in China and the established linkage, such as demon-
strated by our study, between adolescent offending and familial problems
including use of punitive discipline at home. In recent years, Chinese govern-
ment sponsored a propaganda campaign, warning the consequences of verbal
abuse and emotional punishment on children in addition to physical

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on March 20, 2016
18 Youth & Society 

discipline (Ogilvy & Mather, 2014). We join our voices in urging parents to
stop using punitive practices toward children. As shown, punitive parenting,
regardless of verbal or physical rendered by either father or mother, may have
unintended negative consequences and therefore must be curtailed.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was supported by a research
award from College of Arts and Letters, San Diego State University.

References
Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency.
Criminology, 30, 47-87.
Agnew, R. (2001). Building on the foundation of general strain theory: Specifying the
types of strain most likely to lead to crime and delinquency. Journal of Research
in Crime & Delinquency, 39, 319-361.
Agnew, R. (2006). Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory. Los
Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime
and deviance. Boston, MA: Northwestern University Press.
Brenda, B. B., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). The effect of abuse in childhood and in ado-
lescence on violence among adolescents. Youth & Society, 33, 339-365.
Brezina, T. (1998). Adolescent maltreatment and delinquency: The question of inter-
vening processes. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 35, 71-99.
Chang, L., Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., & McBride-Chang, C. (2003). Harsh parent-
ing in relation to child emotion regulation and aggression. Journal of Family
Psychology, 17, 598-606.
Cheng, H. G., Anthony, J., Huang, Y., Lee, S., Liu, Z., & He, Y. (2011). Childhood
physical punishment and the onset of drinking problems: Evidence from metro-
politan China. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 118, 31-139.
Chow, E. N., & Zhao, S. M. (1996). The one-child policy and parent-child relation-
ships: A comparison of one-child with multiple-child families in China. The
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 16, 35-62.
Dooley, C., & Fedele, N. (2001). Raising relational boys. In A. O’Reilley (Ed.),
Mothers and sons: Feminism, masculinity and the struggle to raise our sons (pp.
185-216). New York, NY: Routledge.
Evans, S. Z., Simons, L. G., & Simons, R. L. (2012). The effect of corporal punish-
ment and verbal abuse on delinquency: Mediating mechanisms. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 41, 1095-1110.

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on March 20, 2016
Liu 19

Harris, K. M., Furstenberg, F. F., Jr., & Marmer, J. K. (1998). Paternal involvement
with adolescents in intact families: The influence of fathers over the life course.
Demography, 35, 201-216.
Hirschi, T. (1969). The causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Ho, D. Y. F. (1987). Fatherhood in Chinese culture. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The
father’s role: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 227-245). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2003). Rising tide: Gender equality and cultural change
around the world. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lamb, M. E. (2004). The role of the father in child development (4th ed.). Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Larson, R., & Richards, M. H. (1994). Divergent realities: The emotional lives of
mothers, fathers, and adolescents. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Lebra, T. S. (1998). Confucian gender role and personal fulfillment for Japanese
women. In W. H. Slote & G. A. De Vos (Eds.), Confucianism and the family
(pp. 209-230). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Leinonen, J. A., Solantaus, T. S., & Punamaeki, R. (2003). Parental mental health
and children’s adjustment: The quality of marital interaction and parenting
as mediating factors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied
Disciplines, 44, 227-241.
Liu, B., Wei, Z. M., Xing, X. P., & Wang, M. F. (2012). Relations between paternal
and maternal harsh disciplines and junior middle school students’ externalizing
problem behaviors. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 20, 842-845.
Liu, R. X. (2004). Parent-youth conflict and school delinquency/cigarette use: The
moderating effects of gender and associations with achievement-oriented peers.
Sociological Inquiry, 74, 271-297.
Liu, R. X. (2005). Parent-youth closeness and youth’s suicidal ideation: The mod-
erating effects of gender, stages of adolescence, and race or ethnicity. Youth &
Society, 37, 145-175.
Liu, R. X. (2015). The effects of gender and bonds with parents and grandparents on
delinquency among Chinese adolescents. Sociological Focus, 48, 68-87.
McKee, L., Roland, E., Coffelt, N., Olson, A., Forehand, R., Massari, C., . . . Zens, M.
S. (2007). Harsh discipline and child problem behaviors: The roles of positive
parenting and gender. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 187-196.
Ogilvy & Mather. (2014). Words can be weapons. Retrieved from http://www.
ogilvy.com/News/Press-Releases/April-2014-OM-Beijing-shows-words-can-
be-weapons.aspx
Quiery, N. (1998). Parenting and the family. In K. Trew & J. Kremer (Eds.), Gender
and psychology (pp. 129-140). London, England: Arnold.
Sharpe, S. (1994). Fathers and daughters. New York, NY: Routledge.
Shwalb, D., Nakawaza, J., Yamamoto, T., & Hyun, J. H. (2004). Fathering in Japanese,
Chinese, and Korean cultures: A review of the research literature. In M. E. Lamb
(Ed.), The role of the father in child development (4th ed., pp. 146-181). Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on March 20, 2016
20 Youth & Society 

Simons, R. L., Wu, C., Lin, K. H., Gordon, L., & Conger, R. D. (2000). A cross-
cultural examination of the link between corporal punishment and adolescent
antisocial behavior. Criminology, 38, 47-79.
Sino Daily. (2007, December 5). Youth crime in China explodes as social values
decline: Report. Sino Daily. Retrieved from http://www.sinodaily.com/reports/
Youth_crime_in_China_explodes_as_social_values_decline_report_999.html
Starrels, M. E. (1994). Gender differences in parent-child relations. Journal of Family
Issues, 15, 148-165.
Straus, M. A., Douglas, E. M., & Medeiros, R. A. (2014). The primordial violence:
Spanking children, psychological development, violence, and crime. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Videon, T. M. (2002). The effects of parent-adolescent relationships and parental sep-
aration on adolescent well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 489-503.
Vissing, Y. M., Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Harrop, J. W. (1991). Verbal aggres-
sion by parents and psychosocial problems of children. Child Abuse & Neglect,
15, 223-238.
Walker, A. J. (1999). Gender and family relationship. In M. B. Sussman, S. K.
Steinmetz & G. W. Petersen (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (2nd
ed., pp. 439-474). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Wang, M. T., & Kenny, S. (2014). Longitudinal links between fathers’ and mothers’
harsh verbal discipline and adolescents’ conduct problems and depressive symp-
toms. Child Development, 85, 908-923.
Xing, X. P., Wang, M. F., Zhang, Q., He, X. R., & Zhang, W. X. (2011). Gender
differences in the reciprocal relationships between parental physical aggres-
sion and children’s externalizing problem behavior in China. Journal of Family
Psychology, 25, 699-708.

Author Biography
Ruth X. Liu is professor of sociology at San Diego State University. She has pub-
lished in the areas of juvenile delinquency, drug use/abuse, intergenerational process,
and psychosocial stress. Her recent publications appeared in Sociological Focus,
Sociological Inquiry, Youth & Society, International Criminal Justice Review, Journal
of Adolescence, and Journal of Child and Family Studies.

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on March 20, 2016