Elizabeth Beatriz1, Carmel Salhi2. 1. Northeastern University, Bouvé College of Health Sciences, 360 Huntington Ave, M/S 314 INV, Boston, MA 02115, USA. Electronic address: e.beatriz@northeastern.edu. 2. Northeastern University, Bouvé College of Health Sciences, 360 Huntington Ave, M/S 314 INV, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the past month, an estimated eight of ten children worldwide have experienced violent discipline. Understanding the economic and social contexts in which parents are more likely to use particular disciplinary practices is necessary to reduce violence against children. Critical examination of disciplinary practices and beliefs in cross-country analysis of low- and middle-income countries (LMICS) has been limited. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the association of country-level stressors and household-level economic stressors with disciplinary behaviors and beliefs. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Using Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey data between 2010 and 2013, 231,221 parents from 32 LMICS were included. METHODS: The prevalence of past-month nonviolent discipline, physical discipline, psychological aggression, belief in the utility of physical discipline, and incongruence of disciplinary practice and belief were estimated. Country-level prevalence was regressed on country-level stressors (economic burden, economic inequality, human security, and human development). Individual-level disciplinary practices and beliefs were regressed on household wealth. RESULTS: Country-level stressors predicted psychological and physical discipline use and belief in the utility of physical discipline. Lower household wealth was associated with increased violent disciplinary practice and belief. Lower household wealth was associated with increased likelihood of using violent discipline, even when the caregiver did not believe in its utility (OR = 1.63 [1.34, 1.98]). CONCLUSIONS: Discipline use and belief in LMICS should be understood within the context of salient societal and household stressors.Parental disciplinary beliefs and practices reflect complex interplay with broader social, political and economic contexts and should not be taken to be defined by monolithic views of culture.
BACKGROUND: In the past month, an estimated eight of ten children worldwide have experienced violent discipline. Understanding the economic and social contexts in which parents are more likely to use particular disciplinary practices is necessary to reduce violence against children. Critical examination of disciplinary practices and beliefs in cross-country analysis of low- and middle-income countries (LMICS) has been limited. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the association of country-level stressors and household-level economic stressors with disciplinary behaviors and beliefs. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Using Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey data between 2010 and 2013, 231,221 parents from 32 LMICS were included. METHODS: The prevalence of past-month nonviolent discipline, physical discipline, psychological aggression, belief in the utility of physical discipline, and incongruence of disciplinary practice and belief were estimated. Country-level prevalence was regressed on country-level stressors (economic burden, economic inequality, human security, and human development). Individual-level disciplinary practices and beliefs were regressed on household wealth. RESULTS: Country-level stressors predicted psychological and physical discipline use and belief in the utility of physical discipline. Lower household wealth was associated with increased violent disciplinary practice and belief. Lower household wealth was associated with increased likelihood of using violent discipline, even when the caregiver did not believe in its utility (OR = 1.63 [1.34, 1.98]). CONCLUSIONS: Discipline use and belief in LMICS should be understood within the context of salient societal and household stressors.Parental disciplinary beliefs and practices reflect complex interplay with broader social, political and economic contexts and should not be taken to be defined by monolithic views of culture.