4

Responding to Misbehavior
in Young Children: How
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Authoritative Parents Enhance

Reasoning With Firm Control
Robert E. Larzelere, Ronald B. Cox Jr., and Jelani Mandara

In the latest Handbook of Child Psychology, Parke and Buriel (2006)

considered Baumrind’s parenting styles to be the most influential typological
approach for understanding parental socialization of children but noted three
concerns. The first concern, whether the findings are due to child effects,
has been addressed by longitudinal evidence that parenting styles predict
1-year changes in adolescence (Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, &
Dornbusch, 1994) and 10-year changes from preschool to adolescence after
controlling for initial differences (Baumrind, Larzelere, & Owens, 2010). The
latter study showed large 10-year effect sizes favoring authoritative parenting
over authoritarian and permissive parenting (mean ds = 1.22 and 0.85, respec-
tively), whereas neglectful parenting predicted the most adverse changes in
adolescence (Steinberg et al., 1994). The second concern, cultural generaliz-
ability, is addressed by Sorkhabi and Mandara in this book (see Chapter 5).
The third concern was the limited evidence on the “processes that account

DOI: 10.1037/13948-005
Authoritative Parenting: Synthesizing Nurturance and Discipline for Optimal Child Development, Robert E.
Larzelere, Amanda Sheffield Morris, and Amanda W. Harrist (Editors)
Copyright © 2013 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.

89
 for the effects of different styles on children’s development” (Parke & Buriel,
2006, p. 437).
In this chapter, we focus on specific processes consistent with authorita-
tive parental responses to misbehavior, especially in 2- to 8-year-old children,
whether clinically referred or not. Misbehavior refers to behavior considered
inappropriate by parents, whether considered intentional or not. The chapter
applies to both mothers and fathers.
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Authoritative Responses to Misbehavior

Two of Baumrind’s studies indicate specific kinds of reasoning and power

assertion that authoritative parents use to respond to misbehavior. An early
study documented how her three prototypical parenting styles varied in specific
parenting practices (Baumrind, 1967). Her most recent longitudinal analyses
differentiated the kinds of power assertion used by authoritative parents from
the harmful kinds used by authoritarian parents (Baumrind et al., 2010).
Overall, Baumrind’s authoritative parents used reasoning and negotiat-
ing but also insisted on cooperation within the limits they deemed appropri-
ate. They were willing to use (and did use) negative sanctions, although they
preferred respectful communication to achieve a mutually acceptable solu-
tion. Clarifying how authoritative responses to misbehavior differ from those
by authoritarian and permissive parents requires distinguishing effective from
counterproductive kinds of power assertion. Research also needs to clarify
how power assertion, reasoning, and nurturance can best work together for
optimal child development.
In Baumrind’s (1967) first study, authoritative parents scored higher on
all parent–child communication measures than permissive or authoritarian
parents. They used reasoning to get cooperation, encouraged verbal give-
and-take, and respected the child’s decisions. Note that authoritative par-
ents were more open to mutually agreeable compromises than other parents.
Authoritative parents want children not only to cooperate but also to under-
stand and apply principles for appropriate behavior. Verbal give-and-take
supports active cognitive processing and learning to coordinate one’s own
interests with the interests of others. It also helps parents choose a response
to fit each unique disciplinary situation (see Davidov & Grusec, 2006).
As for power assertion, authoritative parents were more likely than per-
missive parents to obtain positive outcomes by persistence and less likely
to give in to whining or to evade issues (Baumrind, 1967). Authoritative
parents were also less likely to frighten the child than authoritarian parents
and less likely to use love withdrawal or ridicule than permissive parents.
Authoritative parents used corporal punishment an average amount, slightly

90       larzelere, cox, and mandara

 less than authoritarian parents and slightly more than permissive parents.
Only authoritarian and permissive parents differed significantly from each
other on their use of corporal punishment.
Baumrind et al.’s (2010) longitudinal study distinguished the kinds of
power assertion used by authoritative parents from those used by authori-
tarian parents. Confrontive discipline was the only power-assertive factor
that was typical in authoritative families and predicted successful long-term
child outcomes in the full sample. The confrontive discipline construct can
best be understood from its factor loadings, in order from the highest ones:
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

“confronts when child disobeys, cannot be coerced by the child, success-

fully exerts force or influence, enforces after initial noncompliance, exercises
power unambivalently, uses negative sanctions freely, and discourages defiant
stance” (Baumrind et al., 2010, p. 199). Authoritative parents also avoided
four kinds of power assertion that contributed to the adverse outcomes of
authoritarian parenting. In order, these adverse kinds of power assertion
were verbal hostility, psychological control, severe physical punishment, and
arbitrary discipline. Psychological control was a combination of being overly
intrusive and not permitting age-appropriate independence and autonomy.
Authoritative parents were average in using physical punishment, which
failed to predict either better or worse 10-year outcomes in the full sample,
except for the adverse effects of severe physical punishment, which authorita-
tive parents never used (Baumrind et al., 2010).
Thus, Baumrind’s authoritative parents used more extensive reasoning
and negotiation than did less effective parenting styles. They also used power
assertion when needed to enforce a satisfactory resolution to noncompliance.
This included some forceful negative sanctions, including an average use of
physical punishment. How do these components work together, and which of
them are essential for the long-term effectiveness of authoritative parenting?
In the next section, we address these questions by gleaning relevant informa-
tion from other parenting research.

Two Research Literatures: Toward an

Integrative Model

There is substantial support for the authoritative combination of rea-

soning with power assertion. For example, Grusec, Goodnow, and Kuczynski
(2000) provided the following “general prescription for effective childrearing”:
“Parents who have positive relationships with their children, who are firm but
not overly controlling, and who rely more on reasoning and persuasion than on
the use of power are seen to be most effective” (p. 205). Similarly, in Hoffman’s
(2000) theory of moral internalization, the verbal content of disciplinary

responding to misbehavior in young children      91

 responses has the most direct influence on moral internalization, whereas the
power assertion component needs to be just enough to maximize the child’s
attention and cognitive processing. Another leading expert advocates disci-
plinary reasoning but acknowledges that some children may need some form of
punishment or reward to accompany the reasoning (Steinberg, 2004, p. 163).
Consistent with this authoritative synthesis, a combination of reason-
ing and power-assertive consequences is more effective than either one alone.
Studies have consistently found that reasoning is more effective when used
more intensely for most children. Greater intensity has been manifested
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

both by affective intensity (Kuczynski, 1982; Zahn-Waxler, Radke-Yarrow,

& King, 1979) and by combining reasoning with negative consequences
or intentional ignoring (Chapman & Zahn-Waxler, 1982; Cheyne, 1972;
Crockenberg & Litman, 1990; Davies, McMahon, Flessati, & Tiedemann,
1984; Larzelere, Schneider, Larson, & Pike, 1996).
The combination of reasoning and punishment is also more effective
than punishment alone (Cheyne & Walters, 1969; Larzelere et al., 1996;
Parke, 1969). Adding reasoning to punishment overcomes some problematic
requirements for maximizing the effectiveness of punishment. For example,
punishment’s effectiveness increases with its level of aversiveness and the
precision of its timing (Van Houten, 1983). Combining reasoning with pun-
ishment makes it possible to maximize effectiveness at lower levels of aversive-
ness (Larzelere & Merenda, 1994; Parke, 1969), consistent with Hoffman’s
(2000) theory. The addition of reasoning also relaxes the requirement for the
punishment to be precisely timed (Cheyne & Walters, 1969; Parke, 1969)
and cushions the coercive characteristic of unqualified power assertion
(Hoffman, 2000, p. 147). Reasoning by parents makes it more likely that
children will use their own reasoning to generalize their parents’ expectations
appropriately. So, the addition of reasoning to punishment can enhance its
effectiveness with less aversiveness and facilitates appropriate generalization
in understanding, making moral internalization more likely.
Despite this support for the authoritative synthesis of reasoning and
power assertion, much parenting research emphasizes one to the near exclu-
sion of the other. After summarizing Hoffman’s theory, for example, Grusec
(1997) concluded that his “message has lost its subtlety [and the] empha-
sis has been on the superiority of reasoning over power assertion” (p. 9).
Other leading parenting experts in child development seem to take an
unqualified position against power assertion (e.g., Grolnick, 2003; Holden,
1997, pp. 122–123; Kochanska, Aksan, & Joy, 2007, p. 233). For example,
Kochanska et al. (2007) opposed all power assertion even though their obser-
vational measures of it are dominated by verbal prohibitions (e.g., “No!”)
and included such mild examples as “any sense of a clash of will, however
subtle” (p. 225). This seems to implicate even the mildest kinds of power

92       larzelere, cox, and mandara

 assertion, defined as the “use of superior power to control the child’s behavior
(including techniques such as forceful commands, physical restraint, spank-
ing, and withdrawal of privileges)” (Shaffer & Kipp, 2007, p. 585). Note that
punishment is a subset of power assertion, defined as an aversive consequence
of misbehavior, broadly defined herein to include nonpreferred experiences
such as time out (Van Houten, 1983).
The contribution of power assertion or punishment to the optimal
outcomes of authoritative parenting remains controversial, at least from a
reasoning-focused perspective. Is the effectiveness of authoritative parenting
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

due only to its nurturance and communication components and not to its
power-assertive components? If some power-assertive characteristics are an
inherent part of authoritative parenting (Baumrind et al., 2010), then how is
effective power assertion distinguished from ineffective or counterproductive
power assertion?
To find examples of effective use of power-assertive tactics, we need look
no further than the consequence-focused research that dominates behavior
management research to treat oppositional defiance and conduct disorders in
2- to 8-year-olds. Five of the six most effective clinical treatments for these
disorders teach parents to use power-assertive tactics systematically, includ-
ing clear commands, single warnings, time out, and enforcements for time
out (Eyberg, Nelson, & Boggs, 2008). Currently, enforcements for time out
vary from a brief forced isolation (Hembree-Kigin & McNeil, 1995; Roberts
& Powers, 1990), chores or privilege removal (Forgatch & Patterson, 2010),
and a gentle restraint (M. Sanders, personal communication, May 2, 2011).
In contrast to a reasoning-focused perspective, the only kind of disciplinary
reasoning permitted in behavior management’s responses to misbehavior is
a concise description of the disciplinary consequences (e.g., Hembree-Kigin
& McNeil, 1995, pp. 78–79) or, in one variation, brief statements showing
empathy or addressing fairness (M. Sanders, personal communication, May 2,
2011). Parental rationales and negotiations are not considered permissible
responses to misbehavior.
To summarize, some prominent parenting researchers support an author-
itative combination of disciplinary reasoning and power assertion. In con-
trast, some conclusions from child developmental research seem to oppose all
power assertion, whereas the best-supported parent management treatments
for disruptive behavior disorders train parents in some power-assertive tac-
tics while limiting the use of reasoning mostly to clarifying consequences.
How can these contrasting perspectives help clarify the authoritative inte-
gration of disciplinary reasoning and power assertion? Bell’s control system
model suggests a synthesis that accounts for the contrasting evidence while
showing how reasoning, power assertion, and other aspects of discipline can
best work together in authoritative parenting.

responding to misbehavior in young children      93

 Bell’s Control System Model

Bell’s control system model explains how parents and children regu-
late each other’s behavior (Bell & Chapman, 1986; Bell & Harper, 1977).
The model is derived from general control systems theory and from Bell’s
(1968) classic article incorporating child effects into an understanding of
parental influences on children. Figure 4.1 illustrates how this model applies
to children with competent or oppositional behavior, to the different empha-
ses found in reasoning-focused and consequence-focused research, and for
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

comparative purposes, to a central heating and air-conditioning system.

Bell’s model posits that parents have hierarchically organized disciplinary
responses, which are elicited in a predictable way by the child’s behavior.
Parents select corrective actions from their repertoire when child behavior
exceeds upper or lower limits of tolerance for the intensity and appropriate-
ness of the child’s behavior.
Children elicit upper limit controls from parents as a result of exces-
sive or inappropriate behavior (e.g., out-of-control behavior, impulsivity),
and this process is thus relevant for understanding disciplinary responses to
misbehavior. Common upper limit controls, according to Bell, include pro-
hibitions, verbal corrections (questioning, rule statements, rationales), dis-
tractions, reinforcement of appropriate behavior, redirections, restraints, and
disciplinary punishments. The intended function of upper limit controls is to
restore child behavior to the range of acceptable behavior, analogous to the
role of furnaces in restoring home temperatures into the desired range. Bell
and Harper (1977) showed that parents use verbal corrections and reasoning
in their initial responses to misbehavior and switch to power assertion only
in later stages or to address an extreme infraction (see also Hoffman, 2000;
Ritchie, 1999). What is not as clear is what determines the long-term effec-
tiveness of switching from verbal correction to power assertion.
Bell stimulated an extensive series of studies showing that the usual
parent–child disciplinary correlations could be explained by child effects
(Bell & Chapman, 1986; Bell & Harper, 1977). For example, Brunk and
Henggeler (1984) trained child confederates to role play either conduct dis-
order or anxious and withdrawn behavior. The children were then paired
with adults whom they had not met before. Consistent with Bell’s model,
conduct disorder elicited more commands, discipline, and ignoring from the
adults, whereas acting anxious and withdrawn elicited more verbal helping
and rewards. Bell and Chapman (1986) summarized 13 other studies that
used innovative methods to document child effects as explanations of the
associations between parental disciplinary actions and child outcomes.
Bell was not saying that parents have no influence. Instead, his point was
that an accurate understanding of parental effects must fully account for ongo-

94       larzelere, cox, and mandara

 Discipline as Control System (Bell)
Behavior
Management Upper Last-Resort Tactics
Emphasis Limit Nonphysical Consequences
Controls Reasoning & Negotiation
Oppositional Child
Child Maintaining Appropriate
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Development Child Behavior

Emphasis
Competent Child
Lower Initial Control Attempts
Limit 2nd Level Control Attempts
Controls 3rd Level Control Attempts

Time

Central Air and Heating System

Upper
Limit Circulating System Turns On
Controls Air Conditioner Turns On

Ongoing
Temperature
Fluctuation
Maintenance Region of
Optimal Temperature

Lower Furnace Turns On

Limit Circulating System Turns On
Controls

Time
Figure 4.1.  Two applications of Bell’s control system model.

ing child effects in a control system. Correlations between parental disciplin-

ary responses and child outcomes are based on the equilibrium that has been
achieved between a parent and a child and, as such, tell little about the causal
mechanisms that produced that equilibrium (Bell & Harper, 1977). Other
models of bidirectionality are also important for moving beyond ­unidirectional

responding to misbehavior in young children      95

 socialization models (Kuczynski, 2003), but Bell’s model is especially relevant
for elucidating parental influences within a bidirectional system.
To the extent that parental discipline operates as a control system, effec-
tive actions to restore behavior into an acceptable range will look harmful
according to correlations, thus accounting for the bias against power assertion
in cross-sectional and longitudinal designs. After making that case in the
next section, we summarize causal evidence supporting one particular condi-
tional sequencing of disciplinary tactics that is consistent with authoritative
parenting. Thus, Bell’s model can account for both the correlational evi-
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

dence against power assertion and its role in effective parental management
for oppositional children. We conclude by summarizing other implications
of Bell’s model, first that the relative effectiveness of reasoning and power
assertion varies by child temperament and that the sequence of disciplin-
ary actions provides a basis for reducing the need for parents to use power
assertion.

Correlational Analyses of a Control System

To understand the implications of Bell’s model, it is helpful to consider

using correlations to study a familiar control system such as a central heating
and air-conditioning system. Because furnaces are activated by cold tempera-
tures, cross-sectional correlations would indicate that furnace operation is
associated with colder home temperatures (e.g., 68° F) than air-­conditioner
operation (77° F), and typical longitudinal data would strengthen such con-
clusions further. For example, imagine a longitudinal study of home furnaces
in Canada and Hawaii. More furnace activity during one winter (in Canada)
would be associated with colder home temperatures the following winter
(compared with Hawaii). The standard interpretation of these correlations
would be that furnaces are making homes colder, both short-term and long-
term. The recommendation would follow that Canadians should start heat-
ing their homes like Hawaiians to enjoy Hawaii-like warmth in the winter.
Of course, the cross-sectional and longitudinal associations are due to the
contrasting challenges the control systems are facing in Canada and Hawaii,
not the causal effect of corrective actions to restore temperatures to the desir-
able range (i.e., furnace operation).
It is informative to consider how heating-system advocates could
respond to this kind of challenge. Longitudinal methodologists would recom-
mend controlling for initial differences in home temperatures to get stronger
causal evidence. Statistical controls could produce unbiased causal evidence if
all relevant confounds were controlled for perfectly (Steiner, Cook, Shadish,
& Clark, 2010), but that ideal is usually achieved only partially. Even if that
could be done, we are skeptical that the actual causal effect of furnace opera-

96       larzelere, cox, and mandara

 tion during one winter could be detected as increases in home temperatures
12 months later. Similarly, the typical interval in longitudinal studies may be
poorly matched with a reasonable causal lag for studying parental influences
on children (Gershoff, Aber, & Clements, 2009). A simpler response to the
longitudinal evidence would be to demonstrate short-term effects: When fur-
naces operate, homes get warmer; otherwise, they get colder when challenged
by wintry conditions. This suggests that dismissing similar short-term causal
effects from parents (e.g., to enhance compliance) on the basis of long-term
correlations can lead to faulty causal conclusions. (Note that oppositional
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

defiance is a key step in the development of delinquency [Timmermans, van

Lier, & Koot, 2009].) Short-term influences from parents are also less likely
than longitudinal correlations to be accounted for by shared genetic influences.
The substantial genetic component in parent–child correlations may be due
to the influence of the child on the equilibria on which those correlations are
based via evocative genotype–environment correlations (Burt, 2009). Short-
term parental influences may be less confounded with genetic influences.

Implications for Disciplinary Responses

This analogy fits corrective disciplinary actions well. Just as central

heating systems operate to keep home temperatures in a desirable range, so
parents use corrective actions to restore their children’s behaviors into a desir-
able range when its boundaries are exceeded. The system equilibrium is deter-
mined by the combination of three influences: the behavioral challenge from
the child, the parent’s disciplinary effectiveness, and the acceptable range of
child behavior. Bell insisted that correct conclusions about any of those three
interrelated causes of the observed equilibrium required taking the other two
causes into account. Parenting research needs to address the “most basic
and fundamental defect of past correlational studies, [which] is that they do
not provide a sensible basis for sorting out the direction of effects” (Bell &
Harper, 1977, p. 120). Those correlations do show, however, that the most
desirable outcome is an optimally developing child with parents who rarely
need to use any power assertion but negotiate mutually acceptable conflict
resolutions when needed. This ideal equilibrium is consistent with the cor-
relational evidence from cross-sectional and longitudinal studies.
Admittedly, a human system is more complex than a mechanical central
heating system. For one thing, human control systems come with memories,
as Bell and Chapman (1986) recognized. Child developmental experts, such
as Hoffman (2000), have emphasized cognitive influences on moral internal-
ization, whereas parent management experts, such as Patterson (1982), have
emphasized memories of contingent consequences. According to Hoffman,
the verbal portion of disciplinary responses has the most direct influence

responding to misbehavior in young children      97

 on moral internalization, whereas the power assertion component needs to
be just enough to maximize the child’s attention and cognitive processing.
The optimal level can often be achieved by background power assertion,
which is the memory of previous use of power assertion by parents (Hoffman,
2000, pp. 146–147). Whereas Hoffman’s theory focuses on disciplinary char-
acteristics thought to maximize moral learning in a given discipline episode,
Patterson’s focus was on how the successes or failures of actions in previous
disciplinary episodes influence the probability that those actions will be tried
later by the child or the parent. Putting the two together, Patterson’s contin-
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

gencies from previous episodes can provide the background power assertion
that is ideal for maximizing moral internalization according to Hoffman. To
Patterson (1982, p. 111), the most important skill to teach parents of defi-
ant children is how to use punishment effectively, referring to time out or
privilege removal. Effective use of time out to enforce compliance improves
cooperation with parental requests because the child’s defiance no longer
succeeds in getting the parents to drop their demands. Oppositional children
learn to cooperate with a milder verbal discipline tactic to the extent it has
been enforced effectively with time out or similar negative consequences in
prior episodes. Whereas mild verbal discipline is limited to commands and
warnings in behavior management, the same contingencies can also enforce
the kinds of disciplinary explanations emphasized in the reasoning-focused
perspective (Larzelere, Sather, Schneider, Larson, & Pike, 1998). This illus-
trates the potential of integrating processes involving both reasoning and
consequences into a single model consistent with authoritative parenting.
This systematic sequence of disciplinary tactics not only accounts for the
effectiveness of behavior management but also explains why correlations are
biased against all power-assertive tactics.

Correlational Bias Against Corrective Actions

Bell’s model implies that most cross-sectional and longitudinal anal-
yses are biased against all disciplinary responses to misbehavior, especially
power-assertive tactics. Accordingly, recent research has opposed a rapidly
increasing number of corrective actions by parents, including corrective dis-
ciplinary tactics. For example, Gershoff et al. (2010) investigated 11 disci-
plinary tactics, nine of which are used mostly to correct misbehavior. Out of
88 hypothesis tests, not one tactic was ever associated with lower externaliz-
ing or internalizing behavior problems in children. Five of the nine corrective
disciplinary tactics were associated with more aggressive behavior or anxiety
symptoms in children, including time out and expressing disappointment to
children as well as physical punishment, yelling or scolding, and shaming
(Gershoff et al., 2010). Other studies have found that sending children to
their room, grounding, privilege removal, and nonphysical punishment in

98       larzelere, cox, and mandara

 general were associated with more antisocial behavior or hyperactivity later
(Larzelere, Cox, & Smith, 2010; Larzelere, Ferrer, Kuhn, & Danelia, 2010).
This correlational bias also makes nondisciplinary corrective actions appear
harmful, including helping children with homework (Hill & Tyson, 2009),
certain racial socialization practices (Hughes et al., 2006; Quintana et al.,
2006), and warning adolescents about the dangers of smoking and of unpro-
tected sex (de Leeuw, Scholte, Sargent, Vermulst, & Engels, 2010; Deptula,
Henry, & Schoeny, 2010). Some of these studies have gone beyond unquali-
fied conclusions against these corrective actions to discriminate among more
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

versus less effective ways of implementing them (Deptula et al., 2010; Hughes
et al., 2006). Similar discriminations need to be made about corrective dis-
ciplinary actions to clarify how authoritative parents use them to respond
effectively to misbehavior.
The associations of corrective actions with negative child outcomes are
due to an inherent selection bias caused by child effects (Larzelere, Kuhn, &
Johnson, 2004). Parents are less likely to use corrective actions when chil-
dren are cooperative, respond well to reasoning, do well in school, do not
experience racial discrimination, and are unlikely to smoke or be sexually
precocious. Quite simply, the correlational evidence underlying these con-
clusions occurs because parents need no corrective actions when children are
doing well and not facing risky environments. Many parent–child associa-
tions in the literature may therefore reflect statistical artifacts due to child
effects rather than true causal effects.
This type of artifact explains why corrective actions shown to be effec-
tive in randomized trials appear harmful according to longitudinal correla-
tions. For example, longitudinal analyses show that psychotherapy and Ritalin
appear to be as harmful as spanking and nonphysical punishment, even after
controlling for preexisting differences on child outcomes (Larzelere, Cox,
et al., 2010; Larzelere, Ferrer, et al., 2010).
Correlations cannot discriminate between effective versus harmful cor-
rective actions if those actions are activated by a control system process like
Bell’s model. Indeed, a perfect corrective action would produce a correlation
of r = .00 with subsequent measures of the problem being corrected because
it would make recipients indistinguishable from those who never had the
problem. Relevant causal evidence about corrective disciplinary actions must
overcome this bias to clarify how disciplinary tactics can best be sequenced in
a manner that is consistent with authoritative parenting.

Sequencing Disciplinary Tactics

Consequence-focused research has documented causal evidence to sup-
port one way that power-assertive tactics can be sequenced to support verbal
corrections. Several principles about how authoritative parents might use

responding to misbehavior in young children      99

 power assertion to support appropriate verbal discipline can be illustrated
from this research. Cooperation by the child with time out is essential for
the effectiveness of behavior management, but this is difficult to obtain for
many clinically referred children (Roberts & Powers, 1988). In four studies,
Roberts contrasted four ways to enforce cooperation with time out on a chair.
Restraint and a child-determined release were the least effective enforce-
ments for time out, whereas the traditional two-swat spank backup and a
brief room isolation were the two most effective enforcements (e.g., Bean &
Roberts, 1981; Roberts & Powers, 1990). The first principle herein is that
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

research needs to compare alternative tactics for the same disciplinary situa-
tion, such as enforcing cooperation with time out. A second principle is that
multiple options help parents find the best alternative for each child and each
disciplinary situation. Roberts and Powers (1990) found that the two best
enforcements each worked when the other one failed to achieve compliance
with time out after several attempts. The availability of multiple alterna-
tives is desirable at any stage of a sequence of tactics to prevent unnecessary
increases in forcefulness. A third principle is illustrated by the fact that the
mildest enforcement for time out worked for some children even though it
was the least effective overall. That is, the child-determined release worked
for children who sat on the time out chair for more than a few seconds.
A fourth principle was illustrated by Roberts’s (1982) research on a
single warning preceding time out. Compliance improved just as rapidly as
in no-warning sequence, but the number of time outs needed to achieve
compliance was reduced by an average of 74%. This step in the sequence of
tactics thus reduced forcefulness (e.g., number of time outs) without compro-
mising effectiveness.
This conditional sequence of disciplinary tactics helps clinically defiant
children learn to cooperate with verbal discipline in the form of commands
and warnings and enables parents to phase out the most forceful tactics in the
sequence, starting with the time-out enforcement and then decreasing the
frequency of time out itself (McNeil & Hembree-Kigin, 2010). Children thus
learn to cooperate with the milder verbal tactics that developmental scholars
have found to be correlated with more appropriate child behavior (Roberts
& Powers, 1990). Thus, consequence-focused and reasoning-focused perspec-
tives share the goal of maintaining appropriate cooperation with mild verbal
discipline tactics. Behavior management research, however, has produced
causal evidence showing how power-assertive tactics can be sequenced to
achieve this goal, even for the most oppositional young children (Eyberg
et al., 2008; Pelham & Fabiano, 2008; Roberts & Powers, 1990).
Disciplinary reasoning cannot influence moral internalization unless
children pay attention to it. Consistent with authoritative parenting, the
effectiveness of disciplinary reasoning depends on it being backed up with

100       larzelere, cox, and mandara

 Request
Clarifying Negotiation
Reasoning

Time-Out (T-O)
Warning
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

T-O T-O Backup T-O Backup

Warning

Figure 4.2.  Example of a conditional sequence model for authoritative parenting.

nonphysical punishment when needed, thereby extending the conditional

sequence of tactics to disciplinary reasoning (see Figure 4.2). Larzelere et al.
(1998) found that the effectiveness of disciplinary reasoning alone for delay-
ing the next misbehavior recurrence in 2- and 3-year-olds depended on how
recently it had been enforced by nonphysical punishment (time out or privi-
lege removal). The greatest reduction in oppositional and aggressive behavior
during the next 20 months occurred when mothers reasoned frequently but
enforced reasoning with nonphysical punishment at least 10% of the time. In
contrast, the greatest increase in these disruptive behaviors occurred when
mothers reasoned frequently but rarely enforced it with nonphysical punish-
ment. The role of nonphysical punishment in enforcing disciplinary reasoning
and thereby reducing subsequent disruptive behavior was shown in nine of
10 analyses (including three of the four with stronger causal evidence) com-
pared with only four of 10 for physical punishment and one of 10 for forced
compliance or distraction in enforcing reasoning. The advantage of non-
physical punishment may be that punishment emphasizes the child’s respon-
sibility for listening to verbal correction (in contrast to forced compliance or
distraction) but does so with milder consequences than physical punishment
(although mean child distress was identical for physical and nonphysical
punishment; Larzelere, Silver, & Polite, 1997). Thus, Figure 4.2 shows one
example of nonphysical punishment as the preferred enforcement for reason-
ing, with stronger tactics reserved for enforcing nonphysical punishment.
In sum, there is strong causal evidence for the conditional sequence of
power-assertive tactics used in the consequence-focused perspective, which
has been extended to incorporate disciplinary reasoning. The principles from
this extended conditional sequence show a plausible way that authoritative
parents use power-assertive tactics to support disciplinary reasoning.

responding to misbehavior in young children      101

 Effectiveness of Reasoning Versus Power Assertion Varies by Temperament
Bell’s model predicts that the ideal combination of reasoning and power
assertion will favor reasoning more for easily managed children than for diffi-
cult children. In an important overview article, Grusec and Goodnow (1994)
noted that the greater effectiveness of reasoning compared with power asser-
tion held “for middle-class but not for lower-class families” and also varied
by “age, sex, and temperament” (p. 6). The common denominator is that
child outcomes of reasoning are better than those of power assertion pri-
marily in samples with low rates of oppositional behavior. Consistent with
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

this, Kochanska (1997; Kochanska et al., 2007) has shown repeatedly that
observed power assertion is correlated with lower subsequent moral behavior
for temperamentally fearful preschoolers but not for fearless preschoolers.
This follows from Bell’s model in that power-assertive tactics will be needed
more often for children with difficult temperaments (compare the competent
and oppositional children in Figure 4.1). Oppositional children need a bal-
ance of appropriate verbal corrections and power assertion, whereas power
assertion is less necessary with easily managed children and may even hinder
their moral internalization (Morris & Gibson, 2011). Accordingly, authorita-
tive parents use minimally sufficient power for cooperation, whereas author-
itarian parents use too much forcefulness, and permissive parents use too
little (Baumrind et al., 2010, p. 185). Power assertion can be minimized more
readily in Kochanska’s fearful children for two reasons. First, milder verbal
corrections are more likely to be effective without power assertion for fearful
children than for fearless children. Second, parents can rely on background
power assertion more quickly for fearful children than for fearless children.
In either case, a combination of moderate power assertion and reasoning
would be more effective for fearless children (Hoffman, 2000, p. 154). The
role of moderate power assertion in defiant situations outside the laboratory
would have been missed by correlational analyses of the mild power assertion
observed in Kochanska’s lab.
The other side of the continuum predicts that the greater effective-
ness of power assertion over exclusively positive tactics will be most evident
among clinically referred children. Patterson (1982) initially tried to help
parents manage their disruptive children by emphasizing reinforcement of
appropriate behaviors. By 1982, he concluded, “If I were allowed to select
only one concept to use in training parents of antisocial children, I would
teach them how to punish more effectively” (p. 111), referring to time out as
his punishment of choice. This does not mean that positive parenting skills
are unimportant with oppositional children: Showing enthusiasm about what
the child is interested in was shown to be a common component of more
effective behavior management interventions in a meta-analysis (Kaminski,
Valle, Filene, & Boyle, 2008). The effectiveness of positive parenting actions

102       larzelere, cox, and mandara

 such as reinforcement (Wahler, 1969) or reasoning (Larzelere et al., 1998)
can also be enhanced by time out.

A Preventative Sequence
Bell’s model also suggests the possibility of applying the conditional
sequence in a preventative manner. Whereas power-assertive tactics can be
used to enforce cooperation with verbal tactics, the conditional sequence
model suggests that verbal tactics can also be used to reduce the need for
power-assertive tactics. This was especially true of Baumrind’s (1971) har-
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

monious parents, 5% of her sample in which the parents “had control but did
not exercise control . . .  [but] they focused . . . upon developing principles for
resolving differences and for right living” (p. 99, italics in original). Although
authoritative parents were more likely to use negative sanctions when neces-
sary to achieve a desirable conclusion to a discipline episode, they preferred
using appropriate verbal disciplinary responses, which reduces the need for
power-assertive tactics. Similarly, maternal cooperation with 6- to 9-year-
olds’ desires predicted child cooperation in a cleanup task, but only for non­
resistant children (Davidov & Grusec, 2006). Mothers’ accuracy in predicting
children’s evaluations of disciplinary responses predicted greater cooperation
in initially resistant children. This contrast fits well with Bell’s model in that
the most crucial parenting skills vary by stage in the control system process.

An Authoritative-Parenting Synthesis
for Responding to Misbehavior

In this chapter, we have used four sources to clarify the specific ways that
authoritative parents respond to misbehavior in young children: informative
studies by Baumrind, reasoning-focused research, consequence-focused research,
and research combining reasoning with consequences. Whereas authoritative
parents respond with reasoning but combine it with some power assertion when
warranted, the two major areas of scientific parenting research often emphasize
either reasoning or power assertion with little attention to an authoritative syn-
thesis of the two. Clarifying the specific ways that authoritative parents respond
to misbehavior requires combining the strengths of both perspectives.
Bell’s control system model explains why the two perspectives empha-
size distinct responses to misbehavior and how reasoning and power-assertive
tactics can support each other in a complementary fashion consistent with
authoritative parenting. Although it incorporates a sequence of power-assertive
consequences such as the ones used in behavior management, it shows that par-
ents can reduce the need for power assertion tactics by skillful use of the mild
verbal disciplinary responses emphasized in the reasoning-focused perspective.

responding to misbehavior in young children      103

 Baumrind’s authoritative parents were skilled at using mild verbal tac-
tics to keep from using power-assertive tactics whenever possible. They not
only preferred reasoning over power assertion but also engaged children in
give-and-take discussions about their misbehavior and about appropriate
ways to cooperate. They showed more respect and negotiated more than
other parents. They wanted their children to learn why they should cooper-
ate in appropriate ways and not to merely force their cooperation, but they
were willing to do so when warranted. Their communication is useful for clar-
ifying the child’s perspective, which has been associated with positive child
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

outcomes (Grusec & Davidov, 2007; Grusec et al., 2000). Such clarification
would help them fit their disciplinary responses to the situation, another
characteristic of authoritative parenting (Smetana, 1995).
Authoritative parents also use power assertion more effectively than other
parents, but the crucial distinctions have not been clarified as well. Bell’s model
accounts for the difficulty of finding any correlational research to support power
assertion, although there are some exceptions consistent with authoritative par-
enting. For example, two studies overcame the bias against corrective actions
and found that power-assertive tactics predicted self-regulation in rural Black
6- to 9-year-olds and competency in preschoolers but only when combined
with parental nurturance (Brody & Flor, 1998; Towe-Goodman & Teti, 2008,
respectively). The correlational bias against corrective actions explains why
child outcomes are similar for nonphysical punishments, physical punishment,
and professional interventions, raising doubts about differentiating effective
from counterproductive power assertion on the basis of the tactic used. How
and when disciplinary tactics are implemented seems to be a more important
distinction between effective and counterproductive kinds of power assertion.
Baumrind et al. (2010) investigated power-assertive distinctions directly
and found that verbal hostility, psychological control, severe physical punish-
ment, and arbitrary discipline were the most harmful kinds of power asser-
tion and represent four distinct ways that power assertion can be misused.
Authoritative parents used confrontive discipline without resorting to those
harmful kinds of power assertion. Based on its factor loadings, the confron-
tive discipline used by authoritative parents involved dealing directly with
misbehavior and insisting on compliance in response to child coercion or
defiance. Although authoritative parents preferred achieving those goals
with appropriate verbal tactics, they were willing to apply negative sanctions
unambivalently when warranted. Although Baumrind (1967) did not specify
the negative sanctions used, her authoritative parents probably varied their
sanctions to fit the situation. Consistent with the conditional sequence, they
reduced their spanking frequency by the time children were 8 years old to a
level slightly lower than most other parents, including those who had been
permissive parents during the preschool years.

104       larzelere, cox, and mandara

 Authoritative parenting can probably be implemented without spank-
ing in many cases. Baumrind’s authoritative parents, however, all used spank-
ing sometimes, indicating that authoritative parenting can be compatible
with nonsevere spanking. As Morris et al. point out in Chapter 2 of this
volume, more research is needed to distinguish overly harsh punishment from
appropriate negative sanctions. They summarize an increasingly common
viewpoint that even mild spanking harms children, but they note the causal
ambiguity of the predominantly correlational evidence. To reduce the cor-
relational bias against corrective disciplinary actions, Larzelere and Kuhn’s
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

(2005) meta-analysis included all studies that investigated physical punish-

ment and alternative disciplinary responses using the same research methods
on the same samples. Child outcomes were more adverse for physical punish-
ment than for alternative tactics only when it was overly severe or the pri-
mary disciplinary method, as would be typical of authoritarian parenting. On
the other hand, nonabusive spanking led to more compliance or less aggres-
sion in 2- to 6-year-old children than 10 of 13 alternative tactics when used
for defiant responses to milder disciplinary tactics, such as time out or reason-
ing. This type of spanking is more compatible with authoritative parenting.
Behavior management research indicates that authoritative parenting often
requires a backup for time out as effective as the traditional two-swat spank,
at least with young defiant children (Roberts & Powers, 1990).
Principles from the conditional sequence of tactics used in behavior
management suggest ways to minimize the use of physical punishment in
authoritative parenting. First, skillful use of the intermediate steps in the
sequence enables authoritative parents to achieve a satisfactory conclu-
sion while reducing their use of any last step enforcement. Examples in
the c­ onsequence-focused sequence included a single warning and time out.
Consistent use of that kind of sequence achieves cooperation with the mini-
mum level of power assertion necessary to accomplish that goal. Second,
multiple options at each step can help parents find the best alternative for
each child in each situation. Behavior management has expanded its range
of last step enforcement tactics that can be used to find the best option for
each case even from options shown to be less effective on average such as the
child-determined release from time out. The more options that parents have,
the better they can vary disciplinary responses to fit the situation, a skill typi-
cal of authoritative parenting.
Future research can discriminate more precisely between more v­ ersus less
effective disciplinary responses by overcoming correlational biases in longitu-
dinal research and expanding the options investigated in ­consequence-focused
research to include more verbal options. Regardless of the enforcement used
for milder negative consequences, consistent use of the type of sequence used in
behavior management enables parents to phase out power-assertive tactics,

responding to misbehavior in young children      105

 starting with the last step enforcement, followed by milder kinds of power
assertion such as time out. Then background power assertion is sufficient
for children to attend to and cooperate with optimal verbal disciplinary cor-
rections. Overgeneralized prohibitions against power-assertive tactics can
undermine parents’ ability to get defiant children to cooperate with time
out and reasoning, increasing the risk of escalations toward abuse and of an
extreme type of permissive parenting that cannot set any limits on a child’s
behavior because of the child’s coercion (Patterson & Fisher, 2002, p. 74).
The hallmark of authoritative parenting, however, is that power-­assertive
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

tactics are used to support parents’ preference for using appropriate verbal dis-
ciplinary responses for misbehavior. Skillful use of a systematic sequence of
disciplinary consequences can be extended to support the broader range of
verbal disciplinary responses used by authoritative parents. It could be that
authoritative parents use a clear signal to distinguish give-and-take verbal
conflict resolutions from occasions when the parent is insisting on an accept-
able conclusion to the misbehavior episode. The single warning could serve
as this signal. Their ability to then use a version of the conditional sequence
to obtain an acceptable conclusion when desired would enhance their con-
fidence about getting appropriate cooperation when needed. As Bugental
(2009) showed, such parental confidence reduces the extent to which parents
resort to power-assertive tactics, which would free authoritative parents to
explore a wider range of verbal resolutions that fit the situation. Background
power assertion would cause the child to pay more attention to verbal reso-
lution attempts by the parent, further enhancing the parent’s effectiveness
(Hoffman, 2000).

Conclusion

An authoritative parenting style that incorporates nurturance and

demandingness has been shown to lead to optimal child development. The
specific processes used by authoritative parents to respond to misbehavior
are not sufficiently understood, however. In this chapter, we have integrated
findings from both reasoning- and consequence-focused perspectives using
Bell’s control system model to help clarify how authoritative parents use
power assertion when warranted to support their preference for verbal reso-
lutions to discipline episodes. To further clarify how authoritative parents
respond effectively to misbehavior, a healthy cross-fertilization of these two
fields and improved methods for making finer discriminations and valid
causal inferences are needed. This cross-fertilization should focus also on
ways to encourage appropriate behavior and prevent misbehavior in addition
to this chapter’s focus on responding to misbehavior. Bell’s model suggests

106       larzelere, cox, and mandara

 that parental influences can be accurately understood only when accounting
fully for child effects in an ongoing control system of bidirectional influ-
ences. The substantive and methodological strengths of both perspectives
are needed to clarify how authoritative parenting skillfully matches the most
appropriate kinds of verbal correction and power assertion to each disciplin-
ary situation.

References
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool

behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43–88.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Harmonious parents and their preschool children. Develop-
mental Psychology, 4, 99–102. doi:10.1037/h0030373
Baumrind, D., Larzelere, R. E., & Owens, E. B. (2010). Effects of preschool parents’
power assertive patterns and practices on adolescent development. Parenting:
Science and Practice, 10, 157–201. doi:10.1080/15295190903290790
Bean, A. W., & Roberts, M. W. (1981). The effect of time-out release contingencies
on changes in child noncompliance. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 9,
95–105. doi:10.1007/BF00917860
Bell, R. Q. (1968). A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in studies of socializa-
tion. Psychological Review, 75, 81–95. doi:10.1037/h0025583
Bell, R. Q., & Chapman, M. (1986). Child effects in studies using experimental or
brief longitudinal approaches to socialization. Developmental Psychology, 22,
595–603. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.22.5.595
Bell, R. Q., & Harper, L. V. (1977). Child effects on adults. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brody, G. H., & Flor, D. L. (1998). Maternal resources, parenting practices, and child
competence in rural, single-parent African American families. Child Develop-
ment, 69, 803–816. doi:10.2307/1132205
Brunk, M. A., & Henggeler, S. W. (1984). Child influences on adult controls:
An experimental investigation. Developmental Psychology, 20, 1074–1081.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.20.6.1074
Bugental, D. (2009). Predicting and preventing child maltreatment: A biocognitive
transactional approach. In A. Sameroff (Ed.), The transactional model of develop-
ment: How children and contexts shape each other (pp. 97–115). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/11877-006
Burt, S. A. (2009). Rethinking environmental contributions to child and adolescent
psychopathology: A meta-analysis of shared environmental influences. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 135, 608–637. doi:10.1037/a0015702
Chapman, M., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (1982). Young children’s compliance and non-
compliance to parental discipline in a natural setting. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 5, 81–94.

responding to misbehavior in young children      107

 Cheyne, J. A. (1972). Punishment and “reasoning” in the development of self-
control. In R. E. Parke (Ed.), Recent trends in social learning theory (pp. 77–91).
New York, NY: Academic Press.
Cheyne, J. A., & Walters, R. H. (1969). Intensity of punishment, timing of punish-
ment, and cognitive structure as determinants of response inhibition. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 7, 231–244.
Crockenberg, S., & Litman, C. (1990). Autonomy as competence in two-year-olds:
Maternal correlates of child defiance, compliance, and self-assertion. Develop-
mental Psychology, 26, 961–971. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.26.6.961
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Davidov, M., & Grusec, J. E. (2006). Multiple pathways to compliance: Mothers’ will-
ingness to cooperate and knowledge of their children’s reactions to discipline.
Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 705–708. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.20.4.705
Davies, G. R., McMahon, R. J., Flessati, E. W., & Tiedemann, G. L. (1984). Verbal
rationales and modeling as adjuncts to a parenting technique for child compli-
ance. Child Development, 55, 1290–1298. doi:10.2307/1129998
de Leeuw, R. N. H., Scholte, R. H. J., Sargent, J. D., Vermulst, A. A., & Engels,
R. C. M. E. (2010). Do interactions between personality and social-environmental
factors explain smoking development in adolescence? Journal of Family Psy-
chology, 24, 68–77. doi:10.1037/a0018182
Deptula, D. P., Henry, D. B., & Schoeny, M. E. (2010). How can parents make a dif-
ference? Longitudinal associations with adolescent sexual behavior. Journal of
Family Psychology, 24, 731–739. doi:10.1037/a0021760
Eyberg, S. M., Nelson, M. M., & Boggs, S. R. (2008). Evidence-based psychosocial treat-
ments for children and adolescents with disruptive behavior. Journal of Clinical
Child and Adolescent Psychology, 37, 215–237. doi:10.1080/15374410701820117
Forgatch, M. S., & Patterson, G. R. (2010). Parent Management Training—Oregon
Model: An intervention for antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. In
J. R. Weisz & A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), Evidence-based psychotherapies for children and
adolescents (2nd ed., pp. 159–177). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Gershoff, E. T., Aber, J. L., & Clements, M. (2009). Parent learning support and child
reading ability: A cross-lagged panel analysis for developmental transactions. In
A. Sameroff (Ed.), The transactional model of development: How children and con-
texts shape each other (pp. 203–220). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association. doi:10.1037/11877-011
Gershoff, E. T., Grogan-Kaylor, A., Lansford, J. E., Chang, L., Zelli, A., Deater-Deckard,
K., & Dodge, K. A. (2010). Parent discipline practices in an international sam-
ple: Associations with child behaviors and moderation by perceived normative-
ness. Child Development, 81, 487–502. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01409.x
Grolnick, W. S. (2003). The psychology of parental control: How well-meaning parenting
backfires. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grusec, J. E. (1997). A history of research on parenting strategies and children’s
internalization of values. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and
children’s internalization of values (pp. 3–22). New York, NY: Wiley.

108       larzelere, cox, and mandara

 Grusec, J. E., & Davidov, M. (2007). Socialization in the family: The role of parents.
In J. E. Grusec & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and
research (pp. 284–308). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the
child’s internalization of values: A reconceptualization of current points of view.
Developmental Psychology, 30, 4–19. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.30.1.4
Grusec, J. E., Goodnow, J. J., & Kuczynski, L. (2000). New directions in analyses of
parenting contributions to children’s acquisition of values. Child Development,
71, 205–211. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00135
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Hembree-Kigin, T. L., & McNeil, C. B. (1995). Parent–child interaction therapy. New York,
NY: Plenum Press.
Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-
analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental
Psychology, 45, 740–763. doi:10.1037/a0015362
Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development. Cambridge, England: ­Cambridge
University Press.
Holden, G. W. (1997). Parents and the dynamics of child rearing. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
Hughes, D., Rodriguez, J., Smith, E. P., Johnson, D. J., Stevenson, H. C., & Spicer, P.
(2006). Parents’ ethnic-racial socialization practices: A review of research and
directions for future study. Developmental Psychology, 42, 747–770. doi:10.1037/
0012-1649.42.5.747
Kaminski, J. W., Valle, L. A., Filene, J. H., & Boyle, C. L. (2008). A meta-­analytic
review of components associated with parent training program effectiveness.
­Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 567–589. doi:10.1007/s10802-007-
9201-9
Kochanska, G. (1997). Multiple pathways to conscience for children with differ-
ent temperaments: From toddlerhood to age 5. Developmental Psychology, 33,
228–240. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.33.2.228
Kochanska, G., Aksan, N., & Joy, M. E. (2007). Children’s fearfulness as a modera-
tor of parenting in early socialization: Two longitudinal studies. Developmental
Psychology, 43, 222–237. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.1.222
Kuczynski, L. (1982). Intensity and orientation of reasoning: Motivational determi-
nants of children’s compliance to verbal rationales. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 34, 357–370. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(82)90066-2
Kuczynski, L. (2003). Beyond bidirectionality: Bilateral conceptual frameworks for
understanding dynamics in parent–child relations. In L. Kuczynski (Ed.), Hand-
book of dynamics in parent–child relations (pp. 3–24). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Larzelere, R. E., Cox, R. B., Jr., & Smith, G. L. (2010). Do nonphysical punish-
ments reduce antisocial behavior more than spanking? A comparison using the
strongest previous causal evidence against spanking. BMC Pediatrics, 10(10).
doi:10.1186/1471-2431-10-10

responding to misbehavior in young children      109

 Larzelere, R. E., Ferrer, E., Kuhn, B. R., & Danelia, K. (2010). Differences in causal
estimates from longitudinal analyses of residualized versus simple gain scores:
Contrasting controls for selection and regression artifacts. International Journal
of Behavioral Development, 34, 180–189. doi:10.1177/0165025409351386
Larzelere, R. E., & Kuhn, B. R. (2005). Comparing child outcomes of physical pun-
ishment and alternative disciplinary tactics: A meta-analysis. Clinical Child and
Family Psychology Review, 8, 1–37. doi:10.1007/s10567-005-2340-z
Larzelere, R. E., Kuhn, B. R., & Johnson, B. (2004). The intervention selection bias:
An underrecognized confound in intervention research. Psychological Bulletin,
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

130, 289–303. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.289

Larzelere, R. E., & Merenda, J. A. (1994). The effectiveness of parental discipline
for toddler misbehavior at different levels of child distress. Family Relations, 43,
480–488. doi:10.2307/585381
Larzelere, R. E., Sather, P. R., Schneider, W. N., Larson, D. B., & Pike, P. L. (1998).
Punishment enhances reasoning’s effectiveness as a disciplinary response to tod-
dlers. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 388–403. doi:10.2307/353856
Larzelere, R. E., Schneider, W. N., Larson, D. B., & Pike, P. L. (1996). The effects of
discipline responses in delaying toddler misbehavior recurrences. Child & Family
Behavior Therapy, 18(3), 35–57. doi:10.1300/J019v18n03_03
Larzelere, R. E., Silver, C., & Polite, K. (1997). Nonabusive spanking: Parental lib-
erty or child abuse? Children’s Legal Rights Journal, 17(4), 7–17.
McNeil, C. B., & Hembree-Kigin, T. L. (2010). Parent–child interaction therapy (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Springer.
Morris, S. Z., & Gibson, C. L. (2011). Corporal punishment’s influence on children’s
aggressive and delinquent behavior. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 818–839.
doi:10.1177/0093854811406070
Parke, R. D. (1969). Effectiveness of punishment as an interaction of intensity, timing,
agent nurturance, and cognitive structuring. Child Development, 40, 213–235.
doi:10.2307/1127169
Parke, R. D., & Buriel, R. (2006). Socialization in the family: Ethnic and ecological
perspectives. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.), & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 3: Social, emotional, and personality development
(6th ed., pp. 429–504). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia Press.
Patterson, G. R., & Fisher, P. A. (2002). Recent developments in our understanding
of parenting: Bidirectional effects, causal models, and the search for parsimony.
In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 5. Practical issues in parent-
ing (2nd ed., pp. 59–88). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pelham, W. E., Jr., & Fabiano, G. A. (2008). Evidence-based psychosocial treatments
for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Clinical Child and Adoles-
cent Psychology, 37, 184–214. doi:10.1080/15374410701818681
Quintana, S. M., Aboud, F. E., Chao, R. K., Contreras-Grau, J., Cross, W. E., Jr.,
­Hudley, C., . . . Vietze, D. L. (2006). Race, ethnicity, and culture in child devel-

110       larzelere, cox, and mandara

 opment: Contemporary research and future. Child Development, 77, 1129–1141.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00951.x
Ritchie, K. L. (1999). Maternal behaviors and cognitions during discipline episodes:
A comparison of power bouts and single acts of noncompliance. Developmental
Psychology, 35, 580–589. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.35.2.580
Roberts, M. W. (1982). The effects of warned versus unwarned time-out proce-
dures on child noncompliance. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 4, 37–53.
doi:10.1300/J019v04n01_04
Roberts, M. W., & Powers, S. W. (1988). The compliance test. Behavioral Assessment,
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

10, 375–398.
Roberts, M. W., & Powers, S. W. (1990). Adjusting chair timeout enforcement pro-
cedures for oppositional children. Behavior Therapy, 21, 257–271. doi:10.1016/
S0005-7894(05)80329-6
Shaffer, D. R., & Kipp, K. (2007). Developmental psychology: Childhood & adolescence
(7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Advantage Books.
Smetana, J. G. (1995). Parenting styles and conceptions of parental authority during
adolescence. Child Development, 66, 299–316. doi:10.2307/1131579
Steinberg, L. (2004). The 10 basic principles of good parenting. New York, NY: Simon
& Schuster.
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S., & Dornbusch, S. M.
(1994). Over-time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents
from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child
Development, 65, 754–770. doi:10.2307/1131416
Steiner, P. M., Cook, T. D., Shadish, W. R., & Clark, M. H. (2010). The importance
of covariate selection in controlling for selection bias in observational studies.
Psychological Methods, 15, 250–267. doi:10.1037/a0018719
Timmermans, M., van Lier, P. A. C., & Koot, H. M. (2009). Pathways of behavior
problems from childhood to late adolescence leading to delinquency and under-
achievement. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 38, 630–638.
doi:10.1080/15374410903103502
Towe-Goodman, N. R., & Teti, D. M. (2008). Power assertive discipline, maternal
emotional involvement, and child adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 22,
648–651. doi:10.1037/a0012661
Van Houten, R. (1983). Punishment: From the animal laboratory to the applied
setting. In S. Axelrod & J. Apsche (Eds.), The effects of punishment on human
behavior (pp. 13–44). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Wahler, R. G. (1969). Oppositional children: A quest for parental reinforce-
ment control. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 159–170. doi:10.1901/
jaba.1969.2-159
Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., & King, R. (1979). Child rearing and children’s
prosocial initiations toward victims of distress. Child Development, 50, 319–330.
doi:10.2307/1129406

responding to misbehavior in young children      111