Direct and Vicarious Punishment in the Home: An Analysis of Child Well-Being of 3 and 4 Year Olds in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Background and Purpose: Most research on child discipline focuses on one focal child in the household. Yet, many families across the world have more than one child, and parents do not discipline each of their children the same way (Vittrup & Holden, 2010). For example, some children do not directly experience physical punishment, but are vicariously exposed to a sibling who does. Research suggests vicarious exposure to intimate partner violence and neighborhood violence is associated with developmental challenges for young children; however, little is known about the effects of vicarious exposure to harsh punishment, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Methods: Data came from round 6 of UNICEF’s Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys, a population-based survey of households in LMICs. Mothers answered questions about child discipline in the past month for one child aged 5-14, and for all children aged 1-4. The analytic sample for this study includes 3-to-4-year-old children with at least one other child in the household with discipline data (111,923 children from 39 countries). For children aged 3-4, mothers answered questions about child socioemotional development, including the dichotomous outcome for this study: aggressive behavior (i.e., kicks, bites, hits). Three forms of punishment were measured directly (i.e., the child experienced this) and vicariously (i.e., at least one other child in the household experienced this): any psychological aggression (e.g., yelling), any moderate physical punishment (e.g., spanking), and any severe physical punishment (e.g., beating). Logistic regression, accounting for household clustering and country fixed effects, was used. For each form of punishment, a direct × vicarious interaction was estimated. Controls included child age and gender, number of children in the household, urban residence, household wealth, and head of household education.

Results: Children who were directly (but not vicariously) exposed to harsh punishment had higher odds of aggression than children who were not exposed to harsh punishment (Psychological: OR = 1.51, p < .001; Moderate Physical: OR = 1.49, p < .001; Severe Physical: OR = 1.43, p < .001). Children who only experienced vicarious exposure to harsh punishment had higher odds of aggression compared to children who did not directly experience harsh punishment (Psychological: OR = 1.15, p < .001; Severe Physical: OR = 1.08, p < .001; Moderate Physical was non-significant). The interaction for direct and vicarious psychological aggression was significant (p = .027), suggesting an additive effect, but this was not the case for physical punishment.

Conclusions and Implications: For young children who are not being punished themselves, vicarious exposure to psychological aggression and severe physical punishment of another child in the household may contribute to negative behavioral outcomes. Approximately 90% of children in the world reside in LMICs, and households with multiple children are common. Parenting and violence prevention interventions in LMICs can educate caregivers about the implications of young children’s vicarious exposure to violent discipline against another child in the household.