title: Validating the Voodoo Doll Task as a Proxy for Aggressive Parenting Behavior.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Six studies (N= 1,081 general population parents) assessed the validity of the Voodoo Doll Task (VDT) as a proxy for aggressive parenting behaviors.
  
  
  METHODS
  Participants were given an opportunity to symbolically inflict harm by choosing to stick "pins" into a doll representing their child.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Individual differences in parents' trait aggression (Studies 1, 2, and 6), state hostility (Study 3), attitudes towards the corporal punishment of children (Study 4), self-control (Study 6), depression (Study 6), and child physical abuse risk (Study 6) were associated with increased pin usage. Further, parents used more pins after imagining their child perform negative behaviors compared to after imagining their child perform positive behaviors (Study 5). A number of demographic variables also were associated with pin usage: Fathers used pins more than mothers and parents' education level was inversely related to pin usage. Finally, on average, parents viewed the VDT as slightly uncomfortable, but not objectionable, to complete (Study 6).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Our evidence suggests that the VDT may serve as a useful proxy for parent-to-child aggression.
authors.affiliation: Northern Illinois University.
authors.forename: Randy J
authors.initials: RJ
authors.lastname: McCarthy
authors.affiliation: Northern Illinois University.
authors.forename: Julie L
authors.initials: JL
authors.lastname: Crouch
authors.affiliation: Northern Illinois University.
authors.forename: Ariel R
authors.initials: AR
authors.lastname: Basham
authors.affiliation: Northern Illinois University.
authors.forename: Joel S
authors.initials: JS
authors.lastname: Milner
authors.affiliation: Northern Illinois University.
authors.forename: John J
authors.initials: JJ
authors.lastname: Skowronski
keywords: Voodoo Doll Task; aggression paradigm; aggressive parenting; child maltreatment; child physical abuse
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012 Mar;102(3):533-49
references.pmid: 21967005
references.citation: Child Abuse Negl. 2014 May;38(5):917-27
references.pmid: 24075063
references.citation: Aggress Behav. 2013 Nov-Dec;39(6):419-39
references.pmid: 23878068
references.citation: Child Abuse Negl. 2000 Apr;24(4):477-91
references.pmid: 10798838
references.citation: Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011 Jan;6(1):3-5
references.pmid: 26162106
references.citation: Aggress Behav. 2014 Mar-Apr;40(2):120-39
references.pmid: 24115185
references.citation: J Pers. 2004 Apr;72(2):271-324
references.pmid: 15016066
references.citation: Child Abuse Negl. 2012 Jun;36(6):498-509
references.pmid: 22749613
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 1992 Sep;63(3):452-9
references.pmid: 1403624
references.citation: J Appl Psychol. 1998 Dec;83(6):969-74
references.pmid: 9885201
references.citation: Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
references.pmid: 843571
references.citation: Child Abuse Negl. 1997 Dec;21(12):1149-58
references.pmid: 9429767
references.citation: Child Abuse Negl. 1998 Apr;22(4):249-70
references.pmid: 9589178
references.citation: Child Abuse Negl. 1996 Jul;20(7):573-87
references.pmid: 8832114
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 May;84(5):960-71
references.pmid: 12757141
references.citation: Child Abuse Negl. 2001 Aug;25(8):1015-36
references.pmid: 11601595
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 1999 Nov;35(6):1367-78
references.pmid: 10563727
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012 Feb;102(2):291-305
references.pmid: 21823802