Japanese Journal of Applied Psychology
2021, Vol. 47, No. 1, 48-49

短Student Opinions on Corporal Punishment by Teachers’

報females：672, average：18.0 years）who enrolled in Nippon
Sport Science University in April 2019.
2. Survey method and period：The survey was conductedusing the collective survey method, an original questionnaire based on past surveys on corporal punishment wasemployed. The surveyors first explained the survey purpose, the entry method, and the protection of personal information to the students, so that the research subject andpurpose could be correctly understood, and then received
the anonymous answer sheets only from those who agreed
to participate. The survey was conducted during the freshman orientation period at the beginning of April 2019.
3. Survey items：After completing the face sheet（age,gender, department, club activity, acceptance level to corporal punishment, and so on）, students were requested tochoose five answers from the batches of questions asking
why teaches tend to commit corporal punishment（Table 1:
10 types from Q1 to Q10）
. The VAS
（Visual Analogue Scale）
evaluation was used as a measure of corporal punishment. InVAS, a horizontal line with a length of 100 mm is used forthe scale where the left end is“0”（for example,“No”）and
the right end is“100”（for example,“Yes”）. The answer for
the question was indicated with a vertical line（|）on thehorizontal scale to show the extent of feeling（thought）.

Shuichi FUJITA＊ and Yukihiro KARUBE＊

The purpose of our study is to reveal the reasons forwhich teachers punish their students from the point ofview of the students in a physical education and sports university. We extracted the groups that accept or reject corporal punishment from 1,722 freshmen, and asked them tojudge the pros and cons for 10 types of corporal punishment scenes. As a result, we found that characteristic differences were observed in the five scenes, and that thecorporal punishment scene was composed of three factors.
key words: corporal punishment, teacher, student

PurposeThe exercise of corporal punishment on children and students is clearly prohibited by the law of Article 11 of theSchool Education Act. There are a number of reports on thetolerability of corporal punishment, such as the violence
effects by leaders（Ae, 2000）, the exclusion of violence basedon educational understanding of the actual situation（Tanigama et al., 2016）, the prevention measures for teaches（Fujitaet al., 2018）, and the check of physical punishment in club
activities（Uchida et al., 2020）. The research is still in progressfrom various viewpoints to inhibit corporal punishment.
The present study was conducted with first-year students
in a physical education university. The research purposes
were to investigate the permissible level of corporal punishment of students, analyze its relationship with the reasonsfor exercising corporal punishment by teachers, and reveal
the factors of exercising it. Clarification of the essence ofcorporal punishment from the students’ viewpoints will bevery meaningful to understand the future policy of university education and guidance, and the educational effect.

Results

1. Comparison of reasons for teachersʼ corporal punishment
Regarding the judgment of the acceptance level for corporal punishment, the subjects whose VAS value was morethan 50 mm were classified into the“corporal-punishment
accepting group（AG）.”Since the number of members in
the group was 194, the same number of people were randomly selected from the subjects with VAS value less than
50 mm, and they were classified as the“corporal-punishment rejecting group（RG）.”Analysis was carried out for
the accepting and rejecting groups. Table 1 shows themean values of the answers to Q1 to Q10, which were clasMethodsified into those of the AG and RG groups, and an unpaired
t-test was performed. In Q1 and Q2, the values of RG were
1. Subjects：The subjects of the survey were 1,722 firstsignificantly higher than those of AG. In Q6, Q9, and Q10,OYS（応用心理） Pro6N【版面】W：146.5mm（片段 69mm）
H：213mm 【本文】43.01 行 12Q 20Hyear students（males：1,050,average age：18.1
years；【図】●図番号：11Q リュウミン B ●図タイトル・説明：11Q リュウミン R 15H ●タイ
1 行のときはセンタリング
AGトル・説明折り返し：番号のあと
showed appreciably higher
values than RG.
●図説の幅 片段：固定 全段：図幅 ●図番号の表記は「Figure（×Fig.）」に統一【表】●表番号：11Q リュウミン B ●表タイトル・説明：11Q リュウミン R 15H ●タイトル・説明の折り返し：番号のあと 1 行のときはセンタリン
グ ●表説の幅 表幅 ●表中：11Q 14H または●脚注 字下げなし【統一事項】●算術記号は和文 ●図表とタイトルのアキ 2 ｍｍ ●欧文の斜体は Platino Italic ●ギリシア文字は Symbol Std ●「，。
」カンママ
ル使用

Table 1 Results for AG and RG groups (Q1～Q10)AG

Q1Q2Q3Q4Q5Q6Q7Q8Q9Q10

RG

mean

SD

2.5
2.7
3.1
3.5
3.7
3.7
3.2
3.1
3.9
3.9

1.28
1.38
1.27
1.22
1.08
1.08
1.17
1.31
1.07
1.09

Significant
difference
＜＜＞＞＞
＞

mean

SD

t

Effectivesize (d)

2.8
3.0
3.1
3.5
3.6
3.4
3.4
3.2
3.6
3.6

1.36
1.39
1.31
1.30
1.19
1.22
1.30
1.35
1.20
1.21

2.20
2.25
0.220.39
0.83
2.14
1.50
1.18
2.36
2.05

0.23
0.22
0.02
0.04
0.09
0.22
0.16
0.12
0.25
0.21

Value of inequality sign is significantly larger on open side.
(＞，5% level; ＞＞ , 1% level)

Nippon Sport Science University, 7-1-1 Fukasawa,
Setagaya-ku, Tokyo 158-8508, Japan.

＊

FUJITA and KARUBE: Student Opinions on Corporal Punishment by Teachers’

OYS（応用心理） Pro6N【版面】W：146.5mm（片段 69mm） H：213mm 【本文】43.01 行 12Q 20H【図】●図番号：11Q リュウミン B ●図タイトル・説明：11Q リュウミン R 15H ●タイトル・説明折り返し：番号のあと 1 行のときはセンタリング●図説の幅 片段：固定 全段：図幅 ●図番号の表記は「Figure（×Fig.）」に統一【表】●表番号：11Q リュウミン B ●表タイトル・説明：11Q リュウミン R 15H ●タイトル・説明の折り返し：番号のあと 1 行のときはセンタリン
グ ●表説の幅 表幅 ●表中：11Q 14H または●脚注 字下げなし【統一事項】●算術記号は和文 ●図表とタイトルのアキ 2 ｍｍ ●欧文の斜体は Platino Italic ●ギリシア文字は Symbol Std ●「，。
」カンママル使用

Table 2

Results of factor analysis

Questionnaire
Q4
Q3
Q5
Q7
Q2
Q1
Q8Q10Q9Q6（ 49 ）

F1F2

F3

When students stopped listening
0.92 －0.06 －0.03
When a good student suddenly took a rebellious attitude
0.600.100.04
When the student did not follow the guidance, and began to act or play arbitrarily
0.59
0.03
0.18
When the student did not follow what the teacher said
0.50
0.26
0.14
When a student did not meet expectations or provided unsatisfactory results
0.01
0.93 －0.06
When the student did not receive good grades (results)
0.00
0.83
0.00
When the student repeated the same mistakes
0.16
0.47
0.21
When the student did not follow the rules of school and club activities
－0.03
0.01
0.80
When the student’s language or attitude was bad
0.08 －0.03
0.75
When the student did not act seriously
0.27
0.05
0.48
Inter-factor correlations

F10.580.66

OYS（応用心理） Pro6N【版面】W：146.5mm（片段 69mm） H：213mm 【本文】43.01 行 12Q 20H
F2―0.45【図】●図番号：11Q リュウミン B ●図タイトル・説明：11Q リュウミン R 15H ●タイトル・説明折り返し：番号のあと 1 行のときはセンタリング
F3―●図説の幅 片段：固定 全段：図幅 ●図番号の表記は「Figure（×Fig.）」に統一【表】●表番号：11Q リュウミン B ●表タイトル・説明：11Q リュウミン R 15H ●タイトル・説明の折り返し：番号のあと 1 行のときはセンタリン
グ ●表説の幅 表幅 ●表中：11Q 14H または●脚注 字下げなし【統一事項】●算術記号は和文 ●図表とタイトルのアキ 2 ｍｍ ●欧文の斜体は Platino Italic ●ギリシア文字は Symbol Std ●「，。
」カンママル使用

Table 3 Mean value of each factor for AG and RG

Factor NameAGRG

HINEKURE
URAGIRIZONZAI

3.4 (0.91)
2.7 (1.12)
3.8 (0.86)

3.3 (1.11)
2.7 (1.23)
3.4 (1.1)

＊＊＊

tdf

0.82 370.63
0.39 386
4.3 361.79＊＊＊

Effective size (d)
0.1
0.01
0.44

p＜.001: Value in the bracket indicates standard deviation.

2. Factor analysis of the rasons for teachersʼ corporalpunishment
For Q1 to Q10, factor analysis was performed for theanswers of all subjects with the principal factor method andthe promax rotations. The same factor analysis was performed for AG and RG, and they converged on the same
three factors, although the respective factor loadings weredifferent. Therefore, the first factor was named as the“Twisted attitude（HINEKURE）”factor toward the teacher.
The second and third factors were named as the“Betrayal（URAGIRI）” and the “Dishonest（ZONZAI）” factors,respectively. The reliability coefficients（Cronbach’s α ）were0.86 for the first factor（4 items）, 0.85 for the second factor（3 items）,and 0.82 for the third factor（3 items）（Table 2）.
Table 3 shows the scores for each factor for AG and RG
by summing up the item scores of each factor and dividing
by the number of items. There was no significant differencein AG and RG scores on the first and second factors, but
the third factor“ZONZAI”in AG was significantly higher
than that in RG（t（361.79）= 4.30, p ＜ 0.001, d = 0.44）.

Consideration
From the perspective of students, teachers appear to use
corporal punishment on their students when they use“badlanguage or attitude”or“do not follow the rules,”or whenteachers feel that“students do not behave seriously.”The
score is notably larger in the AG group than in the RG group.
Since these student actions were never what the teachers
wanted, such student actions caused the corporal-punishment
accepting students to deny such behaviors. On the other hand,the corporal-punishment rejecting students tend to admit thepunishment by teachers for the action of“not getting goodgrades（results）”and“suddenly taking rebellious attitudes.”Itis presumed that negative emotions were evoked by unpleasant behaviors, which were notably different from normal
actions or inconsistent with the expected results.
From the results of the factor analysis, it is clear that thefactors that lead teachers to corporal punishment of students are composed of three components, and it is based on
the common pattern regardless of the tolerating or reject-ing of corporal conducts. We presume that the three attitudes, “twisted attitude,”“betrayal attitude,” and “badattitude,” trigger the corporal punishment. In particular,“disgusting attitude”is strongly seen in AG; the attitude is,however, a “negative expression” of “representing theunpleasant emotion and expression,” as Nishio（1998）
pointed out. The attitude is accordingly unacceptable forthe physical education students who attach much value on“the mentoring and hierarchical relationships.”Therefore,
the results are considered to be students’ recognition thatteachers tend to discipline students on these occasions.
It is still unclear if “the three-factor structure” thatcauses teachers to use punishment is the same as the one
recognized by students, and future research will be
required to understand this further.

References
Ae, M.（2000）. The influence of coaches’ violence on youth
female athletes from the viewpoint of social influence
process. Japan Journal of Physical Education, Health, andSport Sciences, 45 （1）,89-103.
Fujita, S., Ichikawa, Y., Karube, Y., & Mimura, S.（2018）.
Prevention of Corporal Punishment in School-For
Teachers of Health and Physical Education-. Japanese
Journal of Applied Psychology, 44 （1）,83-84.
Nishio, J.
（1998）. Styles of Utterance in Language Behavior
Using Minus Treatment Expressions: On Language
Behavior with Restrictions. The Japanese Journal of Language in Society, 1 （1）, 19-28.
Tanigama, R., … Fujita, S.（2016）. A policy for the elimination of corporal punishment at Nippon Sports Science
University: from a longitudinal perspective. Bulletin ofNippon Sport Science University, 45 （2）,141-150.
Uchida, R., Teraguchi, T., & Daiku, Y.
（2020）. Re-examination of favorable attitudes toward corporal punishment
in extracurricular school sports settings. The Japanese
Journal of Psychology, 91 （1）,1-11.
（受稿 : 2021.1.14; 受理 : 2021.2.10）