This research examined individual difference and contextual effects on the disciplinary behavior of a representative sample of 296 parents. Both the use of power assertion and inductive reasoning were found to be higher when the child's behavior violated a moral compared to a conventional principle, and in response to deliberate versus accidental behavior. Power assertion was also higher and reasoning lower when parents were in a bad compared to good mood. Multilevel modelling revealed that the pattern of change across contexts was not homogeneous. Threat oriented and stressed parents were more likely to react with more power assertion when in a bad mood, when their child violated a moral principle and when the behavior was deliberate. Change in parental reasoning however, was not associated with stress or threat orientation. The implications for attribution and goal directed theories are discussed, along with the need for practitioners to recognise that the determinants of disciplinary behavior are complex and multifaceted.