Corporal Punishment: National Trends, Longer-Term Consequences, and Parental Perceptions of Physical Discipline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corporal punishment is a controversial form of discipline. To inform the debate on corporal punishment, one of the objectives of the current dissertation was to characterize parental use of this disciplinary strategy and to examine its long-term developmental outcomes. The dissertation drew on data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY) to understand potential social change in corporal punishment and to characterize parents who continue to use this strategy. Over a 14-year period (1994-1995 to 2008-2009), results revealed a significant decrease in the use of corporal punishment and other negative strategies (e.g., psychological aggression), as well as a significant increase in the use of positive strategies (e.g., reward/praise and explain/teach). Nevertheless, approximately 25% of Canadian parents still use corporal punishment with children aged 2–11 years; therefore, it remains an issue that merits continued attention. While several socio-demographic factors significantly distinguished parents who use corporal punishment, other more dynamic variables may be important to consider, such as parental stress and their attitudes toward corporal punishment. For the outcomes associated with corporal punishment, NLSCY data revealed that experiences of corporal punishment at 2-3 years are associated with increased externalizing behaviours at 8-9 years. Results also indicated that, within a certain disciplinary context (more hostile and punitive parenting), early corporal punishment is associated with increased externalizing behaviours at 14-15 years, increased internalizing behaviours at 8-9 and 14-15 years, and reduced prosocial behaviours at 8-9 and 14-15 years. Overall, results confirmed that corporal punishment represents a small but non-trivial risk factor for child development. The second objective of the current dissertation was to address one of the central limitations of the existing literature on corporal punishment by clarifying what parents self-label as corporal punishment. Using a sample of 338 Canadian caregivers, the study assessed the relation between responses to a general question on corporal punishment and responses to questions on specific physical disciplinary strategies. Predictors (e.g., cultural norms, attitudes toward and childhood experiences of corporal punishment) of this relation were then investigated. Results suggested that questions such as the one used in the NLSCY may reflect parental use of milder forms of corporal punishment. Results also revealed that some caregivers remain undetected by general questions on corporal punishment. Factors such as attitudes toward corporal punishment can help identify those caregivers who use physically punitive strategies but who do not endorse corporal punishment. Results from the current dissertation offers support for the anti-corporal punishment perspective and calls for the de-legitimatization of this disciplinary strategy across society.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".