Predicting externalizing and prosocial behaviors in children from parental use of corporal punishment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study examined whether parental corporal punishment (CP) was associated with children's externalizing and prosocial behaviors 2 years later. The potential moderating effects of child temperament, maternal depression, and parenting skills were explored. Also, exploratory analyses of these associations were conducted according to the children's gender. Data from the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development (n = 1,686 children) were analyzed using ordinary least‐squares regression models. CP at 41 months was associated with boys' and girls' physical aggression and conduct problems at age five. Positive parenting skills moderated boys' conduct problems in the absence of CP. Parenting skills and maternal depressive symptoms moderated girls' prosocial behaviors in the absence of CP. Early experiences of CP are associated with negative developmental outcomes 2 years later. The implementation of parenting programs targeting a reduction in CP is recommended. Highlights Research question: Does spanking or hitting a child when he misbehaves influence children's externalizing and prosocial behaviors? Data from the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development were analyzed. Early spanking or hitting was associated with boys' and girls' physical aggression and conduct problems at age 5. Early experiences of spanking and hitting are associated with negative developmental outcomes. The implementation of parenting programs targeting a reduction in these parenting practices is recommended.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".