Corporal punishment and adult antisocial behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A wealth of research suggests that youth whose parents use corporal punishment are more likely to engage in antisocial behavior during childhood and adolescence. Questions remain, however, about: (a) whether this relationship extends reliably to samples outside the US and Canada; (b) whether corporal punishment is associated with antisocial behavior in adulthood rather than just childhood and adolescence; (c) whether the association depends on which parents use corporal punishment; and (d) what theoretical mechanisms account for the link between corporal punishment and antisocial behavior. The present study uses data collected from young adults in Asia, Europe, and North America to address each of these issues. Net of statistical controls, including retrospective measures of childhood misbehavior and abusive parenting, findings reveal that antisocial behavior in all three regions is higher among young adults who report experiencing corporal punishment in childhood. Overall, this relationship is least likely to emerge when corporal punishment comes only from fathers and most likely to emerge when it comes from both parents. Further, results suggest that self-control and social concern, but not conventional attitudes, mediate a portion of the association between retrospective reports of childhood corporal punishment and antisocial behavior in early adulthood.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".