Associations between Lifetime Spanking/Slapping and Adolescent Physical and Mental Health and Behavioral Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many parents use physical forms of punishment, including spanking to correct perceived misbehavior. While some authors suggest spanking/slapping is a distinct and "milder" form of physical punishment, parents' use of spanking is consistently associated with poor outcomes for their children. However, less is known about the relationship between spanking/slapping and health and behavioral outcomes in adolescence independent of other childhood adversities. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to examine the associations between lifetime experiences of spanking on the bottom and/or slapping on the hand and 3 adolescent outcomes: (a) mental health disorders, (b) physical health conditions, and (c) defiant behaviors, after adjusting for other types of childhood adversities and child maltreatment. METHODS: = 1,883) with data collected from the adolescent and the parent/caregiver. Logistic regression models were used to identify associations with lifetime experiences of spanking/slapping 3 or more times (vs. 0 to 2 times). RESULTS: Lifetime spanking/slapping was independently associated with increased odds of mental health disorders, physical health conditions, and defiant behaviors in adolescence after adjusting for childhood adversities and child maltreatment (unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios ranging from 1.29 to 2.19). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that lifetime spanking/slapping is uniquely associated with harmful mental, physical, and behavioral outcomes in adolescence, and efforts should focus on its prevention.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".