The DOI matches its Crossref record; 104 of the 106 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 4 of the 37 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Spanking and child outcomes: Old controversies and new meta-analyses.
Open accessAbstract
Whether spanking is helpful or harmful to children continues to be the source of considerable debate among both researchers and the public. This article addresses 2 persistent issues, namely whether effect sizes for spanking are distinct from those for physical abuse, and whether effect sizes for spanking are robust to study design differences. Meta-analyses focused specifically on spanking were conducted on a total of 111 unique effect sizes representing 160,927 children. Thirteen of 17 mean effect sizes were significantly different from zero and all indicated a link between spanking and increased risk for detrimental child outcomes. Effect sizes did not substantially differ between spanking and physical abuse or by study design characteristics. (PsycINFO Database Record
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
28 Own result · 21 Own interpretation · 10 No full text of the sources · 7 Own method · 6 Sources not found · 4 Not checked yet · 3 No basis given · 2 Supported · 1 Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“A series of cross-lagged studies (Berlin et al., 2009; Gershoff, Lansford, Sexton, Davis-Kean, & Sameroff, 2012; McLeod, Kruttschnitt, & Dornfeld, 1994; Sheehan & Watson, 2008) has demonstrated that spanking predicts changes in children’s behavior, over and above their initial levels and the child effect of early problem behavior on later spanking.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Discussion > Limitations
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Berlin et al., 2009 source
The Results (page unavailable) describe cross-lagged models that estimated spanking-to-child-outcome paths alongside child-behavior-to-later-spanking paths. They report that spanking at age 1 predicted aggressive behavior problems at age 2, while aggressive behavior problems at age 2 did not predict spanking at age 3. The finding is specific to these low-income toddlers and these ages; other spanking-to-aggression paths were not significant. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Supportedcites Gershoff et al., 2012 source
The Results section describes a cross-lagged model that tests whether kindergarten spanking predicts third-grade externalizing behavior while controlling for initial behavior and the reverse path from early externalizing behavior to later spanking. The Abstract reports that early spanking predicted increases in externalizing behavior, while early externalizing behavior predicted more spanking. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Not matchedcites McLeod et al., 1994
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The remaining four meta-analyses were not significantly different from zero.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Results > Main Meta-Analyses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Meta-analyses focused specifically on spanking were conducted on a total of 111 unique effect sizes representing 160,927 children.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Abstract
plainn = 160,927- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thirteen of 17 mean effect sizes were significantly different from zero and all indicated a link between spanking and increased risk for detrimental child outcomes.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only 75 studies met all four criteria and were retained for the meta-analyses.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Method > Coding of Studies for Inclusion or Exclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Longitudinal effect sizes of the bivariate links between spanking and later child outcomes do not rule out the potential for a child elicitation effect; however, so few studies report a coefficient that controls only for initial child behavior (and not for a range of other covariates) that we are unable to meta-analyze them.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Remaining Concerns About the Research on Spanking and Child Outcomes > Spanking Has Only Been Linked With Negative Child Outcomes in Cross-Sectional or Methodologically Weak Studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Effect sizes did not substantially differ between spanking and physical abuse or by study design characteristics.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The magnitude of the mean effect size for spanking was 65% of the magnitude of the mean effect size for physical abuse.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Results > Moderator Analyses Comparing Spanking With Physical Abuse
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 13 statistically significant mean effect sizes ranged in size from .15 to .64.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Results > Main Meta-Analyses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“None of the tests were significant, indicating that the risk of publication bias for any of our mean effect sizes is small.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Results > Tests for Publication Bias
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 40
- Probably not a substantial claim. 8
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“analysis of data from a national randomized controlled trial of the federal Head Start program for low income children found that parents in the program significantly reduced their spanking, which was in turn linked with decreases in child aggression over time (Gershoff, Ansari, Purtell, & Sexton, 2016).”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Discussion > Limitations
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Gershoff, Ansari, Purtell, & Sexton, 2016 source
The Results report a significant reduction in spanking associated with Head Start participation. The Discussion states that reduced spanking predicted reduced child aggression over time. The paper also cautions that the indirect effect of Head Start on aggression through spanking was not statistically significant; the claim does not say that it was. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Both behaviors involve parents intentionally hitting (and hurting) children, albeit to different degrees (Gershoff, 2013)”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Discussion > Spanking Alone Is Associated With Detrimental Outcomes, but in Similar Ways to Physical Abuse
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Gershoff, 2013 source
The section “Spanking Is Linked With Numerous Adverse Side Effects” states that spanking and physical abuse both involve hitting and purposefully hurting children. It says the difference is often one of degree—such as duration or force—rather than intent. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The weighted mean effect size for spanking was d = .25, while for physical abuse it was d = .38. Both were significantly different from zero and both were positive in sign”
- Also stated in: § Spanking Alone Is Associated With Detrimental Outcomes, but in Similar Ways to Physical Abuse · plain
“Spanking in these studies was significantly associated with detrimental outcomes with an effect size d = .25, while the mean effect size for physical abuse for these studies was significant and d = .38”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Results > Moderator Analyses Comparing Spanking With Physical Abuse
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Spanking Alone Is Associated With Detrimental Outcomes, but in Similar Ways to Physical Abuse · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The largest effect size was for physical abuse; the more children are spanked, the greater the risk that they will be physically abused by their parents.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Discussion > Spanking Is Associated With Higher Risk for Detrimental Outcomes
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In childhood, parental use of spanking was associated with low moral internalization, aggression, antisocial behavior, externalizing behavior problems, internalizing behavior problems, mental health problems, negative parent–child relationships, impaired cognitive ability, low self-esteem, and risk of physical abuse from parents.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Results > Main Meta-Analyses
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Three outcomes in childhood were not significantly associated with spanking in the meta-analyses: immediate defiance, child alcohol or substance abuse, and low-self regulation.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Discussion > Spanking Is Associated With Higher Risk for Detrimental Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In adulthood, prior experiences of parental use of spanking were significantly associated with adult antisocial behavior, adult mental health problems, and with positive attitudes about spanking.”
- Also stated in: § Spanking Is Associated With Higher Risk for Detrimental Outcomes · plain
“Three of the four adult outcomes were significantly associated with a history of spanking from parents: adult antisocial behavior, adult mental health problems, and adult support for physical punishment.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Results > Main Meta-Analyses
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Spanking Is Associated With Higher Risk for Detrimental Outcomes · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All of the comparisons were nonsignificant, indicating that the effect sizes did not vary by study characteristic.”
- Also stated in: § Moderator Analyses by Study Characteristics · plain
“Average effect sizes also did not significantly vary based on how spanking was measured, how it was indexed, whether the raters of spanking and outcome were independent, the time period over which spanking was measured, the country of the study, or the age group of the children studied.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Results > Moderator Analyses by Study Characteristics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Moderator Analyses by Study Characteristics · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An important observation about the meta-analyses is that the individual studies are highly consistent: 71% of all of the effect sizes, and 99% of the significant effect sizes, indicated a significant association between parental spanking and detrimental child outcomes.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Discussion > Spanking Is Associated With Higher Risk for Detrimental Outcomes
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Of the 111 individual effect sizes, 102 were in the direction of a detrimental outcome with 78 of these statistically significant. In contrast, nine of the effect sizes were in the direction of a beneficial outcome but only one (Tennant, Detels, & Clark, 1975) was statistically different from zero.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Results > Main Meta-Analyses
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tennant, Detels, & Clark, 1975 source
plaincorrelationaln = 111- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The overall mean weighted effect size across all of the 111 study-level effect sizes was d = .33, with a 95% confidence interval of .29 to .38; this mean effect was statistically different from zero, Z = 14.84, p < .001.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Results > Main Meta-Analyses
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Spanking was significantly associated with 13 of the 17 outcomes examined. In each case, spanking was associated with a greater likelihood of detrimental child outcomes.”
- Also stated in: § Spanking Is Associated With Higher Risk for Detrimental Outcomes · plain
“Thirteen of the 17 child outcomes examined were found to be significantly associated with parents’ use of spanking.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Results > Main Meta-Analyses
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Spanking Is Associated With Higher Risk for Detrimental Outcomes · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A total of 111 unique effect sizes were derived from data representing 204,410 child measurement occasions; these studies included data from a total of 160,927 unique children.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Results > Main Meta-Analyses
plainn = 160,927- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two of the studies contributed more than one effect size, yielding a total of 10 pairs of effect sizes for spanking and physical abuse.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Results > Moderator Analyses Comparing Spanking With Physical Abuse
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thirteen of 17 mean effect sizes were significantly different from zero and all indicated a link between spanking and increased risk for detrimental child outcomes.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Abstract
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These analyses did not find any support for the contentions that spanking is only associated with detrimental outcomes when it is combined with abusive methods or that spanking is only associated with such outcomes in methodologically weak studies.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While it was indeed true that the majority of studies (70%) were cross-sectional or retrospective in nature, the effect sizes for the longitudinal and experimental studies were not significantly different from the effect sizes for the cross-sectional studies (see Table 4).”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Discussion > Spanking Effect Sizes Are Similar Across Study Characteristics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The mean effect size across all studies, d = .33, was smaller than the overall mean effect size reported by Gershoff (2002), d = .40, but still statistically significant.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Discussion > Spanking Alone Is Associated With Detrimental Outcomes, but in Similar Ways to Physical Abuse
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gershoff (2002) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The meta-analyses presented here found no evidence that spanking is associated with improved child behavior and rather found spanking to be associated with increased risk of 13 detrimental outcomes.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Conclusion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, both effect sizes are significant and positive, indicating that both are associated with more undesirable child outcomes.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Remaining Concerns About the Research on Spanking and Child Outcomes > Spanking Has Been Confounded With Harsher Forms of Physical Punishment
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, while not a perfect solution, longitudinal bivariate coefficients are decidedly stronger methodologically than within-time coefficients.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Remaining Concerns About the Research on Spanking and Child Outcomes > Spanking Has Only Been Linked With Negative Child Outcomes in Cross-Sectional or Methodologically Weak Studies
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All study-level effect sizes were calculated independently by each of the authors; for all effect sizes, agreement was achieved to at least the third decimal place.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Method > Coding of Effect Sizes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The failure to reach significance for immediate defiance appears to result from the small n (150), while for child alcohol or substance abuse and low self-regulation the cause appears to be heterogeneity in effect sizes.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Discussion > Spanking Is Associated With Higher Risk for Detrimental Outcomes
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Each of these four meta-analyses included a different set of articles and came to varied conclusions, namely that physical punishment is largely ineffective and harmful (Gershoff, 2002), that physical punishment is effective under certain circumstances (Larzelere & Kuhn, 2005), and that physical punishment is linked with children’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioral problems but only modestly (F”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Abstract
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the second step of coding, each of these 558 potential studies was coded independently by each of the authors. Any disagreements in coding were resolved through follow-up discussion.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Method > Coding of Studies for Inclusion or Exclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The finding that spanking was not linked with immediate defiance was unexpected given the opposite findings in the Gershoff (2002) meta-analyses.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Discussion > Spanking Is Associated With Higher Risk for Detrimental Outcomes
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gershoff (2002) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When discrepancies occurred in effect size calculations, the discrepancy was discussed, and then each author independently recalculated the effect size. This process was repeated, if necessary, until consensus was achieved.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Method > Coding of Effect Sizes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While this is clearly a beneficial outcome, the uniqueness of the sample limits the generalizability of this finding and may explain why this study is an outlier”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Discussion > Spanking Is Associated With Higher Risk for Detrimental Outcomes
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Taken together, these meta-analyses provide evidence that physical punishment is associated with negative child outcomes, particularly when the outcomes are divided into finer-grained categories (Ferguson, 2013; Gershoff, 2002) rather than when they are grouped into broad categories (Paolucci & Violato, 2004), and that harsher methods of physical punishment are more strongly associated with”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Previous Meta-Analyses of Physical Punishment and Spanking
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The only study that found a significant association with a beneficial outcome, Tennant, Detels, and Clark (1975), had a unique sample (U.S. Army soldiers stationed in West Germany in 1971 and 1972, most of whom were White [77%]), and found that soldiers who recalled being spanked were less likely to report using amphetamines or opiates.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Discussion > Spanking Is Associated With Higher Risk for Detrimental Outcomes
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tennant, Detels, & Clark (1975) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The circumstances of experimentally manipulated spanking thus are likely to be unusual, leading to concern that experiments with parental spanking may suffer from a lack of external validity.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Remaining Concerns About the Research on Spanking and Child Outcomes > Spanking Has Only Been Linked With Negative Child Outcomes in Cross-Sectional or Methodologically Weak Studies
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, parents’ use of spanking is not easily or ethically studied through an experimental design, as children cannot be randomly assigned to parents with varying predispositions to spank, nor can parents typically be randomly assigned to spank or not spank.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Remaining Concerns About the Research on Spanking and Child Outcomes > Spanking Has Only Been Linked With Negative Child Outcomes in Cross-Sectional or Methodologically Weak Studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Two primary concerns that have been raised about past meta-analyses are that spanking has been confounded with potentially abusive parenting behaviors in some studies and that spanking has only been linked with detrimental outcomes in methodologically weak studies (Baumrind, Larzelere, & Cowan, 2002; Ferguson, 2013; Larzelere & Kuhn, 2005).”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Abstract
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“None of these studies using advanced statistical methods found evidence that the pathway is entirely one of selection or child elicitation, or that spanking predicts improvements in children’s behavior over time”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Discussion > Limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the association only indicates that milder and more severe corporal punishment are linked, and that the former may increase the risk that children will also be physically abused.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Discussion > Spanking Alone Is Associated With Detrimental Outcomes, but in Similar Ways to Physical Abuse
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This finding indicates that methodologically stronger studies did not find significantly smaller effect sizes than methodologically weaker studies, lending more confidence to the findings from the main meta-analyses that include both.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Discussion > Spanking Effect Sizes Are Similar Across Study Characteristics
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“given that a correlational association is a necessary condition for a causal relationship (Shadish et al., 2001), we can conclude that the data are consistent with a conclusion that spanking is associated with undesirable outcomes.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Discussion > Spanking Is Associated With Higher Risk for Detrimental Outcomes
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Shadish et al., 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“many researchers have argued that spanking and physical abuse are on a continuum of violence against children, and that spanking can escalate into physical abuse (Straus, 2001)”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Discussion > Spanking Alone Is Associated With Detrimental Outcomes, but in Similar Ways to Physical Abuse
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Straus, 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“randomized experiments of spanking are difficult if not ethically impossible to conduct, and thus this shortcoming of the literature will be difficult to correct through future studies.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Discussion > Limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Randomized experiments of spanking are ethically impossible or difficult to conduct.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As most of the included studies were correlational or retrospective (72%), causal links between spanking and child outcomes cannot be established by these meta-analyses.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Discussion > Spanking Is Associated With Higher Risk for Detrimental Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Across study designs, countries, and age groups, spanking has been linked with detrimental outcomes for children, a fact supported by several key methodologically strong studies that isolate the ability of spanking to predict child outcomes over time.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Conclusion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A major concern raised about the spanking literature in general and previous meta-analyses in particular is that their reliance on cross-sectional designs may mask what are truly child-elicitation effects (Baumrind et al., 2002; Ferguson, 2013; Larzelere et al., 2004). In other words, associations between spanking and problematic behavior may reflect the fact that difficult children elicit more sp”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Discussion > Spanking Effect Sizes Are Similar Across Study Characteristics
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“most instances of substantiated physical abuse (75%), like all instances of spanking, begin as responses to children’s misbehavior (Durrant et al., 2006).”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Discussion > Spanking Alone Is Associated With Detrimental Outcomes, but in Similar Ways to Physical Abuse
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Durrant et al., 2006
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Across all categories, methodologically stronger study designs identified the same risk for negative outcomes as did weaker study designs, suggesting that the associations between spanking and child outcomes are robust to study design.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Discussion > Spanking Effect Sizes Are Similar Across Study Characteristics
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the mean effect size for all studies from Table 2, d = .33, is closer to the mean effect size for physical abuse in Table 3 than it is to the mean effect size for spanking from these 10 select effect sizes, indicating that spanking and physical abuse have relations with child outcomes that are similar in magnitude and identical in direction.”
§ Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses > Discussion > Spanking Alone Is Associated With Detrimental Outcomes, but in Similar Ways to Physical Abuse
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Approximately 80% of children are spanked.
“when extrapolated to the population in which 80% of children are being spanked”
The paper relies on this without support.
Randomized experiments of spanking are ethically impossible or difficult to conduct.
“randomized experiments of spanking are difficult if not ethically impossible to conduct”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The meta-analysis of Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor (2016) found no effect size difference between spanking and physical abuse, demonstrating that both share similar associations with detrimental child outcomes.”
From The evolved nest, oxytocin functioning, and prosocial development (2023) · cites this paper as Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor (2016)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Over a span of five decades, numerous cross-cultural studies, longitudinal investigations (Berlin et al., 2009; Gershoff et al., 2012), and large meta-analyses (Gershoff, 2002; Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor, 2016) provide converging evidence regarding the harmful outcomes, which include depression or depressed mood (Fergusson et al., 2008), antisocial behavior (Straus et al., 1997), substance use, Su”
From The evolved nest, oxytocin functioning, and prosocial development (2023) · cites this paper as Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor (2016)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Consistentz = 14.84reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“Z = 14.84, p < .001”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.
Citations
Cites
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Cohen, J. (1990) · Computers Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,417
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552 · cited 2×
“Ferguson (2013) analyzed 45 studies; of these, 11 were included in the current meta-analyses.”
BackgroundMethod(2002) · Cited by 13,211
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
Gershoff, E. T. (2002) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.539 · Cited by 2,165 · cited 15×
“The first and most widely cited of the meta-analyses was by Gershoff (2002).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialExposure to childhood sexual and physical abuse and adjustment in early adulthood
Fergusson, D. M., Boden, J. M., & Horwood, L. J. (2008) · Child Abuse & Neglect · doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.12.018 · Cited by 910 · cited 5×
“…outcomes 2.00 1.00 .00 1.00 2.00 Adult alcohol or substance abuse 2,596 4,796 .13 .08 .35 Baer and Corrado (1974) 93 107 .41 .13 .69 Fergusson, Boden, and Horwood (2008) 341 2,504 .29 .18 .40 Lynch et al. (2006) 576 1,640 .05 .05 .14 Tennant, Detels, and Clark (1975) 1,586 545 .13…”
BackgroundInfluentialHarbord, R. M., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2008) · The Stata Journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata · doi:10.1177/1536867x0800800403 · Cited by 897
Poverty, Parenting, and Children's Mental Health.
McLeod, J., & Shanahan, M. (1993) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2095905 · Cited by 839 · cited 2×
“….12 .04 Lau et al. (2010) 924 2,400 .28 .15 .41 Maguire-Jack, Gromoske, and Berger (2012) 3,870 .11 .05 .18 McKee et al. (2007) 2,582 .19 .11 .27 McLeod and Shanahan (1993) 1,733 .32 .23 .42 Child mental health problems 5,122 1,313 .53 .42 .64 Buehler and Gerard (2002) 1,401 .53 .42…”
InfluentialCommittee on the rights of the child
Vincent, G. (2009) · Docs.school Publications · Cited by 733
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 901–924 of 924
Mchenga, M., Makate, M., Barnard, S., Nota, P. B., & Hertzog, L. (2026) · Journal of Adolescent Health · doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2026.06.004
Corporal Punishment in Arkansas Public Schools: A Mixed Methods Analysis
Samarah, E. M. S., Chiocca, E. M., Schelbe, L. A., et al. (2026) · Child Maltreatment · doi:10.1177/10775595261474140
Howell, K., & Cobbina, J. (2026) · Feminist Criminology · doi:10.1177/15570851261473613
Intergenerational transmission of child abuse risk: Cognitive mediators in a multigenerational study
Fairchild, J. N., & Rodriguez, C. M. (2026) · Child Abuse & Neglect · doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2026.108238
Wusirige, Roopnarine, J. L., & Krishnakumar, A. (2026) · Child Abuse & Neglect · doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2026.108246
Jiang, C., Wan, G., & Shi, J. (2026) · Child Abuse & Neglect · doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2026.108245
Chiocca, E. M., & Bloom, T. (2026) · Journal of Family Violence · doi:10.1007/s10896-026-01147-5
Sehic, E., Pham, C., Desmarais, É., French, B. F., Räikkönen, K., Heinonen, K., González-Salinas, C., Wang, Z., Beijers, R., de Weerth, C., et al. (2026) · Child Psychiatry & Human Development · doi:10.1007/s10578-026-02079-3
Boundaries of Parental Discipline: A Cross-cultural Interview Study of Mothers in the UK and Japan
Hososaka, Y., Horii, M., Kayashima, K., & Rooksby, M. (2026) · Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies · doi:10.66815/ejecs/2950
“More recently, this position has been undermined by more meta-analytic and longitudinal studies (Gershoff, 2010; Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016; Cuartas, 2024).”
Rowland, A. G. (2026) · Archives of Disease in Childhood · doi:10.1136/archdischild-2026-331123
Desta, K., & Negassa, D. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10413318/v1
Mental Health, Mood, and Sleep Outcomes among Adolescents Exposed to Parental Physical Abuse
Kapur, I., Kennedy, R. S., & Thurston, H. (2026) · Journal of Child and Family Studies · doi:10.1007/s10826-026-03321-1
“outcomes, including mental health issues and antisocial behaviors in children (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016).”
Ding, W., Mao, J., Wu, C., & Liu, S. (2026) · Child Abuse & Neglect · doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2026.108318
Yoon, S., & Schneider, W. (2026) · Child Abuse & Neglect · doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2026.108324
Satinsky, E. N., Kakuhikire, B., Baguma, C., Dyk, S. S. V., Namara, E. B., Ahereza, P., Ayebare, P., Ashaba, S., Comfort, A. B., Tsai, A. C., et al. (2026) · Child Abuse & Neglect · doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2026.108294
Zhan, L., Lu, J., Fan, T., Wang, Y., Liu, Y., & Shen, Y. (2026) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2026.122495
Supporting parenting in early childhood to foster human development and mental health
Cuartas, J. A., Lansford, J. E., Backhaus, S., Freire, S. M., & Jeong, J. (2026) · Nature Mental Health · doi:10.1038/s44220-026-00726-1 · Cited by 1
Parental Resources and Child Development: Evidence from rural Indonesia
Rangel, M., Nakajima, N., & Hasan, A. (2026) · Economic Development and Cultural Change · doi:10.1086/744126
Vanderfaeillie, J., Fluke, J., Verheyden, C., West, D., Stroobants, T., & Holen, F. V. (2026) · International Journal on Child Maltreatment Research Policy and Practice · doi:10.1007/s42448-026-00278-y
Chan, K. M. Y., Lim, E., Cheung, H. S., et al. (2026) · Child & Family Social Work · doi:10.1111/cfs.70287
Alshaib, O., Bensala, Y., & Ahmad, B. (2026) · Social Reports · doi:10.66638/5f1esp28
Mehus, C. J., Díaz, A. M. E., He, Y., Ballard, J., Terry‐McElrath, Y. M., Mittal, M., & Patrick, M. E. (2026) · Family Process · doi:10.1111/famp.70201
“…opposing corporal punishment, based on evidence of harmful effects of corporal punishment on children (Afifi, Ford, et al. 2017; Afifi, Mota, et al. 2017; Avezum et al. 2023; Cuartas 2022; Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor 2016; Gershoff et al. 2018; Kang 2022; MacKenzie et al. 2014; Yang and Wang 2026).”
Nakano, S., Uchiyama, S., Yamamoto, R., et al. (2026) · Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.2188/jea.je20260276
Helland, H. S., Pedersen, S. H., & Skivenes, M. (2026) · International Journal of Social Welfare · doi:10.1111/ijsw.70098
Metadata
- Authors
- Gershoff, E. T., & Grogan-Kaylor, A.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Family Psychology
- Published
- 2016
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 453-469
- ISSN
- 0893-3200 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1293
- PMC
- PMC7992110
- OpenAlex
- W2325391559
- Semantic Scholar
- 0d03a2e9f085f0a268b4c0a52f5ac31c17a3e5f3
- Cited by
- 931
- References
- 106
- Citations by year
- 2026: 97 · 2025: 105 · 2024: 62 · 2023: 79 · 2022: 86 · 2021: 112 · 2020: 107 · 2019: 98 · 2018: 85 · 2017: 80 · 2016: 18
- FWCI
- 125.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Journal of Family Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P2CHD042849)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
- Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
- Keywords
- spanking, corporal punishment, child outcomes, physical abuse, effect size, child development
- MeSH terms
- Aggression, Child, Child Abuse, Child Behavior, Child, Preschool, Humans, Male, Parent-Child Relations, Punishment, Research Design, Parenting
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
