Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Aug 27.
Published in final edited form as: J Fam Psychol. 2020 Jul 13;35(3):399–409. doi: 10.1037/fam0000784

Trust in Expert Versus Lay Comments in Online Articles About Spanking and Car Seat Safety

Justin K Scott 1, Elizabeth T Gershoff 1
PMCID: PMC10460513  NIHMSID: NIHMS1913932  PMID: 32658516

Abstract

In this study, we experimentally examined parents’ perceptions of scientific information about spanking, a controversial topic, and car seat safety, a consensus topic, presented in online news articles. Specifically, we tested whether parents of children ages 2 to 8 years would trust scientific experts (speaking from professional expertise) more than online lay commenters (speaking from personal experience). One hundred and eighty parents across 41 U.S. states were recruited online from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (124 mothers, 56 fathers; 74% White, 9% Black, 8% Latino, 8% Asian, and 1% other or multiple ethnicities). Parents were randomly assigned to read a news article with an expert discussing spanking research that varied by two conditions: The news article contained either anti-spanking lay comments or pro-spanking lay comments. All parents also read a second news article on car seat safety (a consensus topic). Between-condition analyses were used to compare perceptions of the comment conditions, and within-condition analyses were used to compare perceptions of the expert knowledge versus the comments and to compare perceptions of the spanking expert versus the car seat expert. Moderation analyses were used to compare parents’ perceptions based on their attitudes toward spanking. Parents with positive attitudes toward spanking recognized pro-spanking comments as opinion, yet still found them more trustworthy than a scientist taking the opposite position. All parents perceived the car seat expert as trustworthy. The results highlight challenges in disseminating information about controversial topics to the public.

Keywords: attitudes toward spanking, confirmation bias, online parenting information, trust in science, science communication

A majority of parents say they rely on the Internet as one of their primary sources of parenting information (Lupton, Pedersen, & Thomas, 2016; Orr et al., 2017) and use it to access parenting-specific websites to read articles about child rearing and pediatric health (Harvey, Memon, Khan, & Yasin, 2017; Lupton, 2016). Parents also frequent blogs, online forums, and social media to share their own and read others’ personal anecdotes about parenting (LaMarre, Robson, & Dawczyk, 2015; Lupton et al., 2016; Moon, Mathews, Oden, & Carlin, 2019). The popularity of online digital media implies it should be an ideal method for experts to disseminate evidence-based information about parenting practices to a majority of the population, particularly to those whose opinions about parenting differ widely from empirical evidence. The ways in which individuals process information that is contrary to their own beliefs, however, may lead them to avoid or reject rather than to assimilate such information by changing their beliefs (Miller, 1989; van ‘t Riet & Ruiter, 2013). In the current study, we focused on understanding parents’ judgments about online parenting information. By applying the concepts of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias, we experimentally examined whether parents’ pre-existing attitudes influenced their trust in and perception of the factual basis of research on two different parenting topics: spanking, a controversial topic, and in comparison, car seat safety, a consensus topic.

Opinion Gap Between Parents and Experts About the Effectiveness of Spanking

The field of psychology has been a frequent target of criticism that it is not a true science or simply reflects common sense (Lilienfeld, 2012). One area of psychology about which there is considerable public skepticism is research on the impacts of parenting generally, and of spanking in particular. Online media coverage of research on spanking tends to elicit comments expressing strong disagreement with the findings and even contempt for the researchers (Taylor et al., 2016). Such skepticism is encouraged by media coverage that suggests there is an internal debate about the merits of spanking among social scientists (e.g., Marcus, 2017). In fact, there is overwhelming consensus that spanking and other forms of physical punishment are potentially harmful to children. A comprehensive meta-analysis that included data from over 160,000 children (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016) found that spanking was consistently linked with a range of negative outcomes for children, including aggression (e.g., Berlin et al., 2009), externalizing problems (e.g., Lansford, Wager, Bates, Pettit, & Dodge, 2012), and mental health issues (e.g., Gershoff et al., 2010). This research convinced the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP: Sege, Siegel, the Council on Child Abuse and Neglect, & the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, 2018) and the American Psychological Association (APA, 2019) to issue policy statements urging parents to avoid using spanking. Spanking has also been considered a public health issue: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stated that reducing spanking is key to preventing physical abuse of children (Fortson, Klevens, Merrick, Gilbert, & Alexander, 2016), and 59 countries (not including the U.S.) have legally banned all physical punishment of children (Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, https://endcorporalpunishment.org/).

Despite this professional consensus, around 80% of children report being spanked by the time they reached 5th grade (Vittrup & Holden, 2010). National surveys report that 55% of children in the U.S. between 2 and 8 years of age were spanked in 2014 (Finkelhor, Turner, Wormuth, Vanderminden, & Hamby, 2019), suggesting that spanking rates may be declining (60% of children worldwide; UNICEF, 2014). Positive attitudes toward the use of spanking also remain high. Two-thirds of Americans think children “sometimes need a good, hard spanking”; men (77%) are significantly more likely to endorse this statement than women (65%; Child Trends, 2015). This highlights an opinion gap between parents and experts on child discipline. Parents tend to endorse the use of spanking if they experienced spanking themselves as a child, hold inadequate knowledge about child development, follow conservative religions or ideologies, or simply perceive that the professionals and peers they rely on approve of spanking (Deater-Deckard, Lansford, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 2003; Taylor, Hamvas, Rice, Newman, & DeJong, 2011). Parents’ positive attitudes toward spanking are predictive of actual use of spanking as a method of discipline (Vittrup, Holden, & Buck, 2006); therefore, understanding how attitudes influence parents’ perceptions of spanking research may be a key target for developing effective messages to educate parents and ultimately close the opinion gap and reduce the incidence of spanking.

Sources of Resistance and Bias in Parents’ Assessments of Parenting Information

The concepts of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias provide a foundation for understanding why disseminating information online may not be effective for convincing particular individuals. Cognitive dissonance is a feeling of discomfort that can arise when an individual is presented with information that contradicts their beliefs or perceived knowledge (Miller, 1989). Because the internal discomfort and negative emotions aroused by cognitive dissonance are unpleasant (Case, Andrews, Johnson, & Allard, 2005; van ‘t Riet & Ruiter, 2013), parents are likely to avoid information misaligned with their beliefs (Miller, 1989). By engaging in such avoidance coping strategies, parents can ignore misaligned information and instead attend to other sources that align with their beliefs (Miller, 1989), thus preserving their self-worth without having their ideologies challenged or having to reconsider their beliefs (van ‘t Riet & Ruiter, 2013).

Another potential mechanism at play is confirmation bias, which is the tendency to seek out, attend to, and value information that is consistent with one’s preexisting beliefs and to reject and discount contrary information (Nickerson, 1998). Parents who hold particular beliefs about parenting will avoid viewing websites that are inconsistent with their preexisting beliefs and instead only visit sites that confirm their beliefs. Parents may also directly search out forums that align with their perspectives in what are known as “echo chambers,” namely, discussion threads consisting of polarized and homogenous groups sharing their opinions about a topic (Colleoni, Rozza, & Arvidsson, 2014; Del Vicario et al., 2016). Such echo chambers not only provide a platform for parents to express their opinions but they also give parents the opportunity to find others who share those opinions, thereby providing confirmation bias for their beliefs.

There is some evidence of echo chambers among online comments on spanking research presented online. Many of these comments reflected anecdotal experiences tied to commenters’ positive attitudes toward spanking, including justifications such as “I am not an aggressive person and my mother spanked me on a regular basis” and “There is a BIG difference between physical abuse and disciplining your child with a spanking. It has its place and it IS effective” (Taylor et al., 2016, pp. 566–577). Readers who are already disinclined to believe research findings that go against their own beliefs may find the testimonies from laypersons to be more convincing, and thus reinforcing, than an expert’s knowledge on the topic.

Comparing Controversial and Consensus Parenting Topics

It is unclear whether distrust in research about spanking reflects a general skepticism about scientific research or a topic-specific skepticism that reflects personal values (Broomell & Kane, 2017). To examine whether distrust in an expert on spanking is related to spanking attitudes and not to distrust in science in general, we compared parents’ trust in a relatively uncontroversial parenting topic: car seat safety. Car seat safety is believed to be uncontroversial and have public consensus for several reasons.

First, although not all parents adhere to guidelines for car seat safety (Macy & Freed, 2012), many likely perceive the idea of using car seats as a desirable practice because car seats are tangible and it is clear how they protect children, namely by preventing them from projecting forward in the event of an accident. Indeed, the crash test dummy advertisements of the 1980s and 1990s were particularly helpful in communicating to the public what can happen in a crash, and seat belt usage increased from 14% to 79% in 14 years (Ana Educational Foundation, 2016). In contrast, the outcomes linked with spanking are long-term and often abstract concepts (e.g., poor mental health) that parents may have difficulty visualizing. Advice on car seats may also be seen as more trustworthy because it developed out of the “hard” sciences (e.g., engineering) in contrast to advice on spanking, which is seen as coming from the “soft” sciences (e.g., psychology). It is of course also the case that car seats are required by law for children in all U.S. states (Governors Highway Safety Association, 2020). and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that the majority of children (98%) are restrained while traveling in cars, although nearly half (46%) of car or booster seats are not used correctly (Greenwell, 2015).

The inclusion of a consensus parenting topic in our study thus served two purposes. First, it allowed us to conceal the true purpose of the study by telling participants they would read two articles with topics selected at random from a pool of parenting issues. Second, it allowed us to compare parents’ trust in both expert and lay views on a controversial topic and on a topic with public consensus.

The Current Study

The goal of this study was to experimentally examine whether parents of children ages 2 to 8 years (the age of children most likely to be spanked: Zolotor, Theodore, Chang, Berkoff, & Runyan, 2008) would trust scientific experts on spanking speaking from professional expertise more than online lay commenters speaking from personal experience. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: 1) a news article about spanking including an expert and anti-spanking lay comments, or 2) a news article about spanking including an expert and pro-spanking lay comments. All participants also read a second news article about car seat safety that included a car seat safety expert followed by pro-car-seat lay comments. We hypothesized that parents would, on average, perceive an expert on spanking as more trustworthy and factual than a lay commenter sharing their opinion, but that these perceptions would be moderated by whether they read pro-spanking or anti-spanking lay comments or whether they have positive beliefs about spanking. We also hypothesized that parents would perceive experts on spanking as trustworthy and factual, but that these perceptions would be moderated by whether they read pro-spanking or anti-spanking comments or whether they have positive beliefs about spanking. Finally, we hypothesized that parents would view the expert on car seats more favorably than the expert on spanking, particularly if parents held positive attitudes toward spanking.

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk), an online participant pool in which workers enrolled on the website are rewarded by requesters for completing “HITS” (online tasks). Previous research has validated MTurk as a participant pool of parents that is more representative of parents in the general population than other forms of convenience samples and online recruitment methods (Dworkin, Hessel, Gliske, & Rudi, 2016). On the MTurk website, participants were presented with a description of our study along with criteria for inclusion. Parents could participate if they had at least one child between the ages of 2 and 8 years, if they were currently living in the United States, if they were at least 18 years of age, and if they were able to read and respond in English. Data collection was open across three different days (~12 hr total). We initially collected data on 200 parents; 20 participants were removed either because they started the study but did not meet the listed inclusion criteria or because they failed an attention check question during the survey, resulting in a final sample of 180 parents (see online supplemental materials for more information about our participant recruitment and data collection methods).

In this sample, 69% of parents were female, 74% were White, 9% were Black, 8% were Latino, 8% were Asian, and 1% were of other or multiple ethnicities. Parents on average were about 34 years old and had one or two children (average age of 5 years old). Of participating parents, 33% were low income (< $40,000), 54% were middle income ($40,000–$100,000), and 13% were high income (>$100,000). Fifty-eight percent were college educated, and 72% were married. Participants represented 41 U.S. states, excluding Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, and Vermont. See Table 1 for more demographic information.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of Study Participants and Balance Across Groups

Randomized conditions
Variable Total sample (N = 180) Anti-spanking lay comments (n = 82) Pro-spanking lay comments (n = 98) p
Age of participants 33.64 (6.54) [23–65] 32.96 (5.57) [23–49] 34.20 (7.22) [23–65] .21
Number of children 1.79 (.88) [1–5] 1.82 (.89) [1–5] 1.78 (.88) [1–5] .75
Age of children 5.33 (1.97) [2–8] 5.31 (2.04) [2–8] 5.34 (1.92) [2–8] .93
Female 69% 68% 70% .75
White 74% 68% 80% .12
Black 9% 15% 5% .06
Latino 8% 9% 8% .99
Asian 8% 9% 7% .95
College education 58% 61% 56% .67
Married 72% 70% 73% .71
Lower income (<$40K) 33% 34% 32% .83
Middle income ($40K–100K) 53% 52% 54% .94
Upper income (>$100K) 13% 13% 13% .99
Open in a new tab

Note. For continuous measures, the table includes means, standard deviations in parentheses, and ranges in brackets. For categorical measures, the table includes percentages. Income refers to the reported total annual household income. The p value indicates whether there is a significant difference between the two randomized groups for each demographic characteristic.

Procedure

All data were collected online using Qualtrics survey software. The study had three parts. First, after providing consent, participants reported demographic information and answered questions about their parenting attitudes. Second, the Qualtrics software randomly assigned participants to read a spanking article in one of two conditions that varied by the valence of layperson comments in the article, namely a news article with anti-spanking lay comments or a news article with pro-spanking lay comments. After reading the article, participants were asked several questions about it. Third, participants read an article about car seat safety and answered the same set of questions. The order of topics (spanking or car seats) was counterbalanced. All participants were told they were being randomly assigned to read a source of parenting information out of a pool of various topics; however, in actuality, all participants read the same two spanking and car seat safety articles. This minor deception was used to increase the likelihood that participants did not uncover the true purpose of the study and thus were not primed to respond in a particular way to our spanking questions. All participants were provided a debriefing statement at the end of the online survey, explaining the deception. Institutional review board approval (protocol #2017–09–0034) at The University of Texas at Austin was obtained for the original study, titled “Online Parenting Information Study.” This study was not formally preregistered. Neither the data nor the materials have been made available on a permanent third-party archive; however, requests for the data or materials can be sent via e-mail to the lead author.

The articles were created by the study authors to appear as screenshots of actual news webpages and were written in a journalistic style (see online supplemental materials). The articles were structured with an introduction paragraph describing the topic, a second paragraph with quotes from an expert discussing their research, a third paragraph with quotes from commenters expressing their opinions on the topic, and a short conclusion paragraph. The two versions of the spanking article varied only in whether the quotes from commenters in the third paragraph were pro-spanking or anti-spanking. The car seat article was identical for parents in both spanking article conditions. On average, participants spent about 2 min reading each article.

The expert knowledge in the spanking article was based on a meta-analysis by Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor (2016) and was inspired by an online news article (Stevens, 2016). The expert knowledge was as follows:

“Spanking makes children’s behavior worse over time, not better,” says lead researcher Dr. Andrew Grogan-Kaylor, a professor of social work at the University of Michigan. “It has the opposite effect than what parents want: Spanking doesn’t make children better behaved, and it doesn’t teach children right from wrong. It’s not related to immediate compliance, and it doesn’t make children behave better in the future. The evidence against spanking is one of the most consistent findings in the field of child development.”

The expert knowledge for the car seat safety information came from an empirical article by Macy and Freed (2012) and was inspired by an online news article (Matthews, 2012). The expert knowledge was as follows:

The results from the study suggest that as the children got older, proper car seat safety was less likely to be implemented. Although children no longer in car seats should transition to booster seats in the back seat of the car, the study found many children were likely to be sitting in the front seat of the car and without a booster seat. “The most important finding from this study is that . . . few children are using the restraints recommended for their age group, and many children over five are sitting in the front seat,” says lead researcher Dr. Michelle Macy. “Our findings demonstrate that not all parents have been reached equally by community-based public education campaigns and the passage of child safety seat laws in 48 states.”

Measures

Independent variable: Valence of lay comments in the spanking article.

The experimental manipulation was whether the lay comments in the spanking article were anti-spanking or pro-spanking. In both conditions, three comments were included; one was neutral. The two anti-spanking comments were “I spanked all of my children when they were younger. The bad behaviors just kept getting worse and worse, but I kept spanking because I thought that’s what was right to do,” and “Spanking never seemed to work well for our child. When we tried spanking, our child started hitting others at school and kept up the bad behaviors at home. The only thing that seemed to get rid of the bad behavior was giving rewards and showing appreciation for good behavior.” The two pro-spanking comments were “I spanked all of my children when they were younger. The bad behaviors stopped immediately. Spanking was definitely the right thing to do,” and “I swear kids these days are spoiled rotten. The boys of the 1920’s won WWII. Today’s boys need safe spaces and trigger warnings. My children were spanked, I was spanked, my parents were spanked, as were their parents, and their parents’ parents. We all turned out fine.” The one neutral comment included in both conditions was “I’ve never had a strong opinion about spanking my child. I’ve used it, yes, but the results have been iffy. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.”

Comments also followed the car seat safety article, but only two pro-car-seats comments and one neutral comment were included. The two pro-car-seats comments were “It just seems like common sense to follow the rules on car seats. The government and seat manufacturers provide clear guidelines and they are easy to locate on their websites. When your child is ready for the next step, you simply move them up,” and “The new report on children’s car deaths is startling. I worry every day about my child’s safety and follow the guidelines religiously.” The neutral comment was “I understand the necessity of the guidelines but in reality, it can be difficult to follow. We don’t always have time to strap both our kids in when the oldest can easily sit up front with me.”

Dependent variables: Perceptions of expert versus lay comments.

After reading each article, participants were asked to rate how trustworthy they found the expert knowledge to be on a 1 (very untrustworthy) to 5 (very trustworthy) scale. Participants were also asked to rate how much they thought the expert knowledge was based on fact versus opinion on a 1 (entirely personal opinion) to 5 (entirely factual) scale. These questions were repeated for the lay commenters. We included these questions for parent ratings of the car seat comments to remain consistent and to avoid alerting participants to the true purpose of the study, but because we are only concerned with comparing the ratings of the car seat expert with the spanking expert, we excluded the ratings of car seat comments from our analyses.

Moderator: Attitudes toward spanking.

Parents reported attitudes toward spanking using the Attitudes Toward Spanking scale (Holden, 2001). Attitudes were reported before the experimental manipulation to ensure the article did not bias attitudes. Parents read 10 items such as “Spanking is a normal part of my parenting,” and rated how much they agreed with each statement on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale. The final score was the average of the 10 items. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was α = .96. Final scores were transformed into a dichotomous moderator by splitting the sample by the score of 4.00 (neither agree nor disagree). Average scores above this cutoff indicated the participant tended to agree with positive statements about spanking and thus were described as having “positive attitudes toward spanking” (n = 53, M = 5.02, SD = .68). Average scores of 4.00 or below indicated the participant tended to disagree with positive statements about spanking and thus were described as having “negative attitudes toward spanking” (n = 127, M = 2.07, SD = .99).

Covariates.

Parents’ reported their age, gender, ethnicity, completed education, marital status, and annual household income; the number of children living in the home; and the average age of the target children in the larger study (the parents’ oldest child between the ages of 2 and 8). Annual household income was measured in increments of $10K and reflects the total household income without adjusting for household size. Education completed was measured on a 1 (some elementary school) to 7 (graduate school) scale.

Analyses

A series of regressions were conducted in the statistical program R to assess differences between groups on perceptions of trust and factuality of the article information. When comparing between groups (e.g., whether those with positive attitudes toward spanking trust the expert knowledge less than those with negative attitudes), we used a dummy-coded group indicator to estimate the mean difference in the outcome. When comparing within groups (e.g., whether parents who held positive attitudes toward spanking trust expert knowledge less than pro-spanking lay comments), we used the paired t test for regression method by regressing the difference between two ratings on one of the mean-centered ratings, allowing the intercept of the model to be an estimate of the mean difference between the two ratings (Hedberg & Ayers, 2015). Compared to the traditional paired t test, this method provides additional power to reduce Type II error. To guard against Type I error, we used robust standard errors. All cases in the sample were complete; thus, there were no missing data issues to address.

Demographic covariates were utilized in the models in three different ways. First, all paired within-person analyses did not include covariates; the within-person repeated measures experimental design accounts for between-person differences by default. Second, all between-experimental condition analyses included any covariates that were not successfully accounted for by the randomization process. Because the conditions differed slightly by the percentage of Black parents (see Table 1), parents’ ethnicity was controlled for in all analyses comparing experimental groups. Third, all between-attitudinal group analyses included all of the demographic covariates listed in Table 1. Dividing the sample further by parents’ attitudes nullifies the benefits of the randomization process and thus makes demographic controls necessary.

We utilized a power analysis for regression to determine whether our sample size of 180 would provide sufficient power to estimate our models. We are unaware of any other study examining how perceptions of scientific information differ based on attitudes toward that topic, so we had no a priori assumptions for an expected effect. Working under the assumption that resulting effect sizes could be at least moderate, a power analysis in GPower 3.1 indicated that with an α =.05 and power = 0.80, the minimum sample size needed to find a potential moderate effect size (R2 =.09) was N = 82 for the paired within-person analyses, N = 118 for the experimental group comparisons, and N = 141 for between-person analyses comparing parents’ attitudes toward spanking. Thus, our sample was sufficient for testing our hypotheses.

Results

Descriptive statistics for the demographic characteristics of the full sample and of each experimental group are displayed in Table 1. Correlations among key study variables for each experimental group are displayed in Table 2.

Table 2.

Correlations Among Study Variables for Each of the Lay Comment Conditions

Study variable Correlations
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Positive attitudes toward spanking — −.50*** −.56*** .12 .11 −.21 −.27*
2. Trust in spanking expert −.37*** — .68*** .35 −.02 .60*** .54***
3. Perceived factuality of spanking expert −.46*** .65*** — .08 .00 .29** .45***
4. Trust in spanking lay commenters .44*** −.06 −.21* — .29*** .39*** .22
5. Perceived factuality of spanking lay commenters .26** −.06 −.17 .19 — −.02 −.16
6. Trust in car seat expert −.12 .30** .21* −.05 −.14 — .65***
7. Perceived factuality of car seat expert −.06 .17 .26* .00 −.06 .54*** —
Open in a new tab

Note. Correlations for the anti-spanking comments condition are above the diagonal (n = 82); correlations for the pro-spanking comments condition (n = 98) are below the diagonal.

*

p <.05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Perceptions of the Spanking Expert and Lay Commenters

We first tested for within-person differences in parents’ perceptions of the spanking expert and lay commenters (Figures 1 and 2). As expected, parents generally perceived the spanking expert in the article as both more trustworthy (b = .39, SE = .07, 95% CI [.24, .53], d = .35, p < .001) and more factual (b = 1.50, SE = .08, 95% CI [1.34, 1.67], d = 1.25, p < .001) than the lay commenters that followed. We then examined the extent to which those perceptions were moderated by whether parents read articles that had pro-spanking or anti-spanking lay comments. There were no within-person differences by condition: Parents randomly assigned to view pro-spanking comments perceived the spanking expert to be significantly more trustworthy (b = .43, SE = .10, 95% CI [.23, .63], d = .26, p < .001) and factual (b = 1.68, SE = .12, 95% CI [1.45, 1.92], d = .93, p < .001) than the lay commenters, as did the parents randomized to view anti-spanking comments (trustworthy: b = .34, SE .10, 95% CI [.14, .54], d = .29, p = .001; factual: b = 1.29, SE = .12, 95% CI [1.06, 1.52], d = .77, p < .001).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Perceptions of trustworthiness of the spanking expert versus lay commenters for the randomly assigned anti-spank and pro-spank comments conditions. All possible comparisons in the figure above were tested. Only those that were significant are shown. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals around the mean.*** p < .001.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Perceptions of factuality of the spanking expert versus lay commenters for the randomly assigned anti-spank and pro-spank comments conditions. Scores below the bold line indicate perceptions that the content is based on personal opinion. All possible comparisons were tested. Only those that were significant are shown. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals around the mean. * p < .05; *** p < .001.

We next looked between conditions to experimentally determine whether reading an article with pro-spanking lay comments would undermine parents’ trust in the spanking expert (Figures 1 and 2). This hypothesis was unsupported. Parents in both comment conditions perceived the spanking expert to be equally trustworthy (b = .09, SE = .15, 95% CI [−.21, .39], d = .07, p = .563) and factual (b = .20, SE = .17, 95% CI [−.13, .52], d = .12, p = .246).

Moderation by Spanking Attitudes

We next examined the extent to which parents’ perceptions of the spanking expert and the lay commenters were moderated by their own attitudes toward spanking (Figures 3 and 4). Compared to parents with negative attitudes toward spanking, those with positive attitudes toward spanking perceived the spanking expert as significantly less trustworthy (b = −.70, SE = .16, 95% CI [−1.01, −.38], d = .70, p < .001) and significantly less factual (b = −.93, SE = .19, 95% CI [−1.29, −.56], d = .86, p < .001) and perceived the pro-spanking commenters as significantly more trustworthy (b = .89, SE = .26, 95% CI [.38, 1.39], d = .79, p < .001). These results suggest that individuals may differentially trust information about spanking based on their pre-existing attitudes toward spanking.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Perceptions of trustworthiness of the experts and lay commenters by whether parents have positive or negative attitudes toward spanking. Ratings to the left of the dashed line are from the spanking articles; ratings to the right are from the car seat article. All possible comparisons were tested, with the exception of the car seat expert, which was only compared with the spanking expert. Only those that were significant are shown. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals around the mean. * p < .01; *** p < .001.

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Open in a new tab

Perceptions of factuality of the experts and lay commenters by whether parents have positive or negative attitudes toward spanking. Ratings to the left of the dashed line are from the spanking articles; ratings to the right are from the car seat article. Scores below the bold line indicate perceptions that the content is based on personal opinion. All possible comparisons were tested, with the exception of the car seat expert, which was only compared with the spanking expert. Only those that were significant are shown. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals around the mean. *** p < .001.

We next examined within-attitudinal group comparisons. Parents with positive attitudes toward spanking perceived the expert to be significantly less trustworthy (b = −.53, SE = .15, 95% CI [−.82, −.24], d = .49, p = .001) and significantly more factual (b = .85, SE = .10, 95% CI [.33, .74], d = .43, p < .001) than the pro-spanking commenters, and showed no significant differences in perceptions of trust or factuality between the spanking expert and the anti-spanking commenters. In contrast, parents with negative attitudes toward spanking perceived the expert knowledge to be significantly more trustworthy (b = .54, SE = .10, 95% CI [.33, .74], d = .45, p < .001) and factual (b = 1.60, SE = .12, 95% CI [1.37, 1.84], d = .96, p < .001) than the anti-spanking commenters, and significantly more trustworthy (b = .94, SE = .13, 95% CI [.69, 1.19], d = .56, p < .001) and factual (b = 2.13, SE = .14, 95% CI [1.85, 2.40], d = 1.37, p < .001) than the pro-spanking commenters.

The means for both attitudinal groups’ ratings of factuality for lay commenters were below 3 (Ms = 1.73–2.63), indicating that on average the full sample perceived comments from laypersons to be based on opinion rather than fact. Taken with the regression analyses, this pattern of data suggests that even though parents who favor spanking recognize that pro-spanking lay comments are based on opinion and not fact and perceive them to be significantly more opinion-based than an expert, they still find pro-spanking lay comments to be significantly more trustworthy than the spanking expert.

Perceptions of the Spanking Expert Versus Car Seat Expert

Our final comparisons were to determine if parents viewed experts on spanking less favorably than experts on car seats and whether these views were moderated by their attitudes toward spanking (Figures 3 and 4). Parents generally perceived the spanking expert to be significantly less trustworthy (b = −.46, SE = .07, 95% CI [−.59, −.33], d = .53, p < .001) and less factual (b = −.67, SE = .08, 95% CI [−.83, −.51], d = .67, p < .001) than the car seat expert. These results were consistent within the spanking attitudinal groups, although differences in perceptions of the spanking expert versus car seat expert appeared to be greater for parents with positive attitudes toward spanking (trustworthy: b = −.79, SE = .12, 95% CI [−1.04, −.55], d = .80, p < .001; factual: b = − 1.21, SE = .15, 95% CI [−1.51, −.91], d = .94, p < .001) than for parents with negative attitudes toward spanking (trustworthy: b = − .33, SE = .08, 95% CI [−.47, .18], d = .36, p < .001; factual: b = −.45, SE = .09, 95% CI [−.62, .28], d = .42, p < .001).

Comparing between spanking attitudinal groups, there were no significant differences between parents with positive attitudes toward spanking and parents with negative attitudes toward spanking in perceptions of trust (b = −.12, SE = .13, 95% CI [−.38, .13], d = .26, p = .350) or factuality (b = −.11, SE = .15, 95% CI [−.41, .19], d = .19, p = .462) in the car seat expert (see far right of Figures 3 and 4).

Discussion

The current study used an experimental design to examine whether parents of young children would trust a researcher’s professional expertise about spanking in an online news article more than laypersons’ comments about personal experiences with spanking. The results suggested that, in general, all parents tended to perceive the expert knowledge—information that aligns with scientific consensus about the detriments of spanking—as trustworthy and factual. Parents with positive attitudes toward spanking, however, tended to perceive pro-spanking lay comments—information that goes against the scientific evidence consensus about the detriments of spanking—as more trustworthy than the expert knowledge.

These findings highlight a challenge in disseminating information about controversial topics to the public. The results demonstrate that although news articles are an inexpensive way to provide evidence-based parenting information to a wide-reaching audience, they may be ineffective for those who already disagree with the position posed by the scientists. Parents with positive attitudes toward spanking in our sample may have experienced cognitive dissonance when reading information from an expert that is misaligned with their beliefs. Appraising an expert as untrustworthy highlights one potential coping strategy endorsers of spanking may use to remove dissonance and preserve their preexisting beliefs about spanking. Our results also suggest a confirmation bias, such that parents tend to trust the information with which they already agree. In our sample, parents with positive attitudes perceived the pro-spanking lay commenters as trustworthy and parents with negative attitudes toward spanking perceived the expert knowledge as trustworthy. Interestingly, parents with positive attitudes toward spanking recognized that the pro-spanking lay comments were based on opinion, yet still found them more trustworthy than a scientist who takes the opposite position. Appraising pro-spanking comments as trustworthy highlights a second potential coping strategy endorsers of spanking may use to confirm their pre-existing beliefs. In a more realistic information-seeking setting, parents may avoid incongruent information altogether and instead seek out echo chambers in websites and forums that may perpetuate misinformed opinions.

Our finding that all parents trusted car seat experts indicates that the pro-spanking parents’ distrust in the spanking expert does not reflect a general distrust in science but rather betrays a topic-specific distrust in topics that go against one’s own beliefs. This finding uncovers the complexity of the issue. If the opinion gaps in our society were due to a lack of scientific understanding, we could simply focus on educating the public to be better consumers of scientific information. Instead, changing public opinion about spanking specifically will require interventions that target the root of positive attitudes toward spanking and likely will need to be personalized to individuals’ reasons for holding on to their beliefs.

In light of the recent policy statements recommending against spanking by the AAP (Sege et al., 2018) and the APA (2019), a major concern is that parents will not trust scientists and large organizations to provide accurate information about parenting practices and child development. Although it appears that parents with positive attitudes toward spanking do not trust researchers as reliable sources of information about discipline, studies have demonstrated that parents do tend to trust their pediatricians, perhaps due to the personal relationships they develop over time with these individuals and the perceived notion that pediatricians are there to help their families develop healthy lives (Taylor, McKasson, Hoy, & DeJong, 2017). Therefore, the AAP and APA may be in a unique position to effectively convince parents about the potential detriments of spanking. Our findings suggest that pediatricians, psychologists, and other health professionals may need to cater their messages about discipline differently to parents based on their preexisting attitudes toward spanking, particularly if their messages are conveyed via an online format.

Comparing our experimental groups failed to support the hypothesis that reading an article with pro-spanking lay comments would undermine trust in the expert. This may be tied to the ecological validity of presenting spanking information in a simulated news article. Although this simulation allowed us careful control in an experimental design, this method may be less ecologically valid than an examination of parents’ actual information-seeking behavior when they are actively seeking parenting information about discipline. Parents who endorse spanking could potentially have inflated their ratings of trust in the expert on spanking because they were encouraged to read the entire article carefully or because they suspected the purpose of the study and answered based on perceived researcher expectations. In a more naturalistic setting, a parent who endorses spanking may completely ignore media or websites presenting empirically based knowledge (avoiding incongruent information) and instead focus on accessing and consuming pro-spanking websites, articles, and discussion boards (confirming their bias toward endorsing spanking). On a national level, myths and opinions about the effectiveness of spanking may be perpetuated if the online messages meant to persuade parents to use alternative discipline practices never effectively reach or convince their target population.

Limitations

Because the sample was obtained online from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk and only open for participation across three days (~12 hr), there could be characteristics about the participants that do not match the population. For example, although estimates suggest that 80% of children in the U.S. experience being spanked by their parents by 5th grade (Vittrup & Holden, 2010), only about 29% of parents in our sample reported having positive attitudes toward spanking. By limiting our sample to only parents of children aged 2–8 years, the sample may reflect a younger generation of parents who hold less favorable attitudes toward using physical punishment compared to the general population. Additionally, our sample consisted mostly of White, female parents, which limits our ability to test for gender differences between mothers and fathers. Although previous studies have validated MTurk as a participant pool that is representative of parents in the general population (Dworkin et al., 2016), the sample we obtained could instead reflect a specific group of parents that use MTurk as a source of additional income and may differ from parents who do not participate in online surveys. These parents may spend a significant amount of time consuming information on the Internet and thus may have more experience with both answering surveys and reading online articles. Additionally, given the large Latinx population in the United States, restricting the survey to those who can read and respond in English may be excluding a diverse group of parents from our sample. Finally, although car seat laws make the topic of children’s car seat safety an excellent control to compare with spanking, legality may be a confounding factor when comparing parents’ perceptions of these two topics.

Future studies should address these issues in several ways. First, more traditional recruitment methods (e.g., recruiting from local communities rather than an online sample) could be utilized to generalize the current study’s findings to all parents in the population, not just those participating in surveys online. Oversampling for a specific number of fathers (whether recruited online or not) could help generate a more balanced sample of mothers and fathers to test for gender differences in parents’ perceptions of online information about discipline. With the growing population of people identifying as Latinx, utilizing surveys written in both English and Spanish versions could help ensure a more diverse sample as well as allow for testing cultural differences in parents’ perceptions. Finally, utilizing multiple parenting topics as comparisons could help eliminate confounding factors such as the legality of the topic.

Future research could also support the current study findings by using more ecologically valid methods to examine online information about spanking. Qualitative methodology has proven useful in vaccine literature; for example, researchers conducted a content analysis of websites generated by biased search terms to estimate the prevalence of myths and opinions about vaccinations shared on websites (Ruiz & Bell, 2014). Applied to spanking, such a method would allow for the examination of how information about spanking is presented on popular websites, including identifying what particular myths or opinions parents may encounter when they search for information about discipline. The use of content analysis can also allow a detailed look into the exact messages that are presented in online discussions (e.g., Taylor et al., 2016) and social media (e.g., Lee et al., 2020).

Conclusion

Although the Internet is a quick and cost-effective way to disseminate information about recommended and evidence-based parenting practices, our study demonstrates that the parents who could benefit from that information may disparage it because it does not align with their preexisting attitudes. Future efforts to change parents’ attitudes toward spanking will need to consider ways of presenting information that are less likely to activate parents’ tendency toward confirmation bias regarding controversial topics.

Supplementary Material

Supp Material

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this project was presented as a poster at the Society for Research in Child Development, March 2019.

Footnotes

References

  1. American Psychological Association. (2019). Resolution on physical discipline of children by parents. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/about/policy/physical-discipline.pdf [Google Scholar]
  2. Ana Educational Foundation. (2016). Seat belt education (1985–present). New York, NY: Author. Retrieved from https://aef.com/classroomresources/social-responsibility/ad-council-campaigns-made-difference/seat-belt-education/ [Google Scholar]
  3. Berlin LJ, Ispa JM, Fine MA, Malone PS, Brooks-Gunn J, Brady-Smith C, … Bai Y. (2009). Correlates and consequences of spanking and verbal punishment for low-income White, African American, and Mexican American toddlers. Child Development, 80, 1403–1420. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01341.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Broomell SB, & Kane PB (2017). Public perception and communication of scientific uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146, 286–304. 10.1037/xge0000260 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Case DO, Andrews JE, Johnson JD, & Allard SL (2005). Avoiding versus seeking: The relationship of information seeking to avoidance, blunting, coping, dissonance, and related concepts. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 93, 353–362. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Child Trends. (2015, April). Attitudes toward spanking. Bethesda, MD: Author.Retrievedfrom https://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/indicator_1427477229.49.pdf [Google Scholar]
  7. Colleoni E, Rozza A, & Arvidsson A. (2014). Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data. Journal of Communication, 64, 317–332. 10.1111/jcom.12084 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Deater-Deckard K, Lansford JE, Dodge KA, Pettit GS, & Bates JE (2003). The development of attitudes about physical punishment: An 8-year longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 351–360. 10.1037/0893-3200.17.3.351 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Del Vicario M, Bessi A, Zollo F, Petroni F, Scala A, Caldarelli G, … Quattrociocchi W. (2016). The spreading of misinformation online. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113, 554–559. 10.1073/pnas.1517441113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Dworkin J, Hessel H, Gliske K, & Rudi JH (2016). A comparison of three online recruitment strategies for engaging parents. Family Relations, 65, 550–561. 10.1111/fare.12206 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Finkelhor D, Turner H, Wormuth BK, Vanderminden J, & Hamby S. (2019). Corporal punishment: Current rates from a national survey. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28, 1991–1997. 10.1007/s10826-019-01426-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Fortson BL, Klevens J, Merrick MT, Gilbert LK, & Alexander SP (2016). Preventing child abuse and neglect: A technical package for policy, norm, and programmatic activities. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control. 10.15620/cdc.38864 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Gershoff ET, & Grogan-Kaylor A. (2016). Spanking and child outcomes: Old controversies and new meta-analyses. Journal of Family Psychology, 30, 453–469. 10.1037/fam0000191 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Gershoff ET, Grogan-Kaylor A, Lansford JE, Chang L, Zelli A, Deater-Deckard K, & Dodge KA (2010). Parent discipline practices in an international sample: Associations with child behaviors and moderation by perceived normativeness. Child Development, 81, 487–502. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01409.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Governors Highway Safety Association. (2020). Child passenger safety. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.ghsa.org/state-laws/issues/child%20passenger%20safety [Google Scholar]
  16. Greenwell NK (2015). Results of the national child restraint use special study (Report No.DOT HS 812 142). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Retrieved from https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812142 [Google Scholar]
  17. Harvey S, Memon A, Khan R, & Yasin F. (2017). Parent’s use of the Internet in the search for healthcare information and subsequent impact on the doctor-patient relationship. Irish Journal of Medical Science, 186, 821–826. 10.1007/s11845-017-1555-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hedberg EC, & Ayers S. (2015). The power of a paired t -test with a covariate. Social Science Research, 50, 277–291. 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.12.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Holden GW (2001). Attitude toward spanking (ATS). In Touliatos J, Perlmutter BF, & Holden GW (Eds.), Handbook of family measurement techniques (Vol. 2, p. 209). New York, NY: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  20. LaMarre A, Robson J, & Dawczyk A. (2015). Mothers’ use of blogs while engaged in family-based treatment for a child’s eating disorder. Families, Systems, & Health, 33, 390–394. 10.1037/fsh0000153 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Lansford JE, Wager LB, Bates JE, Pettit GS, & Dodge KA (2012). Forms of spanking and children’s externalizing behaviors. Family Relations, 61, 224–236. 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00700.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Lee JY, Grogan-Kaylor AC, Lee SJ, Ammari T, Lu A, & Davis-Kean P. (2020). A qualitative analysis of stay-at-home parents’ spanking tweets. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 29, 817–830. 10.1007/s10826-019-01691-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Lilienfeld SO (2012). Public skepticism of psychology: Why many people perceive the study of human behavior as unscientific. American Psychologist, 67, 111–129. 10.1037/a0023963 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Lupton D. (2016). The use and value of digital media for information about pregnancy and early motherhood: A focus group study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 16, 171. 10.1186/s12884-016-0971-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Lupton D, Pedersen S, & Thomas GM (2016). Parenting and digital media: From the early Web to contemporary digital society. Sociology Compass, 10, 730–743. 10.1111/soc4.12398 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Macy ML, & Freed GL (2012). Child passenger safety practices in the U. S.: Disparities in light of updated recommendations. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 43, 272–281. 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.05.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Marcus MB (2017, January 5). The “spanking” debate: Views depend on what you call it. CBS News. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spanking-children-corporal-punishment-study/ [Google Scholar]
  28. Matthews SE (2012, August 7). Child car seat rules mostly ignored, study finds. NBC News. Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/id/48553007/ns/health-childrens_health/t/child-car-seat-rules-mostly-ignored-study-finds/#.W0-5QdhKhsN [Google Scholar]
  29. Miller SM (1989). Cognitive informational styles in the process of coping with threat and frustration. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 11, 223–234. 10.1016/0146-6402(89)90026-X [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Moon RY, Mathews A, Oden R, & Carlin R. (2019). Mothers’ perceptions of the Internet and social media as sources of parenting and health information: Qualitative study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21, e14289. 10.2196/14289 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Nickerson RS (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220. 10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Oppenheimer DM, Meyvis T, & Davidenko N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867–872. 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Orr T, Campbell-Yeo M, Benoit B, Hewitt B, Stinson J, & McGrath P. (2017). Smartphone and internet preferences of parents: Information needs and desired involvement in infant care and pain management in the NICU. Advances in Neonatal Care: Official Journal of the National Association of Neonatal Nurses, 17, 131–138. 10.1097/ANC.0000000000000349 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Peer E, Vosgerau J, & Acquisti A. (2014). Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 1023–1031. 10.3758/s13428-013-0434-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Ruiz JB, & Bell RA (2014). Understanding vaccination resistance: Vaccine search term selection bias and the valence of retrieved information. Vaccine, 32, 5776–5780. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.08.042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Sege RD, & Siegel BS, the Council on Child Abuse and Neglect, & the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. (2018). Effective discipline to raise healthy children. Pediatrics, 142, e20183112. 10.1542/peds.2018-3112 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Stevens H. (2016, April 28). New study says spanking doesn’t work, makes children’s behavior worse. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/stevens/ct-spanking-effects-study-balancing-0428-20160428-column.html [Google Scholar]
  38. Taylor CA, Al-Hiyari R, Lee SJ, Priebe A, Guerrero LW, & Bales A. (2016). Beliefs and ideologies linked with approval of corporal punishment: A content analysis of online comments. Health Education Research, 31, 563–575. 10.1093/her/cyw029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Taylor CA, Hamvas L, Rice J, Newman DL, & DeJong W. (2011). Perceived social norms, expectations, and attitudes toward corporal punishment among an urban community sample of parents. Journal of Urban Health, 88, 254–269. 10.1007/s11524-011-9548-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Taylor CA, McKasson S, Hoy G, & DeJong W. (2017). Parents’ primary professional sources of parenting advice moderate predictors of parental attitudes toward corporal punishment. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26, 652–663. 10.1007/s10826-016-0586-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. UNICEF. (2014). Hidden in plain sight: A statistical analysis of violence against children. New York, NY: Author. Retrieved from https://data.unicef.org/resources/hidden-in-plain-sight-a-statistical-analysis-of-violence-against-children/ [Google Scholar]
  42. van ‘t Riet J, & Ruiter RAC (2013). Defensive reactions to health-promoting information: An overview and implications for future research. Health Psychology Review, 7, S104–S136. 10.1080/17437199.2011.606782 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Vittrup B, & Holden GW (2010). Children’s assessments of corporal punishment and other disciplinary practices: The role of age, race, SES, and exposure to spanking. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31, 211–220. 10.1016/j.appdev.2009.11.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Vittrup B, Holden GW, & Buck J. (2006). Attitudes predict the use of physical punishment: A prospective study of the emergence of disciplinary practices. Pediatrics, 117, 2055–2064. 10.1542/peds.2005-2204 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Zolotor AJ, Theodore AD, Chang JJ, Berkoff MC, & Runyan DK (2008). Speak softly—And forget the stick. Corporal punishment and child physical abuse. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, 364–369. 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.06.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supp Material
NIHMS1913932-supplement-Supp_Material.docx (1.1MB, docx)

RESOURCES