Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma logoLink to Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma
. 2026 Apr 11;19(3):1743–1753. doi: 10.1007/s40653-026-00867-6

Parental Warmth as a Moderator Between Family Conflict and the use of Corporal Punishment: Adolescents’ Perspectives

Natalia Valenzuela 1, Angela Trujillo 1,✉, Martha Rocío González 1,✉
PMCID: PMC13546263  PMID: 42703313

Abstract

This study examined whether parental warmth moderates the relationship between family conflict and physical punishment from the perspective of Colombian adolescents. A sample of 3,279 adolescents (ages 10–19) from six municipalities in Cundinamarca completed the Communities That Care Youth Survey. Using multiple linear regression and moderation analysis, results revealed that higher parental warmth buffers the association between family conflict and the use of Physical punishment. Specifically, as parental warmth increases, the impact of family conflict on CP decreases. These findings highlight the protective role of warm parenting in mitigating negative family dynamics and have important implications for developing interventions and public policies to reduce harsh discipline in Colombia.

Keywords: Parental Warmth, Family Conflict, CP, Youth mental health

Parenting practices play a critical role in shaping children’s socioemotional and behavioral development (Hoeve et al., 2009; Smetana & Rote, 2019). Globally, an estimated 400 million children are exposed to violent discipline at home (Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia [UNICEF], 2024), with nearly 60% of youth aged 2–14 experiencing CP regularly (UNICEF, 2018). In Colombia, research indicates a high prevalence ranging from 41% in rural areas (González et al., 2014) to 77% in recent national samples (Trujillo et al., 2020). Consequently, there is an urgent need to identify the family dynamics that sustain these practices despite current legal prohibitions (Cuartas et al., 2019a).

Although research suggests that CP aims to modify behavior rather than inflicting harm (Larzelere & Kuhn, 2005), a robust body of research demonstrates the detrimental inflicts on children’s development and well-being, as well as its ineffectiveness in promoting positive behavioral change (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016). Empirical evidence consistently associates CP with the development of externalizing behaviors in childhood (Wiggers & Paas, 2022; World Health Organization (WHO, 2024) and internalizing difficulties in adulthood (Ferguson, 2013; Hecker et al. 2016).

Parental use of CP is shaped by a range of family related factors, including parental backgrounds (Hughes et al., 2022), maternal attitudes (González et al., 2024; Rancheiro et al., 2023), sociodemographic characteristics, and family structure (González et al., 2014). Understanding these associations is essential to inform interventions aimed at reducing the prevalence of CP. Family conflict is one variable that has received comparatively less empirical attention in this context. Scientific evidence shows that the prevalence of CP is notably higher among families experiencing conflict, (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016; Hughes et al., 2022).

While conflict is a natural part of family life, unresolved conflict can have adverse consequences for all members involved. Family conflict is an interaction characterized by persistent tension or emotional dysregulation that reflects overall family functioning. While chronic conflict is associated with diminished emotional resources and a higher frequency of reactive disciplinary responses, protective factors such as parental warmth—the degree of affection and emotional support conveyed in everyday interactions (Rohner, 2004). —may moderate these associations (Cuartas et al., 2021; Font & Maguire-Jack, 2020; Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016; Farrington & Malvaso, 2023; Lemos & Pérez, 2021; Parolin & Simonelli, 2016; Wang et al., 2022; Ward et al., 2020). Parental warmth encompasses both observable behaviors—such as physical affection, praise, and positive facial expressions—and a stable emotional orientation characterized by care, empathy, and respect for the child’s individuality (Rohner et al., 2020).

Prior research indicates that while warmth alone may be insufficient to account for the absence of CP in culturally normalized contexts, it functions as a relational context that can attenuate the link between family conflict and harsh discipline (Alampay & Alampay, 2019; Wiggers & Paas, 2022; Yang et al., 2023). Effective parental involvement—characterized by warm, responsive, and emotionally supportive interactions— is consistently associated with a lower frequency of CP and may serve as a relational context that modulates the link between family conflict and disciplinary practices ((Boullion et al., 2023; Cuartas et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2022). This interpretation aligns with Rohner’s interpersonal acceptance–rejection theory, which posits that warmth reflects a stable emotional orientation rather than a discrete parenting behavior. While some evidence suggests that the behavioral and emotional correlates of CP may be less severe when it occurs within a highly warm and supportive family climate, warmth does not eliminate developmental risks, as CP remains associated with elevated externalizing problems even in affectionate households (Deater-Deckard et al., 2006; Lansford et al., 2014). Consequently, parental warmth operates less as a direct deterrent and more as a conditional buffer (Pan et al., 2024), whose precise role in the relationship between family conflict and CP requires further empirical clarification within the Colombian context.

Other studies suggest that the moderating role of parental warmth is shaped by cultural context. In cultures where CP is viewed as normative, warmth may exert a buffering or mitigating influence. In contrast, in cultures where CP is socially disapproved, the coexistence of warmth and CP may create emotional dissonance, increasing children’s vulnerability to anxiety or guilt (Deater-Deckard et al., 2006; Lansford et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2013). In highly conflictual family environments, the protective effects of warmth appear to weaken. When family interactions are dominated by tension, yelling, or threats, the influence of warmth tends to diminish or become inconsistent (Wang et al., 2018). Furthermore, emerging evidence indicates that warmth cannot fully offset the cumulative impact of family conflict. Persistent conflict is associated with a decrese in warmth’s protective value, rendering it inconsistent or even confusing for the child. Consequently, sporadic expressions of affection cannot compensate for the enduring effects of family conflict and punitive (Wiggers & Paas, 2022).

Taken together, the current body of evidence underscores the need for further research examining family conflict as a salient risk factor, while highlighting the close association between CP and family conflict. Previous findings suggest that parental warmth may serve as a weak or partial moderator, but its role appears inconsistent and culturally dependent.

Therefore, the present study examines the moderating effect of parental warmth on the association between family conflict and the use of CP from the perspective of Colombian adolescents. Accordingly, this study provides empirical evidence to clarify these interrelations while identifying how parental warmth may modulate the link between conflict and disciplinary practices (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Moderation Model

Hypotheses

  • H1: Higher levels of family conflict will be associated with increased use of CP, as perceived by adolescents in Cundinamarca, Colombia.

  • H2: Greater parental warmth will be associated with lower reported use of CP among adolescents.

  • H3: Parental warmth will moderate the relationship between family conflict and CP, such that the association between family conflict and CP will be weaker among families characterized by higher parental warmth.

Method

Study Design

This study utilized a cross-sectional, non-experimental correlational design. Data were collected at a single point in time to assess the relationships between family conflict, parental warmth, and the use of CP among adolescents. A moderation analysis using multiple linear regression will be employed to assess how an independent variable (family conflict) predicts a dependent variable (use of CP), considering the influence of a third moderating variable (parental warmth) that affects the strength and/or direction of this relationship (Hayes, 2017). Following the approach proposed by Fairchild and MacKinnon (2009), moderation analysis relies on multiple regression models to evaluate both the individual impact of predictor variables (family conflict and parental warmth) on the dependent variable, as well as the interaction between them. When the interaction is significant, the effect of family conflict on the use of CP cannot be interpreted in isolation, as its magnitude and direction depend on levels of parental warmth. Linear regressions were utilized to examine the relationships between the variables and determine the moderating effect of parental warmth, seeking to identify the extent to which parental warmth modulates the relationship between family conflict and the use of CP from the youth’s perspective.

Participants

Data for this research were obtained through the social outreach project of the Department of anonymized at anonymized, titled " anonymized (project number PSIPHD-4–2023). The sample included 3,279 adolescents attending public educational institutions across six municipalities in the department of anonymized, Colombia. These municipalities included both urban and rural settings geographically located near the capital city of Bogotá. The participating public schools primarily serve students form families classified within low socioeconomic strata (SES) (generally levels 1 and 2 as defined by Colombia’s official socioeconomic stratification system), providing a sample highly representative of vulnerable and low-to-middle income youth in the region. The adolescents belonged to low and middle socioeconomic levels.

The average age of participants was 14.30 years (SD = 1.64), with an age range from 10 to 19 years of the total sample, 53.1% were female (n = 1,740), and 46.9% were male (n = 1,539). The sample was selected to ensure its representativeness of the school population in the six municipalities included in the study. The distribution by municipality was as follows: municipality 1 (n = 835; 25.4%), municipality 2 (n = 808; 24.6%), municipality 3 (n = 489; 14.9%), municipality 4 (n = 419; 12.7%), municipality 5 (n = 412; 12.5%), and municipality 6 (n = 316; 9.6%).

Regarding the academic distribution of the participants, 9.3% were in sixth grade, 19.7% in seventh, 24% in eighth, 25% in ninth, 16.1% in tenth, and 5.7% in eleventh grade. The data collected included information about family conflict, parental warmth, and the use of CP by parents (Table 1).

Table 1.

Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Adolescent Sample

Socio-demographic variable % % % % % %
Sex Female 50.65 53.34 55.62 57.99 48.78 53.79
Male 49.34 56.65 44.37 42.00 51.21 46.20
Age 10 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.63
11 2.27 0.12 5.72 0.95 2.27 6.01
12 13.53 0.99 17.38 19.80 13.53 5.38
13 22.51 13.49 21.67 21.48 22.51 6.32
14 22.27 23.88 18.40 30.78 22.27 12.34
15 22.15 28.58 20.65 16.22 22.15 23.10
16 12.57 20.17 9.20 8.83 12.57 23.41
17 3.71 8.78 5.93 1.90 3.71 15.82
18 0.59 3.58 0.61 0.00 0.59 5.38
19 0.24 0.37 0.40 0.00 0.24 1.58
Grade Sixth 1.55 0.74 24.13 0.23 27.91 17.40
Seventh 32.81 0.61 25.15 33.65 21.60 4.74
Eighth 21.79 37.50 17.99 32.69 18.44 0.31
Nineth 22.63 33.66 19.83 33.41 15.04 18.98
Tenth 21.19 25.50 0.00 0.00 16.99 21.58
Eleventh 0. 2.97 12.88 0.00 0.12 31.96
Open in a new tab

Procedure

The sample was recruited through coordination with the health and education secretariats of various municipalities in anonymized. The project was presented to these local authorities to invite their participation and to engage public educational institutions in the data collection process. After securing the municipalities’ consent, the lead researcher conducted training sessions for the designated professionals appointed by the secretariats. These sessions provided comprehensive guidance on administering the research instruments and obtaining informed consent from the legal guardians of the adolescent participants. This process ensured that participation was voluntary and confidential, adhering to ethical research standards. Data collection was conducted during the school day, specifically in computer rooms, with each group of students in sessions lasting approximately one hour. Before responding to the questionnaire, each adolescent signed an informed assent, which included the following statement: “I agree to participate in this project, and I understand that my responses will not be identified by anyone from the school or by my parents. By participating, I help develop strategies to prevent risk behaviors among adolescents.” The options for this statement were “Yes” or “No.” The questionnaire was administered electronically in 34 educational institutions from the six municipalities of anonymized. Trained professionals in administering the Communities That Care Youth Survey (CTC-YS) (Arthur et al., 2002) were responsible for its implementation in schools. The digital version of the questionnaire was configured to ensure that all questions were mandatory, preventing missing data generation. To maintain confidentiality, each participant was assigned a unique code, and responses were recorded in an Excel file.

Instruments

Data was collected using the Communities That Care Youth Survey (CTC-YS) (Arthur et al., 2002), designed to evaluate risk and protective factors among adolescents. This questionnaire identifies the levels of exposure to various variables associated with substance use and disruptive behaviors, comprising 165 items distributed over 34 factors, with internal consistency ranging from 0.59 to 0.88. The CTC-YS has been validated in Colombian adolescent populations (Obando et al., 2014). In this research, the Spanish version of the CTC-YS (Arthur et al., 2002) was used to evaluate three key dimensions: family conflict, parental warmth, and the use of CP.

Family Conflict was measured using a six-item subscale derived from the Communities That Care Youth Survey (CTC-YS) (Arthur et al., 2002). Adolescents reported on this variable using language that refers to the family system generally (e.g., “In my family…” or “My parents…”) This measure assesses the adolescent’s perception of the conflictual environment within the family system, encompassing multiple dimensions of conflict. These dimensions include the frequency of chronic/unresolved conflict (e.g., “In your family, do you argue about the same things over and over?”), verbal/emotional conflict (e.g., “Do people in your family shout or insult each other?”), marital/parental conflict, and severe/physical conflict. Items were rated on a scale (e.g., 1 = Never to 4 = Often). The composite variable was created by calculating the mean score of the items, with higher scores indicating higher perceived family conflict (α = 0.7609) as proposed by the authors of the survey.

Parental Warmth was assessed using a five-item subscale that captures the adolescent’s perception of emotional closeness and support from both maternal and paternal figures (e.g., ‘I feel close to my mother,’ ‘I share my thoughts and feelings with my mother’ or the equivalent for the father: ‘I feel close to my father,’ ‘I share my thoughts and feelings with my father’). While individual items distinguish between caregivers, a single composite mean score was calculated to represent the generalized affective climate of the family unit. This approach is theoretically grounded in the concept of the family as an interdependent emotional system, where the net availability of warmth serves as a primary protective resource for the adolescent. Conceptually, this composite score reflects the average emotional availability in the household; thus, a high score indicates a consistently warm environment, while a moderate score may represent a compensatory dynamic where one caregiver’s warmth mitigates the relative coldness of another. For both parents, the instrument includes an option for adolescents to indicate if a caregiver is absent (e.g., ‘I don’t have a mother/father’). In such cases, the composite score was calculated based on the available caregiver to accurately reflect the active emotional support system accessible to the adolescent, a method that aligns with prevention research standards using the CTC-YS to evaluate aggregate protective factors.

The dependent variable, Use of CP, was measured using a single item “My parents use CP to correct me (slapping, spankings…” Participants responded on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = never to 4 = often). The decision to use a single-item measure was a deliberate methodological and ethical choice. Following the enactment of Law 2089 of 2021 in Colombia, which legally prohibits CP, this behavior has become highly sensitive. A single, non-accusatory item was selected to maximize participant confidentiality and minimize the risk of psychological distress or re-victimization, ensuring compliance with local ethical protocols. While single items are common in large-scale community surveys to reduce respondent burden, we acknowledge that this may impact the ability to calculate internal consistency.

For data analysis, Pearson product-moment correlations were initially computed to examine the zero-order associations among Family Conflict, Parental Warmth and CP (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). To test the hypothesized moderation, we conducted a moderated multiple regression analysis using Model 1 of the PROCESS macro (version 16.3) for SPSS (version 26) (Hayes, 2017). This procedure employed Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regressions to estimate the effect of family conflict (independent variable) on the use of CP (dependent variable), with parental warmth serving as the moderating variable.

To ensure statistical transparency and mitigate potential multicollinearity between the main effects and the interaction term, both the predictor (Family Conflict) and the moderator (Parental Warmth) were mean-centered prior to the construction of the interaction term. The final model included three components entered simultaneously: (1) the main effect of Family Conflict; (2) the main effect of Parental Warmth; and (3) the interaction term (Family Conflict X Parental Warmth). Model estimation employed bias-corrected bootstrapping with 5,000 resamples to compute robust standard errors and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the direct effects and the interaction term.

Results

The results are presented in three parts: descriptive statistics, correlations among the measured variables, and the moderated multiple regression analysis testing the study’s central hypothesis.

Descriptive statistics: Table 2 presents the mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) for the composite variables included in the proposed model. Family Conflict was observed at a low-to-moderate level (M = 1.65, SD 0.49). on a 1 to 4 scale, indicating that participants generally perceive a moderate frequency of conflict among caregivers. Parental warmth demonstrated a medium level of perceived closeness and support (M = 2.82, 0.57) Regarding the dependent variable, use of CP, the mean score was M = 2.02 (SD = 0.87), reflecting a low overall frequency of this disciplinary practice in the sample.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics for the Variables

Variable Mean Standard Deviation
Family Conflict 1.65 0.49
Parental Warmth 2.82 0.57
Use of CP 2.02 0.87
Open in a new tab

Further analysis of use of CP indicated that 69,18% of participants reported experiencing CP at least once (comprising 43,06% occasionally, 19,51% frequently, and 6,61% regularly). The relatively high standard deviation reflects considerable variability in adolescents’ reports of this behavior.

Pearson correlation analyses revealed statistically significant associations among all study variables (Table 3). A positive and moderate association was found between Family Conflict and CP (r = 0.345, p < 0.01) suggesting that higher levels of family conflict are linked to an increased likelihood of parents employing CP as a disciplinary strategy.

Table 3.

Pearson Correlation among Family Conflict, Parental Warmth, and Use of CP

Variable Use of CP Family Conflict Parental Warmth
Use of CP — 0.345** −0.058**
Family Conflict 0.345** — −0.231**
Parental Warmth −0.058** −0.231** —
Open in a new tab

N = 3279. p < 0.001 (two-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)

Conversely, parental warmth demonstrated negative correlations with both CP (r = −0.058, p < 0.01) and family conflict (r = −0.231, p < 0.01). This indicates that greater perceived parental closeness and support are associated with lower levels of family conflict and reduced use of CP.

The moderated multiple regression analysis, conducted using the PROCESS macro, confirmed the study’s central hypothesis. The overall model was statistically significant, F (2, 2960) = 196.52, p < 0.001, accounting for 11.7% of the variance in the use of CP (R² = 0.117). While family conflict was a significant predictor, the interaction term (Family Conflict X Parental Warmth) was the key finding, being statistically significant (β = −0.152, t = −3,444 p = 0.001) and explaining an additional 0,4% of the variance (ΔR²): 0.4\% (Fchange (1, 2959) = 11.862, p = 0.001).

To ensure the robustness of the moderation, simple slopes were analyzed at three levels of warmth (Table 4). Conflict remained a significant predictor across all levels, but the effect size decreased as warmth increased, a trend confirmed by the non-overlapping $95\%$ confidence intervals:

Table 4.

Conditional Effects of Family Conflict (Simple Slopes) on the Use of CP at Different Levels of Parental Warmth

Parental Warmth Level Effect (β) SE t p 95% CI
Low (−1 SD) 0.684 0.036 18.643 <,001 (0.612, 0.756)
Mean (M) 0.597 0.032 18.448 <,001 (0.534, 0.661)
High (+ 1SD) 0.511 0.045 11.375 <,001 (0.423, 0.599)
Open in a new tab

N = 3279. Conditional effects calculated at +1standard deviation from the mean

  • Low warmth (−1SD): β = 0.684$, 95% CI [0.612, 0.756].

  • Mean Warmth: β = 0.597, 95% CI [0.534, 0.661].

  • High Warmth (+ 1 SD): β = 0.511$, 95% CI [0.423, 0.599].

As illustrated in Fig. 2, the interaction plot visually confirms the buffering hypothesis. The steepest line represents adolescents with low parental warmth, indicating a stronger link between conflict and CP. In contrast, the line for high parental warmth is notably less steep, illustrating that emotional closeness attenuates the impact of family conflict.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Interaction Effect of Parental Warmth on the Relationship between Family Conflict and the Use of Corporal Punishment Note: N = 3279. The lines represent the association between family conflict and the use of CP at three levels of parental warmth: low (−1 SD), mean, and high (+ 1 SD). Values on the X-axis represent mean-centered scores for family conflict. The steeper slope for the low-warmth group indicates a stronger association between conflict

Discussion

The present study examined the moderating role of parental warmth in the association between family conflict and the use of physical punishment (CP), as perceived by adolescents in Cundinamarca, Colombia. By integrating adolescents’ perspectives, this research contributes novel empirical evidence to a growing body of literature that conceptualizes CP not as an isolated parenting behavior, but as a practice embedded within broader family dynamics characterized by stress, conflict, and relational quality (Cuartas et al., 2021; Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016; Wiggers & Paas, 2022). Overall, the findings underscore the complex interplay between risk and protective factors in family systems and highlight parental warmth as a critical, albeit conditional, buffer against the use of coercive disciplinary practices.

Family Conflict as a Risk Factor for Physical Punishment (H1)

Consistent with Hypothesis 1, higher levels of family conflict were positively and significantly associated with adolescents’ reports of CP. While the cross-sectional nature of this study precludes definitive causal pathways, these findings suggest that environments characterized by interpersonal tension frequently co-occur with harsher disciplinary strategies (Font & Maguire-Jack, 2020; Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016; Hughes et al., 2022; Ward et al., 2020). From a family stress perspective (Deater-Deckard & Dodge, 2009), chronic conflict is associated with diminished emotional resources among caregivers, a state that correlates with a higher frequency of reactive, rather than regulated, responses to child behavior.

Importantly, the present findings support conceptualizations of family conflict as both a contextual and transactional correlate. Prior research suggests that conflict and CP may be bidirectionally related, where interpersonal tension and physical discipline co-occur within coercive cycles that reinforce maladaptive interaction patterns (Wiggers & Paas, 2022). In adolescence—a developmental period marked by increasing autonomy-seeking and heightened parent–child negotiations—these dynamics may become particularly salient (Fosco & Lippold, 2019). Thus, the strong association observed in this study reinforces the need to conceptualize CP within broader relational climates rather than as an isolated disciplinary choice.

Within the Colombian context, this finding is especially concerning. Exposure to structural violence, social inequality and armed conflict has historically shaped norms surrounding authority and discipline (Cuartas et al., 2019a). As such, family conflict may function as a proximal stressor that interacts with broader sociocultural conditions, increasing reliance on physical punishment even in the presence of legal prohibitions such as Law 2089 of 2021.

Parental Warmth and its Direct Association With Physical Punishment (H2)

Hypothesis 2 proposed that higher levels of parental warmth would be associated with lower reported use of CP. The correlational analyses partially supported this hypothesis, revealing a weak but significant negative association between parental warmth and CP. This finding is consistent with prior studies indicating that warm, emotionally responsive parenting co-occurs with lower baseline hostility and lower frequency of coercive disciplinary practices (Cuartas et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022). Rather than a direct causal deterrent, warmth may represent a relational context where punitive strategies are less common.

However, the modest strength of this association warrants careful interpretation. As highlighted in previous research, parental warmth alone may be insufficient to account for the absence of CP, particularly in contexts where physical discipline is culturally normalized or embedded in broader patterns of family stress (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016; Pan et al., 2024). Indeed, several studies have demonstrated that even within affectionate family climates, CP remains associated with adverse child outcomes, such as a higher frequency of externalizing behaviors (Lansford et al., 2014; Pan et al., 2024). This underscores the importance of viewing warmth not as a direct deterrent, but as one of several interrelated relational factors.

Thus, the present findings support the view that parental warmth operates less as a direct protective factor and more as a relational context that modulates the association between other risk processes—such as family conflict—unfold. This interpretation aligns with Rohner’s interpersonal acceptance–rejection theory (Rohner, 2004; Rohner et al., 2020), which emphasizes that warmth reflects a broader emotional orientation rather than a discrete parenting behavior. Within this framework, warmth is viewed as a stable emotional climate that correlates with the nature of interpersonal interactions rather than a simple reaction to specific behaviors.

The Moderating Role of Parental Warmth (H3)

The central contribution of this study lies in its support for Hypothesis 3: parental warmth functioned as a significant moderator of the association between family conflict and CP. Specifically, the positive relationship between family conflict and CP was significantly more evident among adolescents who reported low levels of parental warmth. In contrast, in families characterized by higher levels of warmth, this association was lower in magnitude, suggesting that emotional closeness represents a relational context where conflict and physical discipline are less strongly linked.

This finding provides empirical support for theoretical models suggesting that warmth represents a relational context characterized by lower levels of spillover between family conflict and harsh disciplinary practices (Alampay & Alampay, 2019; Boullion et al., 2023). In families where adolescents perceive high emotional closeness and acceptance, conflict and punitive responses are less strongly linked, even in the presence of frequent disagreements. This pattern aligns with the principles of Trauma-Informed Care (TIC), which suggest that a warm emotional climate may be associated with lower threat-perception in children, potentially disrupting the co-occurrence of interpersonal hostility and physical aggression.

A nuanced finding in the moderated regression analysis was that while parental warmth was a significant moderator, it did not demonstrate a significant direct effect on CP. This suggests that parental warmth is not an independent ‘deterrent’ that simply lowers the frequency of punishment in all cases. Instead, its value is conditional; it functions by ‘de-coupling’ the strong association between family conflict and CP observed in low-warmth households. This indicates that the presence of an affectionate emotional climate changes the nature of how caregivers respond to family stress, preventing interpersonal tension from automatically translating into physical discipline. (Deater-Deckard et al., 2006; Lansford et al., 2014; Wiggers & Paas, 2022). In high-conflict households, persistent exposure to hostility and emotional dysregulation correlates with a diminished protective value of warmth, where affectionate behaviors may be perceived as inconsistent or confusing by adolescents (Wang et al., 2018). These findings align with the principles of trauma-informed care (TIC), suggesting that a warm emotional climate is associated with lower activation of ‘threat-detection’ patterns often observed in youth in high-conflict environments. These findings provide specific empirical support for the Child-Directed Interaction (CDI) phase of Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) (Gurwitch, Messer, Funderburk & Warner, 2025). CDI focuses on strengthening the attachment bond through the ‘PRIDE’ skills—Praise, Reflection, Imitation, Description, and Enjoyment—to build the exact ‘warmth’ moderator identified in this study. By establishing a secure and responsive relational context during this initial phase, the CDI skills may create a ‘buffer’ that makes the subsequent discipline-focused phases of therapy less reliant on punitive force. Similarly, the data support Multisystemic Therapy (MST) frameworks (Hunkin et al., 2025) by highlighting how strengthening the affective family climate can modulate the impact of broader ecological stressors common in the Colombian context. Rather than merely prohibiting violence, these interventions prioritize the enhancement of the affective climate as a core strategy for fostering non-violent disciplinary environments.

The Colombian sociocultural context may further shape this moderation process. In societies where physical punishment has historically been viewed as a legitimate childrearing practice, warmth may coexist with punitive discipline without necessarily being perceived as contradictory (Cuartas et al., 2019b; Lansford et al., 2014). Under these conditions, warmth may retain some buffering capacity, particularly when adolescents interpret disciplinary actions as embedded within an otherwise caring relationship. Nevertheless, as international evidence indicates, this buffering effect is partial and context-dependent, underscoring the need for culturally sensitive interventions. It is also important to highlight that the use of a composite parental warmth score in this study assumes that the family’s affective density functions as a cumulative resource. However, this approach has important conceptual implications, particularly in households where caregivers’ reported warmth differs significantly. In such instances, a moderate composite score may mask a ‘polarized’ affective climate—where one caregiver is highly supportive while the other remains emotionally distant—rather than a ‘moderate’ climate where both caregivers are consistently, though less intensely, warm. From a developmental perspective, these two family structures may place different demands on an adolescent’s emotional regulation. While our aggregate measure effectively captures the ‘net’ emotional safety available to buffer family conflict, it potentially overlooks the specific relational strain caused by parental inconsistency. Future research utilizing dyadic analysis is necessary to determine if the protective value of warmth remains stable when there is high intra-familial discrepancy.

Implications for Research, Policy, and Intervention

Taken together, these findings highlight the interconnected nature of family processes and reinforce the importance of addressing both relational risk and protective factors in efforts to reduce CP. While family conflict emerges as a robust predictor of CP, parental warmth plays a critical moderating role that can reduce the likelihood that conflict translates into physical discipline.

From a policy perspective, these results provide empirical support for Colombia’s National Pedagogical and Prevention Strategy mandated by Law 2089. Interventions that focus exclusively on prohibiting CP may be insufficient if they fail to address underlying family conflict and emotional regulation. Evidence-based parenting programs that simultaneously promote conflict management skills and strengthen parental warmth are more likely to achieve sustainable reductions in violence (Kaminski & Claussen, 2017).

In conclusion, this study provides empirical evidence of the complex, interplay between risk and protective factors within Colombian family dynamics. The findings confirm that family conflict is a robust and significant positive predictor of the use of CP among adolescents. However, the results also highlight the critical role of parental warmth as a protective buffer. While conflict-ridden environments significantly increase the likelihood of parents resorting to harsh disciplinary measures, the presence of high levels of emotional closeness and support significantly attenuates this association. The high prevalence of CP reported by adolescents underscores the persistent nature of this practice in Colombia, despite recent legal prohibitions under Law 2089 of 2021. Because the protective capacity of warmth is weakened in the face of chronic or destructive conflict, these results suggest that single focus interventions may be insufficient. To effectively reduce the reliance on physical discipline, public policies and clinical interventions must adopt a systemic approach that simultaneously targets the reduction of intrafamilial conflict through conflict resolution training, the enhancement of parental warmth and emotional responsiveness and the promotion of non-violent disciplinary strategies tailored to the specific cultural and socioeconomic realities of the community.

Ultimately, fostering a warm and supportive family environment is not a matter of affective expression: it is a vital relational resource that protects adolescents from the escalating cycle of conflict and punitive discipline. By strengthening these bonds, we can contribute to the fulfillment of national and international mandates to protect the well-being and fundamental rights of children and adolescents.

Limitations

Several limitations warrant consideration when interpreting these findings. First, the cross-sectional design limits the ability to establish temporal precedence or definitive causal pathways among family conflict, parental warmth, and CP. While the moderation model is theoretically grounded, relationships may be bidirectional, as chronic punishment may exacerbate family tension. Second, the study uses a single-informant design, relying exclusively on adolescent self-reports. This may introduce common methods’ bias and subjective perceptions related to memory or social desirability. Third, the single-item measure for the CP while ethically necessary due to the legal prohibition of CP in Colombia (Law 2089 of 2021) – constrains the reliability and interpretability of the construct by not capturing the severity or specific types of physical discipline. Finally, the sample was drawn from public schools in specific municipalities within anonimized, Colombia, serving primarily low-to-middle socioeconomic strata, which may limit the generalizability of these results to other regional or higher-income contexts in Colombia. Future research should use longitudinal, multi-informant strategies and diversified national samples to further validate these dynamics. Finally, it is important to acknowledge that the use of a composite mean for parental warmth may mask substantial discrepancies between caregivers. Although a high average score represents a significant emotional resource, a household with disparate levels of warmth between parents may present a different developmental environment than one characterized by moderate consistency. Future research using multi-informant strategies and longitudinal designs is needed to further validate these dynamics and explore the impact of parental inconsistency on adolescent adjustment.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank each of the adolescents who participated in the study and their families. We would also like to thank the directors and teachers of the educational institutions that supported the project.

Author contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by author 1, author 2 and author 3. All authors read and approved of the final manuscript.

Funding

Open Access funding provided by Colombia Consortium. This research was conducted within the framework of investigative and social outreach, and teaching activities of the authors at their respective universities and did not receive additional funding from any organization. Data for this research were obtained through the social outreach project of the Department of anonimized at XXX anonimized titled “Risk and Protective Factors Associated with Risk Behaviors (project number PSIPHD-4-2023).

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available with requests to the corresponding author.

Declarations

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University (REF: 190/22-03-2023) and adhered to the guidelines set forth in the Declaration of Helsinki for research involving human subjects (World Medical Association, 2013).

Consent to participate

The informed consent for this study was signed by each of the adolescents and their parents or guardians after learning about the study's objectives, procedures, rights, and conditions of participation. Participants and their guardians were informed of the possible publication of the study and asked for their written consent. The document shared and signed included permission for publication.

Consent form for publication

On the informed consent, it was explained that the data would be used for scientific purposes including publishing in scientific journals.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Disclosure

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Angela Trujillo, Email: angela.trujillo@unisabana.edu.co.

Martha Rocío González, Email: martha.gonzalez@unisabana.edu.co.

References

  1. Alampay, L. P., & Alampay, J. M. (2019). Mother-adolescent conflict in African American and European American families: The role of physical punishment, adolescent aggression, and adolescents’ hostile attributions of mothers’ intent. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology,43(4), 856–871. 10.1080/15374416.2014.865711 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Arthur, M. W., Hawkins, J. D., Pollard, J. A., Catalano, R. F., & Baglioni, A. J. (2002). Measuring risk and protective factors for substance use, delinquency, and other adolescent problem behaviors: The communities that care youth survey. Evaluation Review,26(6), 575–601. 10.1177/019384102237850 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas. (1948). Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos (Resolución 217 [III] A). https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
  4. Boullion, A., Linde-Krieger, L. B., Doan, S. N., & Yates, T. M. (2023). Parental warmth, adolescent emotion regulation, and adolescents’ mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology,14, Article 1216502. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1216502 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cuartas, J., Grogan-Kaylor, A., Ma, J., & Castillo, B. (2019a). Civil conflict, domestic violence, and poverty as predictors of Physical punishment in Colombia. Child Abuse & Neglect,90, 108–119. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2019a.02.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cuartas, J., McCoy, D., Rey-Guerra, C., Britto, P., Beatriz, E., & Salhi, C. (2019b). Early childhood exposure to non-violent discipline in physical and psychological aggression in low- and middle-income countries: National, regional, and global prevalence estimates. Child Abuse & Neglect,92, 93–105. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2019b.03.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cuartas, J., Weissman, D. G., Sheridan, M. A., Lengua, L., & McLaughlin, K. A. (2021). Physical punishment and elevated neural response to threat in children. Child Development,92(3), 821–832. 10.1111/cdev.13565 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Deater-Deckard, K., Lansford, J. E., Malone, P. S., Alampay, L. P., Sorbring, E., Bacchini, D., Bombi, A. S., Group, I. C. S. P. (2006). Maternal warmth moderates the link between Physical punishment and child externalizing problems: A cross-cultural parent-offspring behavior genetic analysis. Parenting: Science and Practice,6(1), 79–95. 10.1207/s15327922par0601_5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Deater-Deckard, K., & Dodge, K. A. (2009). Externalización de problemas de conducta y disciplina: Una revisión: Efectos no lineales y variación según la cultura, el contexto y el género. Psychological Inquiry,8(3), 161–175. 10.1207/s15327965pli0803_1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). (2019). La Agenda 2030 y los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible: una oportunidad para América Latina y el Caribe. Objetivos, metas e indicadores mundiales [The 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals: An opportunity for Latin America and the Caribbean. Goals, targets and global indicators]. ECLAC. https://www.cepal.org/en/publications/40155-2030-agenda-and-sustainable-development-goals-opportuni
  11. End Physical punishment. (2024, mayo). Ending Physical punishment in the child justice system: Legal and human rights approaches. https://endcorporalpunishment.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/child-justice-briefing-May-2024.pdf
  12. Fairchild, A. J., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2009). A general model for testing mediation and moderation effects. Prevention science,10(2), 87–99. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Farrington, D. P., & Malvaso, C. G. (2023). Interactions between child-rearing and other risk factors in predicting delinquency, and implications for prevention. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,67(1), 3–23. 10.1177/0306624X231188231 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Ferguson, C. J. (2013). Spanking, Physical punishment, and negative long-term outcomes: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Clinical Psychology Review,33, 196–208. 10.1016/j.CPr.2012.11.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia [UNICEF] (2022). Violencia contra niños, niñas y adolescentes en América Latina y el Caribe, 2015–2021. https://www.unicef.org/lac/media/29031/file/Violencia-contra-ninos-ninas-y-adolescentes-en-America-Latina-y-el-Caribe-2015-2021.pdf
  16. Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia (UNICEF). (2024, junio 11). Nearly 400 million young children worldwide regularly experience violent discipline at home. https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/nearly-400-million-young-children-worldwide-regularly-experience-violent-discipline
  17. Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia (UNICEF). (2018). Disciplina violenta en América Latina y el Caribe. https://www.unicef.org/lac/media/1726/file/UNICEF%20Disciplina%20Violenta.pdf
  18. Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia [UNICEF] (2006). Convención sobre los derechos del niño. https://www.un.org/es/events/childrenday/pdf/derechos.pdf
  19. Font, S. A., & Maguire-Jack, K. (2020). The scope, nature, and causes of child abuse and neglect. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,692(1), 26–46. 10.1177/0002716220969642 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Fosco, G. M., & Lippold, M. A. (2019). A family systems framework for adolescent family research. Journal of Family Theory & Review,11(4), 521–537. 10.1111/jftr.12356 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gershoff, E. T., Purtell, K. M., & Holas, I. (2015). Physical punishment in U.S. public schools: Legal precedents, current practices, and future policy. Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978-3-319-14818-2 [DOI]
  22. Gershoff, E. T., & Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2016). Spanking and child outcomes: Old controversies and new meta-analyses. Journal of Family Psychology,30(4), 453–469. 10.1037/fam0000191 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Gobierno de Colombia. (2022, 23 de junio). Estrategia nacional pedagógica y de prevención del castigo físico, los tratos crueles, humillantes o degradantes 2022/2030 [Comunicado de prensa]. https://www.funcionpublica.gov.co/-/funci%C3%B3n-p%C3%BAblica-particip%C3%B3-en-socializaci%C3%B3n-de-la-estrategia-nacional-pedag%C3%B3gica-y-de-prevenci%C3%B3n-del-castigo-f%C3%ADsico#:~:text=Esta%20estrategia%20tiene%20como%20objetivo,y%20la%20adolescencia%20en%20Colombia
  24. González, M. R., & Trujillo, Á. (2024). Examining the moderating role of parental stress in the relationship between parental beliefs on corporal punishment and its utilization as a behavior correction strategy among Colombian parents. Children,11(4), Article 384. 10.3390/children11040384 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. González, M., Trujillo, A., & Pereda, N. (2014). Physical punishment in rural Colombian families: Prevalence, family structure and socio-demographic variables. Child Abuse & Neglect,38(5), 909–916. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.10.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gurwitch, R. H., Messer, E. P., Funderburk, B. W., & Warner-Metzger, C. M. (2025). Parent-child interaction therapy. Evidence-based treatments for trauma-related disorders in children and adolescents (pp. 423–447). Springer Nature Switzerland.
  27. Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.
  28. Hecker, T., Hermenau, K., Salmen, C., Teicher, M., & Elbert, T. (2016). Harsh discipline relates to internalizing problems and cognitive functioning: Findings from a cross-sectional study with school children in Tanzania. BMC Psychiatry,16(1), Article 118. 10.1186/s12888-016-0828-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hoeve, M., Dubas, J. S., Eichelsheim, V. I., van der Laan, P. H., Smeenk, W., & Gerris, J. R. (2009). The relationship between parenting and delinquency: A meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,37(6), 749–775. 10.1007/s10802-009-9310-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hughes, K., Ford, K., Bellis, M. A., & Amos, R. (2022). Parental adverse childhood experiences and perpetration of child Physical punishment in Wales. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,19(19), Article 12702. 10.3390/ijerph191912702 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Hunkin, H., Malvaso, C. G., Chittleborough, C. R., Gialamas, A., Montgomerie, A., Falster, K., Lynch, J., & Pilkington, R. M. (2025). Systematic review and meta-analysis: Multisystemic therapy and functional family therapy targeting antisocial behavior in adolescence. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry,64(4), 427–446. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kaminski, J. W., & Claussen, A. H. (2017). Evidence base update for psychosocial treatments for disruptive behaviors in children. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology,46(4), 477–499. 10.1080/15374416.2017.1310044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Lansford, J. E., Sharma, C., Malone, P. S., Woodlief, D., Dodge, K. A., Oburu, P., & Tirado, L. M. U. (2014). Physical punishment, maternal warmth, and child adjustment: A longitudinal study in eight countries. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 43(4), 670–685. 10.1080/15374416.2014.893518 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Larzelere, R. E., & Kuhn, B. R. (2005). Comparing child outcomes of Physical punishment and alternative disciplinary tactics: A meta-analysis. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review,8(1), 1–37. 10.1007/s10567-005-2340-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Lee, S. J., Taylor, C. A., & Bellamy, J. L. (2013). Does warmth moderate longitudinal associations between spanking and child aggression? Journal of Marriage and Family,75(3), 576–592. 10.1111/jomf.12025 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Lemos, V. N., & Pérez, M. A. (2021). Parenting styles and child behavior: A study on the influence of family dynamics. Journal of Child and Family Studies,30(5), 1234–1245. 10.1007/s10826-021-01999-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Obando, D., Trujillo, A., & Trujillo, C. A. (2014). Substance use and antisocial behavior in adolescents: The role of family and peer individual risk and protective factors. Substance Use and Misuse,49(14), 1934–1944. 10.3109/10826084.2014.956365 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Pan, Q., Chen, S., & Qu, Y. (2024). Physical punishment and violent behavior spectrum: A meta-analytic review. Frontiers in Psychology,15, Article 1323784. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1323784 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Parolin, M., & Simonelli, A. (2016). Attachment theory and maternal drug addiction: The contribution to parenting interventions. Frontiers in Psychiatry,7, Article 152. 10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00152 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior research methods,40(3), 879–891. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Rancheiro, T., Guedes, M., & Veríssimo, M. (2023). The role of child, maternal and household factors in the reported use of Physical punishment practices by Portuguese mothers. Análise Psicológica,41(1), 29–40. 10.14417/ap.2029 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Rohner, R. P. (2004). The Parental “Acceptance-Rejection Syndrome”: Universal Correlates of Perceived Rejection. American Psychologist,59(8), 830–840. 10.1037/0003-066X.59.8.830 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Rohner, R. P., Putnick, D. L., Molaver, A. D., Ali, S., Butt, M. M., Ibrahim, D. M., Aurino, C., Blom, M. J. M., Darwesh, F. H., Auricchio, S., Radha, A. H., Miranda, M. C., Adamsons, K., & Senese, V. P. (2020). Psychological maladjustment mediates the link between remembrances of parental rejection in childhood and loneliness in adulthood: A cross-cultural comparative study. International Journal of Psychology,55(4), 590–600. 10.1002/ijop.12621 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Smetana, J. G., & Rote, W. M. (2019). Adolescent–parent relationships: Progress, processes, and prospects. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology,1, 41–68. 10.1146/annurev-devpsych-121318-084903 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Trujillo, A., González, M. R., Fonseca, L., & Segura, S. (2020). Prevalence, severity and chronicity of Physical punishment in Colombian families. Child Abuse Review,29(5), 433–447. 10.1002/car.2587 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Wang, M., Xing, X., & Zhao, J. (2018). Parental warmth, harsh discipline, and child problem behaviors in China: The moderating role of maternal warmth. Child Abuse & Neglect,80, 123–131. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.03.02029604503 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Wang, M., Li, M., Wu, X., & Zhou, Z. (2022). Cognitive reactivity and emotional dysregulation mediate the relation of paternal and maternal harsh parenting to adolescent social anxiety. Child Abuse & Neglect,129, Article 105621. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105621 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Wang, X., Huebner, E. S., & Tian, L. (2023). Longitudinal relations among perceived parental warmth, self-esteem and social behaviours from middle childhood to early adolescence in China: Disentangling between- and within-person associations. British Journal of Psychology. Advance online publication. 10.1111/bjop.12672 [DOI] [PubMed]
  49. Ward, K. P., Lee, S. J., Pace, G. T., Grogan-Kaylor, A., & Ma, J. (2020). Attachment style and the association of spanking and child externalizing behavior. Academic Pediatrics, 20(4), 501–507. 10.1016/j.acap.2019.06.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Wei, W. X., Zhao, X. X., & Chooi, W. T. (2025). Family conflict is associated with increased risk of problematic digital media use in children and adolescents: A systematic review with narrative synthesis. Adolescent Research Review.  10.1007/s40894-025-00274-2 [DOI]
  51. Wiggers, M., & Paas, F. (2022). Harsh physical discipline and externalizing behaviors in children: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(21), 14385. 10.3390/ijerph192114385 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. World Health Organization (2024, 30 de abril). It is time to end Physical punishment everywhere and keep our 2030 promise to children. OMS. https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/it-is-time-to-end-corporal-punishment-everywhere-and-keep-our-2030-promise-to-children
  53. Yang, Q.-F., Xie, R.-B., Zhang, R., & Ding, W. (2023). Harsh childhood discipline and developmental changes in adolescent aggressive behavior: The mediating role of self-compassion. Behavioral Sciences,13(9), Article 725. 10.3390/bs13090725 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Yang, J., Wu, Q., Zhou, J., Huebner, E. S., & Tian, L. (2022). Transactional processes among perceived parental warmth, positivity, and depressive symptoms from middle childhood to early adolescence: Disentangling between- and within-person associations. Social Science & Medicine, 305, 115090. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115090 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available with requests to the corresponding author.

Articles from Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES