The Outcomes of Physical Punishment are Typical of All Corrective Actions: A Response to Heilmann et al's (2021) Narrative Review

The reputation of psychological science depends on the adequacy of the science underlying its policy recommendations. This commentary raises concerns about the science used by Heilman et al. (2021) in their recent narrative (not meta-analytic) review that encourages spanking bans worldwide. By reviewing controlled longitudinal studies, Heilmann et al. provided stronger causal evidence than the two meta-analyses of unadjusted correlations most frequently cited to support spanking bans. However, the two previously published meta-analyses of controlled longitudinal studies of spanking do not support spanking bans, due to the trivial size of the average adverse-looking effect of customary spanking in those studies. Moreover, several lines of evidence indicate that this trivial average effect is likely due to inadequate statistical controls rather than an actual adverse causal effect of typical spanking. We need stronger causal evidence for policy recommendations for both the welfare of children and the reputation of psychological science.

Disruption Leads to Methodological and Analytic Innovation in Developmental Sciences: Recommendations for Remote Administration and Dealing With Messy Data

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted data collection for longitudinal studies in developmental sciences to an immeasurable extent. Restrictions on conducting in-person standardized assessments have led to disruptive innovation, in which novel methods are applied to increase participant engagement. Here, we focus on remote administration of behavioral assessment. We argue that these innovations in remote assessment should become part of the new standard protocol in developmental sciences to facilitate data collection in populations that may be hard to reach or engage due to burdensome requirements (e.g., multiple in-person assessments). We present a series of adaptations to developmental assessments (e.g., Mullen) and a detailed discussion of data analytic approaches to be applied in the less-than-ideal circumstances encountered during the pandemic-related shutdown (i.e., missing or messy data). Ultimately, these remote approaches actually strengthen the ability to gain insight into developmental populations and foster pragmatic innovation that should result in enduring change.

Can Conspiracy Beliefs Be Beneficial? Longitudinal Linkages Between Conspiracy Beliefs, Anxiety, Uncertainty Aversion, and Existential Threat

Research suggests that conspiracy beliefs are adopted because they promise to reduce anxiety, uncertainty, and threat. However, little research has investigated whether conspiracy beliefs actually fulfill these promises. We conducted two longitudinal studies ( NStudy 1 = 405, NStudy 2 = 1,012) to examine how conspiracy beliefs result from, and in turn influence, anxiety, uncertainty aversion, and existential threat. Random intercept cross-lagged panel analyses indicate that people who were, on average, more anxious, uncertainty averse, and existentially threatened held stronger conspiracy beliefs. Increases in conspiracy beliefs were either unrelated to changes in anxiety, uncertainty aversion, and existential threat (Study 2), or even predicted increases in these variables (Study 1). In both studies, increases in conspiracy beliefs predicted subsequent increases in conspiracy beliefs, suggesting a self-reinforcing circle. We conclude that conspiracy beliefs likely do not have beneficial consequences, but may even reinforce the negative experience of anxiety, uncertainty aversion, and existential threat.

A 21-Year Survey of Escherichia coli from Bloodstream Infections (BSI) in a Tertiary Hospital Reveals How Community-Hospital Dynamics of B2 Phylogroup Clones Influence Local BSI Rates

Sepsis is the third leading cause of mortality in Western countries and one of the Global Health Threats recognized by the WHO since 2017. Despite Escherichia coli constituting the most common cause of bloodstream infections (BSI), its epidemiology is not fully understood, in part due to the scarcity of local and longitudinal studies.

Can We Identify Subgroups of Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain Based on Motor Variability? A Systematic Scoping Review

The identification of homogeneous subgroups of patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP), based on distinct patterns of motor control, could support the tailoring of therapy and improve the effectiveness of rehabilitation. The purpose of this review was (1) to assess if there are differences in motor variability between patients with CLBP and pain-free controls, as well as inter-individually among patients with CLBP, during the performance of functional tasks; and (2) to examine the relationship between motor variability and CLBP across time. A literature search was conducted on the electronic databases Pubmed, EMBASE, and Web of Science, including papers published any time up to September 2021. Two reviewers independently screened the search results, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted the data. Twenty-two cross-sectional and three longitudinal studies investigating motor variability during functional tasks were examined. There are differences in motor variability between patients with CLBP and pain-free controls during the performance of functional tasks, albeit with discrepant results between tasks and among studies. The longitudinal studies revealed the persistence of motor control changes following interventions, but the relationship between changes in motor variability and reduction in pain intensity was inconclusive. Based on the reviewed literature, no stratification of homogeneous subgroups into distinct patterns of motor variability in the CLBP population could be made. Studies diverged in methodologies and theoretical frameworks and in metrics used to assess and interpret motor variability. In the future, more large-sample studies, including longitudinal designs, are needed, with standardized metrics that quantify motor variability to fill the identified evidence gaps.