|Remote<br>Education||0.118<br>(0.078)||-0.057<br>(0.098)|0.501***<br>(0.136)|-0.161**<br>(0.082)|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Alternative|||0.205***|0.213***|0.084|0.269***|
|Education|||||||
||||(0.060)|(0.062)|(0.122)|(0.054)|
|Engagement|0.040**|0.041**|0.034**|0.034**|0.052|0.025|
||(0.017)|(0.016)|(0.016)|(0.016)|(0.040)|(0.017)|
|Discipline|<br>0.394***|<br>0.391***|<br>0.380***|<br>0.378***|<br>0.352***|<br>0.399***|
||(0.040)|(0.040)|(0.040)|(0.040)|(0.062)|(0.040)|
|Female|-0.012|-0.012|-0.012|-0.012|0.036|-0.040**|
||(0.016)|(0.016)|(0.016)|(0.016)|(0.033)|(0.018)|
|Poor|<br>-0.005|<br>-0.005|<br>-0.003|<br>-0.004|<br>-0.086**|<br>0.002|
||(0.020)|(0.020)|(0.020)|(0.020)|(0.035)|(0.023)|
|Child Hunger|<br>0.027|<br>0.028|<br>0.028|<br>0.028|<br>-0.069|<br>0.044|
||(0.028)|(0.028)|(0.028)|(0.028)|(0.055)|(0.029)|
|Urban|-0.025|-0.026|-0.027|-0.027|0.011|-0.041*|
||(0.020)|(0.020)|(0.020)|(0.020)|(0.032)|(0.024)|
|Female Head|-0.004|-0.002|-0.004|-0.004|0.018|-0.005|
||(0.017)|(0.016)|(0.017)|(0.017)|(0.032)|(0.017)|
|Power Grid|-0.023|-0.021|-0.023|-0.022|-0.092***|-0.019|
||(0.021)|(0.021)|(0.021)|(0.021)|(0.030)|(0.024)|
|Internet|<br>0.003|<br>0.003|<br>0.007|<br>0.008|<br>-0.043|<br>0.015|
||(0.021)|(0.021)|(0.021)|(0.021)|(0.030)|(0.021)|
|Public School|-0.047|-0.046|-0.045|-0.044|0.080|-0.132**|
||(0.043)|(0.042)|(0.043)|(0.043)|(0.050)|(0.053)|
|County FE|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|
|<br>Wave FE|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|
|Control|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|
|Age|3+|3+|3+|3+|3-6|6+|
|<br>R2|0.35|0.34|0.36|0.36|0.43|0.40|
|N|6397|6397|6397|6397|1184|5213|

_Significance levels:_ * p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01. Standard errors (svy) in parentheses. County and wave fixed effects. Data from waves 4 and 5. Control variables: age, age squared, no. children (log), anxious due to outbreak, week count.

Across all specifications, children who experience harsh discipline, regardless of age group, are significantly (up to 39.9 percentage points) more likely to report negative changes in behavior. Nevertheless, since the number of parents adopting these aggressive methods increased in our sample period, this may also be attributed, at least partially, to the current crisis, as parents who are under stress may be more likely to resort to harsh discipline.<sup>42</sup> The fact that children whose parents are more engaged are more likely to report behavioral changes could be explained by the fact that these children require more attention from their caretakers, or that adults who spend more time with these children are more likely to observe these behaviors.<sup>43</sup> As the magnitude of some of the point estimates reported above may seem worryingly large, we also present results for analogous non-linear (probit) models (Table A6).<sup>44</sup> In this case, although still substantial, the predicted marginal effects are somewhat smaller (Figure 4). Across all models, the largest predicted increase in the probability behavioral changes is 26 percentage points for remote

> 42 While approximately 12 percent of parents reported treating their children aggressively between January and March 2021, this figure increased to more than 20 percent between March and June 2021 (p=0.00).

> 43 Table A5, in the appendix, confirms the robustness of most results to the exclusion of school holidays (March 29 to May 10 2021) during wave 5, as well as to the use of different sets of control variables.

> 44 We do not include fixed effects in the probit models to avoid the potential bias that stems from the incidental parameter problem (Neyman and Scott 1948).

16