MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2393836114

Trust Level of Adolescents and Their Parents and Its Intergenerational Transmission

2013· article· en· W2393836114 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Li-Pin Chi

Notice bibliographique

RevueXinli fazhan yu jiaoyu · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueCultural Differences and Values
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychologyInterpersonal communicationDaughterSocial psychologyOffspringSocial trustRemarriageDevelopmental psychologySocial capitalSociologyPolitical science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Previous studies on intergenerational transmission found that parents could transmit some of their characteristics,values and behaviors to their children.Some researchers concluded the level of parent's trust correlated to that of their child,that is,there exists intergenerational transmission of interpersonal trust.Studies from the United States of America,Canada and Germany provided evidences.By now,no empirical research has been done in China to examine the intergenerational transmission of trust.Therefore,it is necessary to investigate how parents' trust predict their child's trust.Research in this aspect may shed light on the family origins of people's interpersonal trust.Some research about intergenerational transmission of trust found that father and mother played different roles in development of child's trust.Some studies showed that father's level of trust strongly impacted on that of son,but had little influenced on daughter;whereas trust level of mother affected both son and daughter slightly.A study from Canada indicated it was mother's level of trust,not father's that could predict trust level of their next generation.Recently,German researchers suggestted both father's and mother's trust impacted their offspring's trust.Althought it was not clear that who being more important for offspring 's development of trust,some investigations pointed out parental investment to their offspring influenced the intergenerational transmission of trust: Parents who invest more in the upbringing of their children are more similar to them with respect to trust attitudes;thus transmit their own attitudes more strongly.A study of evolutionay psychology found that father invested in son more than daughter,while mother's investment in son and daughter were same.So it can be concluded that the trust level of boy's father would predict offspring's trust level more strongly than that of girl's father;and both boy's and girl's mother influence her offspring's trust level indifferently.Based on a Chinese sample of 198 parents-adolescent pairs,the present study aimed to examine whether parents' trust could be transmitted to their offspring or not.The study collected pariticipants' responses to trust game by questionnare to measure their interpersonal trust.Each participant including adolescent and adult was asked to decide how much money would he or she like to send a stranger and guess how much would the stranger return to him or her after receiving pariticipant's money.The amount of money pariticipants sending and estimating to be returned was used to measure the level of trust.The results showed that(1) the rate of amount of money sending from adolescents and their fathers and mothers were 57.3%,56.7% and 54.8%,respectively;and fathers' trust levels were higher than mothers';and male adolescents were more trusting than female.(2) Gender of the offspring impacted on the strength of intergenerational transmission.Parents' trust could not predict their daughter's trust;whereas they did for sons.The transmission patterns of father and mother were different: relationship of father's and son's trust level fit a linear model but data of mother's and son's trust fit a negative quadratic model.The study has potentially important implications for understanding the mechanisms of intergenerational transmission of trust,and it is shed light on the basic question of where trust comes from.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,642
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,157
Tête enseignante GPT0,343
Écart entre enseignants0,186 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2013
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueXinli fazhan yu jiaoyuMême sujetCultural Differences and ValuesTravaux en français237 207