Mothers' differential parenting and children's behavioural outcomes: Exploring the moderating role of family and social context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exploring an ecological framework, the goal of the present study was to examine the moderating role of contextual risk on the relationship between differential parenting and children's socio‐emotional outcomes. The present study was conducted with a sample of 920 children nested within 397 families (including up to four children per family). Using a multivariate multilevel modelling strategy, we examined a range of contextual risks including maternal personal factors (educational level, family‐average parenting, depression, history of abuse and teen motherhood), parental and family factors (lone‐parent and step‐parent families and marital conflict) and home and community factors (household disorganization neighbourhood quality, collective efficacy and personal safety/victimization). Overall, the moderating role of context was found to be more evident for differential negativity than for differential positivity. Moreover, higher levels of contextual risk were associated with stronger links between differential parenting and child outcomes, with more deleterious effects for the disfavoured child. This same effect was seen when individual risks were aggregated into a cumulative risk index. The exception to this pattern was household disorganization in some cases, children showed more sensitivity to differential parenting at low levels of household disorganization. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".