Parenting Behaviours Associated with the Development of Adaptive and Maladaptive Offspring Personality Traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the associations of beneficial parenting behaviours with adaptive and maladaptive offspring personality traits that persist into adulthood among individuals in the community. METHODS: Families (n = 669) participating in the Children in the Community Study were interviewed during the childhood, adolescence, emerging adulthood, and adulthood of the offspring at the mean ages of 6, 14, 16, 22, and 33 years. RESULTS: Twelve types of beneficial maternal and paternal child-rearing behaviour, reported by offspring at the mean age of 16 years, were associated with elevated offspring personality resiliency, at the mean ages of 22 and 33 years, and with low offspring personality disorder trait levels. These longitudinal associations remained significant when histories of childhood behaviour problems and parental psychiatric disorder were controlled statistically. Similar linear (that is, dose-dependent) associations were observed between the number of beneficial parenting behaviours during childhood and adaptive and maladaptive offspring traits at the mean ages of 22 and 33 years. Maternal and paternal behaviours were independently associated with both adaptive and maladaptive offspring traits. CONCLUSIONS: Beneficial maternal and paternal child-rearing behaviours may promote the development of adaptive offspring personality traits that endure into adulthood, and they may be prospectively associated with reduced levels of maladaptive offspring traits. These associations may not be attributable to childhood behaviour problems or parental psychiatric disorders, and they may be equally evident during early and middle adulthood.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".