MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1816131737 · doi:10.1037/fam0000120

Paternal and maternal warmth and the development of prosociality among preschoolers.

2015· article· en· W1816131737 on OpenAlexafffund
Ella Daniel, Sheri Madigan, Jennifer M. Jenkins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Psychology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsProsocial behaviorPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyNegativity effectChild developmentSocial relationEarly childhoodReciprocalSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the influence of maternal behavior on child outcomes has been extensively studied, there has not been the same attention to the role of paternal behavior in development. This gap in research stands in contrast to the observable shift in parental roles and responsibilities in contemporary society. The goal of this study was to examine the roles of fathers, mothers, and children in the development of children's prosocial behavior. In the current study we examined the development of reciprocal relations between paternal and maternal behavior and child prosociality over 36 months. Three hundred eighty-one families were assessed when children were 18, 36, and 54 months of age. Fathers and mothers reported on their own warmth and negativity using standardized questionnaires. Child prosociality was measured using averaged parental reports. Actor-partner interdependence models revealed that paternal and maternal warmth predicted subsequent increases in child prosocial behavior, but child prosocial behavior did not predict subsequent parenting. Father and mother parenting practices were reciprocally interrelated. The results point to the important roles paternal and maternal warmth play in the development of children's prosocial behavior.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations103
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family PsychologySame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207