The Effects of Parenting Styles on Behavioral Problems in Primary School Children: A Cross-Cultural Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review examines the literature regarding the effects of parenting styles on children’s behavioural problems in different cultures. An initial literature search yielded 941 articles. Subsequent screening of titles and abstracts identified 86 potentially relevant studies. These were stored in full text for additional checks in order to further verify if they corresponded to the purposes of the review. Inclusion criteria yielded 21 studies from the following twelve countries: USA, Canada, UK, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, Finland, Croatia, Iran, China, Taiwan and Pakistan. Results indicate that parenting styles have an impact on children’s behavioural problems. Specifically, children from parents showing contributory factors such as “involvement with the child”, “monitoring the child” and other positive dimensions tended to have low levels of behaviour problems. Based on the literature review we conclude that this impact of parenting styles may vary across societies. However, a number of methodological limitations were noted which may have contributed towards some inconsistency of the findings. Further cross-cultural research is needed in order to be able to compare the effect of parenting styles more reliably.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".