MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977577344 · doi:10.1037/a0028515

The role of parental personality traits in differential parenting.

2012· article· en· W1977577344 on OpenAlexafffund
Dillon T. Browne, Jean Christophe Meunier, Thomas G. O’Connor, Jennifer M. Jenkins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Psychology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoEmployment and Social Development Canada
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAgreeablenessPsychologyPersonalityDevelopmental psychologyOpenness to experienceBig Five personality traitsNegativity effectBirth orderSocial psychologyDemographyExtraversion and introversionPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significant relationships have been demonstrated between parental personality and parenting toward individual children, but there is little research exploring the relationship between parental personality and differential parenting (DP). The present study examined the relationship between the Big Five personality dimensions and differential positivity and negativity in parenting (observed and self-report measures). The analyses are based on a sample of 867 children nested within 381 families. Using multilevel modeling and controlling for child age, gender, birth order, behavior, and family socioeconomic status analyses revealed that maternal and paternal agreeableness were inversely related to reports of differential positivity. Agreeableness predicted observed differential negativity, and the relationship was curvilinear (at both high and low levels of agreeableness, differential negativity was higher). Finally, mothers with the most openness to experience exhibited the highest levels of reported differential negativity. The findings suggest that parental personality is a modest yet important influence to consider when conceptualizing the sources of DP.

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)0.001
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 score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations46
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family PsychologySame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207