Parents' Stories of Grandparenting Concerns in the Three‐Generational Family: Generativity, Optimism, and Forgiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adults' level of Eriksonian generativity in midlife has been shown to predict variations in parenting, but there has been less research on its relation to inter generational processes in the three-generational family. As part of a larger study, a sample of 35 Canadian mothers and fathers described a particular, salient child-rearing problem with grandparents when their first-born children were 8 years old. Descriptions were rated for severity of the problem, anger/irritation, optimism about solution, and forgiveness of the grandparent's behavior. Generativity data were collected by a standard questionnaire (the Loyola Generativity Scale of McAdams; McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1992). Results showed few gender differences, though mothers tended to be angrier than fathers with the grandparents. More mature parents were more forgiving than younger parents and saw problems as less serious, as predicted. Finally, parent level of generativity predicted maternal and paternal forgiveness of grandparent behaviors, as well as paternal, but not maternal, optimism about problem outcomes. Parental generativity may thus serve to encourage greater forgiveness and optimism among the generations of the family.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".