Thinking Ahead: Complexity of Expectations and the Transition to Parenthood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the integrative complexity of thinking in individuals making the transition to parenthood, and the relationship between complexity and adjustment during this period. Sixty-nine couples were interviewed 3 months before their babies were born, and 6 months after the birth. The prenatal interview focussed on individuals' expectations about what it would be like being a parent; the postnatal interview focussed on individuals' actual experiences as parents. In addition, participants completed measures of depression, self-esteem, and marital satisfaction after each interview, and a measure of stress after the 6-month postnatal interview. Both men and women demonstrated a significant increase in the complexity of their thinking from the prenatal to the postnatal interview, with women demonstrating higher levels of complexity at both times. In addition, women with more complex expectations demonstrated better adjustment after their babies were born than did women with simpler expectations; these results were not obtained for men. Results are discussed with regard to the way in which thinking about the self changes as one negotiates major life transitions, and the way in which complex thinking can help counter some of the stresses that individuals may experience at these times.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".