Authoritative and Authoritarian Mothers' Parenting Goals, Attributions, and Emotions Across Different Childrearing Contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. The central goal of this study was to explore how childrearing contexts might moderate relations between parenting styles and mothers' parental beliefs and emotional responses. Design. Participants were 76 mothers of children (41 boys, 35 girls) ranging in age from 30 to 70 months. Mothers completed a global measure of parenting styles (authoritarian, authoritative). Self-reports of parental beliefs (parental goals, attributions) and emotional responses (angry, embarrassed, happy) were assessed in response to hypothetical vignettes depicting a variety of children's behaviors (aggression, misbehavior, shyness, prosocial behavior). Results. In situations depicting children's negative behaviors, authoritarian mothers were less focused on empathic goals and attributed child aggression and misbehaviors to less external sources than their more authoritative counterparts. Authoritarian mothers were also more likely to respond with greater anger and embarrassment across all childrearing scenarios. Conclusions. Results suggest that authoritarian and authoritative mothers differ in their affective response patterns consistently across childrearing contexts, but that more challenging childrearing situations accentuate differences in the cognitive reactions of authoritative versus authoritarian mothers. Implications for understanding how general parenting styles may be translated into specific parental responses are considered.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".