Power and conflict resolution in sibling, parent–child, and spousal negotiations.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study used a within-family observational design to examine conflict strategies (planning, opposition) and resolutions (standoff, win-loss, compromise) across family subsystems, with an emphasis on power differences between parents and children during relatively symmetrical within-generation (spousal, sibling) and relatively asymmetrical between-generation (parent-child) dyadic interactions. Up to six dyads in 67 families (children's ages ranging from 3 to 12 years) discussed an unresolved conflict. Results revealed that within-generation discussions ended more in standoff, whereas between-generation discussions ended with more win-loss resolutions. Multilevel analyses indicated that parents engaged in more planning and opposition than children; however, they opposed more and planned less with their spouses than their children. In general, more planning and less opposition were associated with achieving resolutions rather than failing to resolve differences. Some effects were qualified by within-family differences between mothers versus fathers and older versus younger siblings, as well as between-family differences in younger siblings' age. Implications for theories of power and family relationship dynamics are discussed.
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 | 0.018 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".