Relations between Chinese mothers' parenting practices and social withdrawal in early childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers have identified specific parenting practices used by parents of preschoolers in mainland China (e.g., physical coercion, overprotection, shaming, directiveness, encouragement of modesty). Some of the intrusive practices have been linked to social withdrawal in western societies (e.g., United States, Canada). It seemed important to examine these associations in China because recent research suggests that young Chinese children who exhibit wariness in peer settings may be at risk for negative outcomes such as peer rejection. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the relation between Chinese parenting practices and preschoolers' social withdrawal. Mothers of preschool-age children from mainland China ( N = 446) completed self-report parenting questionnaires. Teachers rated children's reticent, solitary-passive, solitary-active, and modest behaviors. Results showed that (a) maternal directiveness was positively associated with reticent behavior in girls and negatively associated with solitary-passive behavior in boys, (b) maternal overprotection, for girls, was positively related to both reticent behavior and solitary-passive behavior, and negatively related to modest behavior, (c) coercion was positively associated with solitary-active and reticent behavior in girls, and (d) shaming was positively related to all forms of withdrawn behaviors in boys and girls, as well as positively related to modest behavior in boys.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".