Stability and Social–Behavioral Consequences of Toddlers’ Inhibited Temperament and Parenting Behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A prospective longitudinal design was employed to ascertain whether different types of behavioral inhibition (i.e., traditional, peer-social) were stable from toddler to preschool age, and whether inhibited temperament and/or parenting style would predict children's subsequent social and behavioral problems. At Time 1, 108 toddlers (54 males, 54 females) and their mothers were observed in the Traditional Inhibition Paradigm and in a toddler-peer session; then at age 4 years, 88 children were observed with unfamiliar peers, and maternal ratings of psychological functioning were obtained. How mothers and their toddlers interacted was also observed. Results revealed meaningful connections between toddler inhibition, maternal intrusive control and derision, and nonsocial behaviors at age 4. Both forms of toddler inhibition predicted socially reticent behavior during free play at 4 years. If mothers demonstrated relatively high frequencies of intrusive control and/or derisive comments, then the association between their toddlers' peer inhibition and 4-year social reticence was significant and positive; whereas if mothers were neither intrusive nor derisive, then toddlers' peer inhibition and 4-year reticence were not significantly associated. Thus, maternal behaviors moderated the relation between toddlers' peer inhibition and preschoolers' social reticence.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".