The genetic‐environmental etiology of parents' perceptions and self‐assessed behaviours toward their 5‐month‐old infants in a large twin and singleton sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given the importance of parenting for the child's early socio-emotional development, parenting perceptions and behaviours, and their correlates, should be assessed as early as possible in the child's life. The goals of the present study were 1) to confirm, in two parallel population-based samples, including a large sample of twins, the factor structure of a new self-administered questionnaire assessing both parents' specific parenting perceptions and behaviours toward their 5-month-old infants (i.e., parental self-efficacy, perceived parental impact, parental hostile-reactive behaviours and parental overprotection), 2) to identify the specific risk factors associated with the negative side of these parenting dimensions, 3) to document the genetic-environmental etiology of these parenting dimensions through the twin method. METHODS: Parents (2,122 mothers and 1,829 fathers) of 5-month-old infants, and parents of 5-month-old infant twins (510 families) completed the questionnaire (28 items). The data were submitted to a series of confirmatory factor analyses. The contribution to parenting of a variety of risk factors was examined in the two samples using regression analyses. A series of quantitative genetic analyses were performed to quantify the different sources of variation in parenting. RESULTS: A consistent factor structure was found across informants and across samples. There were significant mean differences in parenting between mothers and fathers, as well as between parents of twins and parents of singletons. A differentiated pattern of association with risk factors was found for each dimension of parenting. The twin analyses revealed that shared environment accounted for each parenting dimension. Maternal hostile-reactive behaviours were also moderately related to genetic factors in the child and this association was mainly mediated by the infant difficultness. CONCLUSIONS: The overall pattern of results was consistent with Belsky's (1984) view of parenting as multiply determined. The longitudinal follow-up of these families should provide the means for testing developmental models about the determinants and outcomes of these parenting dimensions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".