MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167891037 · doi:10.1037/0893-3200.20.1.68

Authoritarian parenting in individualist and collectivist groups: Associations with maternal emotion and cognition and children's self-esteem.

2006· article· en· W2167891037 on OpenAlexaff
Duane Rudy, Joan E. Grusec

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Psychology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollectivismPsychologyAuthoritarianismFeelingIndividualismDevelopmental psychologyIndividualistic cultureSelf-esteemCognitionAffect (linguistics)Social psychologyPoliticsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mothers and children between the ages of 7 and 12, from individualist (Western European) and collectivist (Egyptian, Iranian, Indian, and Pakistani) backgrounds, completed assessments of children's self-esteem, maternal authoritarianism, and mothers' thoughts and feelings about their children. Collectivist mothers endorsed authoritarian parenting more than did individualist mothers but did not feel or think more negatively about their children, and collectivist children were not lower in self-esteem. Within both groups, maternal negative affect and cognition were associated with lower self-esteem in children. However, maternal authoritarianism was associated with maternal negative emotion and cognition only in the individualist group. The results suggest that maternal negative thoughts and feelings, associated with authoritarianism in individualist but not collectivist groups, may be more detrimental to children's self-esteem than is authoritarianism in and of itself.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations338
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family PsychologySame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207