Adolescent romantic competence and parenting attitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study examined the distinctive gender-related expressions of adolescent romantic competence and patterns of maternal and paternal attitudes toward daughters’ and sons’ romantic involvements. Employing a qualitative approach, an in-depth interview assessing romantic competence was given to 69 Israeli adolescents (37 boys) ranging in age from 15 to 18 years, M = 16.74 ( SD = .81). In addition, parents were interviewed regarding their attitudes toward their adolescents’ romantic involvements. Findings indicated that girls exhibited greater romantic maturity and their accounts of romantic involvements were more coherent, compared to boys. Romantic agency did not differ across gender. Mothers and fathers reported similar levels of supportive attitude toward offspring’s romantic involvement. However, in depth reading of parents’ motives suggested that fathers had a supportive attitude toward their sons’ romantic and sexual experimentation, while mothers’ supportive attitude was aimed at enhancing romantic intimacy in both genders. In addition, mothers were found to have a more protective attitude toward their daughters than toward their sons. Examining associations between parental attitudes and adolescent romantic competence showed that maternal, not paternal, supportive attitude was associated with greater romantic competence in both genders. In addition, maternal protective attitude was associated with girls’ involvement in more stable relationships, while fathers’ protective attitude was adversely associated with daughters’ romantic agency. Findings suggest that the attitudes of both parents reflect, to some extent, the more traditional scripts of gender relationships.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".