The influence of perceived parenting styles on socio-emotional development from pre-puberty into puberty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relative impact of parenting on socio-emotional development of children has rarely been examined in a longitudinal context. This study examined the association between perceived parenting styles and socio-emotional functioning from childhood to adolescence. We hypothesized that optimal parenting associated with improvement in socio-emotional functioning from childhood into early adulthood, especially for those with more behavioral problems in childhood. Children between ages 7 and 9 years were recruited for the Singapore Cohort Study of Risk Factors for Myopia (SCORM). Nine years later, 700 out of 1052 subjects were followed up (67%). During childhood, parents completed the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), while young adults completed the Youth Self-Report (YSR) and Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI). Perceived optimal parental care resulted in less internalizing and externalizing problems in early adulthood in comparison to non-optimal parental care styles. Perceived optimal paternal parenting, but not maternal parenting, in interaction with childhood externalizing problems predicted externalizing symptoms in early adulthood. No significant interactions were found between perceived parenting styles and internalizing problems. In conclusion, perceived parental care associates with the quality of socio-emotional development, while optimal parenting by the father is especially important for children with more externalizing problems in childhood.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".