How toddlers' irritability and fearfulness relate to parenting: A longitudinal study conducted among Quebec families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although child difficult temperament is a well‐known risk factor for parenting quality, few studies have focused on the association between specific temperament dimensions and parental behaviours. This study focused on negative emotionality, one of the best‐accepted dimensions of temperament, and its subdimensions of irritability and fearfulness. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the predictive value of irritability and fearfulness at 17 months upon parenting practices (involvement, coercion, and overprotection) at 29 months, beyond the influence of other well‐known risk factors (e.g., socio‐economic status and maternal depression). The study used data from the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development, a longitudinal study conducted upon 1,829 families from Quebec (Canada), using self‐report questionnaires and medical files. Structural equation modelling identified irritability as a predictor of coercion, an externally controlling practice, whereas fearfulness predicted overprotection, an internally controlling practice. No significant associations were found after modelling between dimensions of negative emotionality and involvement. These results underline how certain aspects of child temperament may differentially “pull for control” and lead parents to act in a certain way, which may thwart young children's development and need for autonomy. Highlights This article investigates the associations between negative emotionality (i.e., irritability and fearfulness) and parenting (i.e., involvement, coercion, and overprotection). Structural equation modelling was used on data collected during a longitudinal study with a representative sample of 2,223 families. Each dimension of negative emotionality was associated to a different form of controlling parenting 1 year later (i.e., irritability with coercion and fearfulness with overprotection).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".