Parenting goal pursuit is linked to emotional well-being, relationship quality, and responsiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the current research was to identify the goals underlying parental care and how they are linked to parents’ sense of emotional well-being, relationship quality, and responsiveness to their child’s needs. We examined the link between parenting goals and outcomes through surveying parents cross-sectionally (Studies 1 to 3), in a 10-day daily experience study (Study 4), and by conducting an internal meta-analysis of all four studies ( N total = 1,906). In Studies 1 and 2, parents were found to pursue four unique goals as captured by a new scale called the Parenting Goals Scale (PGS). The PGS measures the four goals of child love and security, child development, parent image, and child acceptance. In Study 3, each of the four goals was found to be meaningfully related to, while also being distinct from, other individual differences in parenting styles, other-focused orientations, self-focused orientations, and attachment styles. In a 10-day daily experience study (Study 4) as well as an internal meta-analysis across all four studies, each goal was found to be uniquely related to parents’ emotional well-being, relationship quality with their child, and feelings of responsiveness to their child’s needs. Daily and chronic pursuit of child love and security goals predicted greater emotional well-being, relationship quality, and responsiveness. In contrast, daily and chronic pursuit of parent image goals predicted poorer emotional well-being, relationship quality, and responsiveness, especially at the chronic level. Child development goals predicted poorer emotional well-being and relationship quality, especially at the chronic level. And finally, child acceptance goals predicted more positive emotions in daily life only. These associations largely held after controlling for parents’ reports of children’s mood and care difficulty. The current findings contribute to a growing body of research focused on understanding the joys and frustrations of parenting.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".