Parenting differentially influences the development of boys' and girls' inhibitory control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effortful control (EC) has important implications for children's development. While both child sex and parenting are related to child EC, and while a literature shows early sex differences in children's responses to care, interactions between care and child sex in predicting EC are not well understood. We therefore examined associations between child sex and early caregiving as predictors of children's development of a specific aspect of EC, inhibitory control (IC). A community sample of 406 three-year-old children and their caregivers completed behavioural tasks and observational measures of parenting and IC, and children were re-assessed for IC at age 5. Results showed that early care influenced change in IC over time, although caregiving was a more important influence on boys' IC than girls; specifically, differences in boys' and girls' IC at age 5 were modest when parenting was positive. The implications of a better understanding of sex differences in associations between parenting and the development of IC in early childhood are discussed. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? While sex differences in reactivity to early care in the development of externalizing symptoms have been explored, very little is known about such differences in children's early-emerging effortful control. What does this study add? Using a longitudinal design and independent, laboratory methods of assessing study constructs, we provide new information showing that early care appears to differentially influence boys' development of inhibitory control, a key aspect of effortful control, in early 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".