Harsh parenting practices mediate the association between parent affective profiles and child adjustment outcomes: Differential associations for mothers and fathers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children’s early emotional environment strongly influences their later behavioural development. Yet, besides maternal depression, limited knowledge exists about the effect of other emotions and the role of fathers. Using 290 triads (mother/father/child), we investigated how positive (SEEKING, CARING, PLAYFULNESS) and negative (FEAR, ANGER, SADNESS) dimensions of mothers’ and fathers’ affectivity relate to their offspring’s externalizing and internalizing behaviours directly as well as indirectly via parenting practices. Parental variables were measured when children were 4 years old and children’s behaviours were measured at 8 years of age. Latent Profile Analysis identified three parental affective profiles: low negative emotions, balanced, and high emotional. Structural equation models showed that, for boys, mothers’ low negative emotions and high emotional profiles predicted later internalizing behaviours (direct effect; β = −0.21 and β = 0.23), while fathers’ low negative emotions profile predicted externalizing behaviours indirectly (β = −0.10). For girls, mothers’ profiles ( low negative emotions and high emotional) predicted both internalizing (β = −0.04 and β = 0.07) and externalizing (β = −0.05 and β = 0.09) behaviours indirectly, but no effects of fathers’ profiles were found. Mothers’ and fathers’ affective profiles contributed to the behavioural development of their offspring in different ways, according to the type of behaviour (internalizing or externalizing) and the child’s sex. These findings may help in tailoring existing parenting interventions on affective profiles, thus enhancing their efficacy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".