Developmental changes in deviant and violent behaviors from early to late adolescence: Associations with parental monitoring and peer deviance.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The continuity of adolescent deviant and violent behaviors have serious implications for engagement in criminal activities in adulthood. The current study examined parenting and peer ecologies on the development of deviant and violent behaviors during adolescence. METHOD: = 1,162). A series of multilevel models were fitted to the data using full information maximum-likelihood estimation. Between- and within-person associations were used to test the moderating effects of parental monitoring on the development of deviant and violent behaviors. RESULTS: Changes in deviant and violent behaviors were evident across adolescence. Support for the moderating effect of between- and within-person parental monitoring on the development of deviant and violent behaviors in adolescence was found. Two cross-level interactions among within-person peer deviance and between-person parental monitoring, and within-person parental monitoring and between-person peer deviance were found, suggesting support for the moderating effect of parental monitoring. Additionally, a significant interaction among between-person parental monitoring and between-person peer deviance indicated that individuals who reported lower levels of parental monitoring and higher levels of peer deviance reported the highest levels of deviant and violent behaviors, and adolescents who reported higher levels of parental monitoring and higher levels of peer deviance reported less positive growth. CONCLUSION: The findings underscore the important role parents play in offsetting the adverse outcomes of having deviant friends.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".