Out of balance? Positivity–negativity ratios in couples’ interaction impact child adjustment.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parental conflict is a well-established predictor of child maladjustment. Most research, however, has not considered how the couple's positivity-negativity interaction ratio (i.e., the ability to compensate for negative behaviors with positive) may be linked with child adjustment. We examined interparental positivity-negativity interaction ratios reported by one partner as a predictor of child self-reported internalizing and externalizing problems using 3 waves of survey data gathered from 809 families across 5 years in the German Family Panel (pairfam) study. Latent class analysis revealed 4 distinct classes of parental positivity-negativity ratios evident at all 3 waves: (a) very high positivity-very low negativity, (b) high positivity-moderate negativity, (c) moderate positivity-low negativity, and (d) low positivity-very high negativity. Latent growth curve analyses revealed that children from parents in the low positivity-very high negativity ratio reported higher scores of internalizing problems across all waves compared with children from the other groups. This finding indicates that the impact of negative couple interactions on child internalizing problems is counterbalanced by the amount of positivity also present in parental relations. The study suggests consideration of positive and negative aspects of parental relations simultaneously is warranted in clinical practice or when studying the impact of parental couple dynamics on child development. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".