Transactional relations between early child temperament, structured parenting, and child outcomes: A three-wave longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While child self-regulation is shaped by the environment (e.g., the parents' caregiving behaviors), children also play an active role in influencing the care they receive, indicating that children's individual differences should be integrated in models relating early care to children's development. We assessed 409 children's observed temperamental behavioral inhibition (BI), effortful control (EC), and the primary caregiver's parenting at child ages 3 and 5. Parents reported on child behavior problems at child ages 3, 5, and 8. Mediation analyses were conducted to examine relations between child temperament and parenting in predicting child problems. BI at age 3 was positively associated with structured parenting at age 5, which was negatively related to child internalizing and attention-academic problems at age 8. In contrast, parenting at child age 3 did not predict child BI or EC at age 5, nor did age 3 EC predict parenting at age 5. Findings indicate that child behavior may shape the development of caregiving and, in turn, long-term child adjustment, suggesting that studies of caregiving and child outcomes should consider the role of child temperament toward developing more informative models of child-environment interplay.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".