Parents’ observed responses to children’s emotional distress: Relations with social competence in preschool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although affective interactions in the family are important for development, home observational data are sparse. We replicated and extended one such study, Roberts & Strayer (1987, Developmental Psychology, 23, 415). Interactions in 33 two‐parent families (mean child age = 4.8 years; 48% girls) were observed for four evenings, from suppertime until the child settled for the night. Parents completed the Child Rearing Practices Q‐sort. Peer interactions and friendship networks in preschool were observed over four days. Teachers and observers completed the Preschool Behavior Q‐Sort. Based on Q‐rated peer competence and aggression, three expected groups of children were identified, one of them high on both aggression and peer competence. Although socially active and accepted by peers, they were, compared with other children, less cooperative with adults, less prosocial with peers, more impulsive, less achievement oriented, less purposive, and less happy (mean η 2 = .52). Parenting, especially observed impatience, threats, and use of force when children were emotionally distressed, showed important differences across groups.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".