Exploring the Links between Unsociability, Parenting Behaviors, and Socio-Emotional Functioning in Young Children in Suburban China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to explore the moderating role of parenting behaviors (i.e., authoritative, authoritarian, protective, and maternal involvement) in the relations between unsociability and socio-emotional adjustment in a sample of young Chinese children. Participants were N = 487 children (283 boys, Mage = 58.88 months, SD = 10.23) attending preschool/kindergartens from suburban areas in Shanghai, People’s Republic of China. Mothers rated children’s unsociability and parenting behaviors, whereas teachers provided ratings of children’s socio-emotional functioning at school. Among the results, unsociability was positively associated with peer exclusion, asocial behavior, and anxious-fearful behavior. However, parenting behaviors significantly moderated these associations. Whereas authoritative parenting attenuated the relation between unsociability and peer exclusion (buffering effect), authoritarian parenting and protection each exacerbated the relations between unsociability and indices of socio-emotional difficulties. The current findings suggest that parenting behaviors may be instrumental in shaping young unsociable children’s socio-emotional adjustment. Our results also inform best practices for parenting strategies in response to unsociability in young Chinese children.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".