Childhood disadvantage and adolescent socioemotional wellbeing as predictors of future parenting behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In extending work on early life antecedents of parenting, we investigate associations between childhood family history of disadvantage, adolescent socioemotional wellbeing, and age at first parenthood and subsequent parenting behaviour. METHODS: Parent-child interactions were recorded when participants in the longitudinal Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study (New Zealand) had a three-year-old child. Data were available for 358 mothers and 321 fathers, aged between 17.7 and 41.5 at the time of their child's birth. Associations between parenting and antecedent data on socioeconomic disadvantage, adolescent wellbeing and mental health, as well as current adult mental health and age at parenting, were tested for using structural equation modelling. RESULTS: Family disadvantage in childhood and lower adolescent wellbeing was associated with less positive future parenting, but only adult (not adolescent) anxiety/depression symptoms were directly associated with parenting behaviour. Childhood family disadvantage was associated with further disadvantage across the life course that included less positive parenting of the next generation. In contrast, socioemotional wellbeing during adolescence and later age of onset of parenting were associated with more positive parenting. CONCLUSIONS: Reducing childhood disadvantage and improving socioemotional wellbeing during childhood and adolescence is likely to have intergenerational benefits through better parenting of the next generation.
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) | 0.000 | 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".