Parent–Child Contact, Closeness, and Conflict Across the Transition to Adulthood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective This study examined whether youth and parent perceptions of parent–child contact, closeness, and conflict change during the transition to adulthood, and how perceived parent–child relations vary as a function of life course experiences such as residential, education, and relationship status. Background The parent–child relationship is one of the most influential and long‐lasting social ties. Much research on this relationship focuses on childhood, adolescence, and late life, with data from one generation only. Guided by a life course perspective, this study sought to investigate youth and parent perceptions of parent–child relations during the transition to adulthood—a relatively understudied area. Method Data were from a community sample of German parent–child dyads (N = 2,301, 50% daughter, 65% mother) who participated in the German Family Panel study (pairfam; https://www.pairfam.de/en/ ) and were followed annually from ages 17 to 22. Results Latent growth models revealed that parent–child contact and conflict decreased, and parent–child closeness remained relatively stable from ages 17 to 22; youth coresidence with parents was associated with higher levels of youth‐ and parent‐reported contact and conflict, but youth student and relationship statuses were not related to changes in parent–child relations. Conclusion This study describes general patterns of parent–child relations in a transitional period and offers insights into the role of life course event status in changing parent–child relations. Findings reveal separation from parents along with connectedness, and provide support for understanding development in the context of linked lives.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".