Parental stereotypes and cognitive processes: evidence for a double standard in parenting roles when reading texts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the characteristics associated with fathers have taken on more maternal traits more recently, a similar shift has not been observed for maternal characteristics. The role of mother remains stereotyped, and those who do not adhere to this often face criticism. This study examines the impact of parental stereotypes on the cognitive processes associated with reading. A sample of 32 individuals read 24 experimental passages introducing a parent (mother or father) in a traditional or non-traditional role, and in a neutral or disambiguating context. Results show a significant interaction between the type of role and gender of the parent on reading times. Simple main effect tests revealed that for traditional roles, fixation durations were longer when the protagonist was a father than when the protagonist was a mother. There was no effect of role type for fathers, yet for mothers, fixation durations were longer when they were depicted in non-traditional roles than when they were depicted in traditional roles. This disruption of information processing of schema incongruent content suggests that mothers’ parenting stereotypes remain anchored in society and are more rigid than those of fathers, supporting the idea of a double standard in parenting roles.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".