Are Neighbors and Neighborhoods Still Important? Examining the Impact of Neighbors and Neighborhood Environments on Mothers’ Parenting Stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The contemporary neighborhood literature discusses the complex relationships among neighborhood environments, social support, and parenting. Grounded in the Person-Process-Context-Time (PPCT) model, we examined how different sources of social support interact with Korean mothers’ perception of disorder in their neighborhoods, and if social support increases or decreases their parenting stress in rural and metropolitan areas. Using STATA 14.0, we conducted multiple regression modeling including tests for interaction effects. Our sample (from the 8 th Wave PSKC) included 1,300 mothers of seven-year-old children who were transitioning to first grade. The results showed that for metropolitan mothers, support from neighbors was important. Interestingly, receiving social support from friends/colleagues could increase or reduce their parenting stress depending on the type of residential neighborhood. Both rural and metropolitan mothers who reported negative impressions of their neighborhood environment experienced more parenting stress. However, these relationships disappeared when controlling for the interactions between mothers’ perception of disorder in their neighborhood and social support. These findings suggest that the social support that mothers receive from neighbors, and friends/colleagues, in general, play an important role in relieving parenting stress when raising first graders. However, living in disorganized, unsafe, or stressful neighborhood environments may restrict mothers’ parenting choices due to anxiety and limited outdoor space, resulting in increased parenting stress. Therefore, careful consideration of neighborhood characteristics is required to develop community-based parenting support services as part of family-friendly policies to effectively reduce the burden of parenting school-aged children in Korea.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".