Parent-Child Communication, Relationship Quality, and Female Young Adult Children’s Well-Being in U.S. and Finland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parent-child communication and parent-child relationship quality could influence young adult children’s well-being. Further, the associations between parent-child communication and relationship quality and young adult children’s well-being could differ in various cultural environments. In this study, we examined the associations among these constructs and potential cultural differences with two large samples of female college students from the U.S. ( N = 393) and Finland ( N = 264). Several major findings from structural equation modeling were revealed. For the U.S. sample, better parent-child communication, but not relationship quality, was related to female young adults’ better well-being (i.e., lower levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms and higher levels of life satisfaction). For the Finnish sample, however, better parent-child relationship quality, but not communication, was related to fewer problems in female young adults’ well-being. Further model comparisons suggested that the association between parent-child communication and well-being was much stronger among American female young adult children whereas the association between parent-child relationship quality and well-being was much stronger among Finnish female young adult children. In addition, parental divorce was negatively associated with parent-child communication and parent-child relationship quality. Other covariates included young adult children’s age, living arrangements, and family income. The models revealed similar patterns for mothers and fathers. Cultural implications were discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".