The Impact of Maternal Parenting Style on Sibling Relationships: A Transnational Study on Two-Child Families of China and the United Kingdom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study, through a survey of two-child families in China and the UK, aimed to explore the differences, similarities, and associations between sibling relationships and maternal parenting styles from a transnational point of view. A total number of 107 mothers (UK: N = 55; China: N = 52) with two children were administered through a battery of online questionnaires respectively. Results showed no significant differences in the quality of sibling relationships between the two countries. Conflict and competitive behaviours among siblings greatly outnumbered warmth-related ones for both countries. In terms of maternal parenting style, permissive and authoritarian parenting styles were more dominant in both China and the UK compared with the authoritative style. However, British mothers tend to be more authoritarian than their Chinese counterparts towards both older and younger children. Although significant transnational correlations were found on the associations between maternal parenting style and the quality of sibling relationships, the authoritative parenting style was found to be more conducive to reduce the conflict behaviours between siblings in the UK, while the authoritarian parenting style turned out to be more effective among Chinese mothers. The above findings deepen our understanding of the association of parenting styles with sibling relationships. Implications on parenting practice to improve the quality of sibling relationships are also offered.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".