Adjustment and maladjustment to later life: Evidence about early experiences in the family
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Previous parenting studies with European-American families have identified optimal parenting as being based on warmth combined with strictness (i.e., authoritative parenting). The present study analyzes, in adolescents and adults, their adjustment and maladjustment related to age and their early experiences in the family. Methods: The sample consisted of 2,158 Spanish people (58.29% women): 624 adolescents, 630 young adults, 504 middle-aged adults, and 400 older adults. The families were classified into one of the four parental typologies (authoritative, indulgent, authoritarian, and neglectful) based on their scores in the two main dimensions (warmth and strictness). Child functioning was measured as components of adjustment (self-esteem, emotional self-concept, and empathy) and maladjustment (aggression and hostile sexism). Results: Overall, only adolescents and adult children raised in indulgent families reported the highest self-esteem, emotional self-concept, and empathy, and the lowest aggression and hostile sexism. Authoritative parenting (warmth with strictness) was related to a lower emotional self-concept and greater aggression and hostile sexism than indulgent parenting (warmth without strictness). The worst scores corresponded to authoritarian and neglectful parenting. Discussion: The present findings provide new evidence about early experiences in the family, even after parental socialization has ended. Interestingly, contrary to the main findings from classic studies with European-American families, only high parental warmth combined with low parental strictness (i.e., indulgent parenting) is always positive for greater adjustment and less maladjustment in all age groups.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".