How empathy styles mediate the relationship between responsive parenting and adolescent friendship quality?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Responsive parenting contributes to the friendship quality formed in adolescents. Previous studies failed to fully explain the relationship process between responsive parenting and friendship quality. Empathy is one of the interpersonal skills formed through responsive parenting. Therefore, this study aims to examine the role of empathy in responsive parenting relations with friendship quality. A total of 450 respondents, including the early, middle, and late adolescents aged 12-15, 15-18, and 18-20 years, were selected as participants. Responsive parenting, empathy style, and friendship quality was measured using the Parental Responsiveness Scale, Interpersonal Reactivity Index, and the McGill Friendship Questionnaires-Friend's Functions. The research data were analyzed using regression analysis and Sobel test. The results showed that empathy is a mediator in the relationship between responsive parenting and friendship quality. Also, responsive parenting does not directly predict friendship quality but first develops fantasy and personal stress styles. Adolescents with high personal distress show sensitivity to the feelings and thoughts of their friends because the relationships formed are of higher quality.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".