Parental Socialization and Adjustment Components in Adolescents and Middle-Aged Adults: How are They Related?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Classic studies mainly of European-American families broadly identify the benefits of parental strictness combined with parental warmth. However, current research tends to identify parental warmth as positive for adjustment, even without parental strictness. In addition, less is known about the relationship between parenting and adjustment beyond adolescence. The present study examined warmth and strictness and its relationship with self, sexism, and stimulation values. Self-esteem, academic-professional self-concept, benevolent sexism, and stimulation values were used to capture adjustment. Patients and Methods: Participants (n = 1125) were adolescents and adult children of middle-age from Spain. The statistical analyses used were correlation analysis and multiple linear regression. Results: In general, the relationship between parenting and adjustment was found to have a similar pattern for adolescent and middle-aged adult children, although more marked in adolescents. Parental warmth and strictness were predictors of adjustment, but in a different direction. Specifically, parental warmth positively predicted academic-professional self-concept and self-esteem, whereas parental strictness was detrimental as a predictor of higher benevolent sexism. Conclusion: Overall, the present findings suggest that an effective socialization during the socialization years and even beyond can be positively predicted by parental warmth, whereas parental strictness might be unnecessary or even detrimental.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".