A tri‐directional examination of adolescent personality, perceived parenting, and economic and parental adversity contexts in influencing adolescent behavioral outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Adolescent personality is consistently linked to behavioral strengths and difficulties. However, most of this work is limited in that it does not consider personality beyond the Big Five or economic or parental adversity contexts. The Tri-Directional Framework of Parent and Offspring Traits and Outcomes highlights the collective influence of personality, parenting, and context on offspring behavioral outcomes. METHODS: Parent and adolescent cross-sectional data were collected from 2019 to 2021 as part of the Parents and Children Together project in the United Kingdom. Adolescents (N = 310, 48.7% female) self-reported on Dark Triad traits, parenting, and behavior. Parents (N = 288, 46.9% mothers) self-reported on socioeconomic status and adverse childhood experiences. In two path analysis models, we examined: (1) adolescent Dark Triad, context, and their interactions as predictors of perceived maternal and paternal warmth, hostility, and control; and (2) adolescent Dark Triad, perceived parenting, context, and personality-parenting interactions as predictors of adolescent behavioral strengths and difficulties. RESULTS: Adolescent narcissistic traits were the strongest predictors of perceived maternal parenting, whereas adolescent psychopathy and Machiavellianism were the strongest predictors of perceived paternal parenting. Adolescent personality interacted with contextual factors in predicting parenting, but not with perceived parenting in predicting behavior. CONCLUSION: Adolescent Dark Triad traits, especially narcissism, and contextual factors are important for the parent-offspring relationship and developmental outcomes. We recommend that research move beyond assessing direct trait-outcome associations to examining how these associations operate in different environments.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".