Parental warmth and guilt induction: Associations with prosocial behaviors and the mediating role of values in Chinese adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Parental guilt induction is thought to promote empathy and social attunement in Chinese cultures, whereas parental warmth is thought to facilitate prosocial development across diverse cultures. However, research on the relative roles of guilt induction and warmth and how they are associated with prosocial behaviors in Chinese communities has been limited. Additionally, the roles of paternal parenting and potential motivational mediators in non‐Western contexts remain largely unexplored. The present study considered both culturally prevalent (guilt induction) and universal (warmth) parenting practices and their associations with other‐ versus self‐oriented prosocial behaviors, as well as the mediating role of adolescents’ values (i.e., self‐transcendence vs. self‐transcendence). Gender and age differences were also examined. Participants were 439 Grades 7–11 adolescents (242 girls) from Hong Kong. Path analyses indicated that self‐transcendence values mediated the link between parental (maternal and paternal) warmth and both forms of prosocial behaviors. Self‐enhancement values mediated the link between maternal guilt induction and self‐oriented prosocial behaviors. Multigroup analyses revealed no significant gender and age differences. Current findings suggest that parental warmth is likely to facilitate prosocial behaviors through the cultivation of self‐transcendence values whereas guilt induction may facilitate values and prosocial behaviors that are more self‐oriented in Chinese contexts.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".