Responsive Parenting and Friendship Quality in Adolescents: Interpersonal Communication Skills as a Mediator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing knowledge indicates that responsive parenting significantly influences the quality of friendships among adolescents. However, previous research has not fully elucidated the dynamics within the relationship between responsive parenting and friendship quality. This study seeks to investigate the role of interpersonal communication skills as a mediator in relationships between responsive parenting and friendship quality. It involved 150 respondents aged 12-20 years (Mage = 16.87; SD = 2.51), comprising 50 early adolescents, 50 middle adolescents, and 50 late adolescents. Measurement of the three variables utilized scales: the Parental Responsiveness Scale subscale, the Interpersonal Communication Scale, and the McGill Friendship Questionnaires-Friend's Functions. Hypothesis testing using mediation analysis reveals that interpersonal communication skills mediate the relationship between father/mother's responsive parenting and friendship quality. These findings suggest that positive interactions between parents and adolescents through responsive parenting serve as models for adolescents in their peer relationships by enhancing interpersonal communication skills. The limitations and directions for further research are discussed.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".