Profiles of autonomy support and controlling parenting: Mixing the two predicts lower child-perceived autonomy support.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 41; 68% mothers) to identify profiles of parenting, using parent-reported autonomy-supportive and controlling behaviors. Parent profiles were then associated with child-perceived parenting and child outcomes, as well as parent-related predictors. A latent profile analysis found four profiles of parents: In most cases, autonomy-supportive and controlling behaviors covaried, most parents simultaneously exhibiting comparable levels of these two parenting dimensions, while only 17% of the parents reported engaging predominantly in autonomy support. This subgroup of parents was perceived by their children to be most autonomy-supportive; their children also showed better school grades and fewer externalizing problems. High-earning and highly educated parents tended to be predominantly autonomy-supportive, while parents whose self-worth was tied to their child's success (i.e., ego-involved parents) tended to resort predominantly to controlling parenting. Finally, we found that when controlling parenting is present, parents and children greatly differ in their assessments of autonomy support, with children perceiving less parental autonomy support than parents' self-reports. These findings shed light on the implications of pairing controlling with autonomy-supportive behaviors within a single parenting style. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".