Maternal phubbing and authoritative parenting: Latent profiles and associations with child behavioral outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective This study aimed to identify different profiles of mothers based on phubbing and parenting and examined the effects of the different profiles on children's outcomes. Background Previous studies examined this mechanism via a variable‐centered approach, assuming its relationship is linear, without exploring the underlying typology of parents with various phubbing and parenting. Method From Shanghai kindergartens, 970 mothers of children aged 3–6 years were recruited. Participants completed the measures (administered via an online survey website) of parental phubbing, parenting style, and children's outcomes. The study identified subgroups by maternal authoritativeness and phubbing using latent profile analysis. Results Three profiles emerged: low‐level (11.13%), medium‐level (39.38%), and high‐level (49.48%) child‐centered parenting. Low‐level mothers who displayed the most phubbing and least authoritativeness reported their children faced more behavioral difficulties. Conclusion The findings imply remarkable between‐group differences in parental phubbing and authoritative parenting. High‐level child‐centered parenting contributes to reducing children's behavioral difficulties and increasing their strengths. Implications This study emphasizes the blending influence of parental media use and child‐rearing behaviors on children's outcomes in Chinese families.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".