Trajectories of intimacy and conflict with mothers and fathers from adolescence to adulthood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The quality of mother–child and father–child relationships evolves during emerging adulthood. Given the diverse life paths of young adults, the positive (intimacy) and negative (conflict) dimensions underpinning these relationships may change heterogeneously. This study aimed to identify trajectories of intimacy and conflict with mothers and fathers from ages 16 to 30, explore the overlap between mothers’ and fathers’ trajectories, and examine whether child characteristics and family characteristics predict membership in these trajectories. Data were drawn from a longitudinal study initiated with 390 participants recruited from sixth-grade classes (58% girls). Intimacy and conflicts were measured at ages 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, and 30, and antecedents were measured at ages 12, 13, and 15. Latent class growth analyses revealed three trajectories of intimacy for mothers: (1) low-stable (30%), (2) moderate-quadratic (40%), and (3) high-quadratic (30%); and for fathers: (1) low-stable (44%), (2) moderate-quadratic (44%), and (3) high-quadratic (12%). Two conflict trajectories were identified for mothers: (1) high-linear (18%) and (2) low-quadratic (82%), and for fathers: (1) high-stable (15%) and (2) low-quadratic (85%). Child gender and socioeconomic status predicted mother-intimacy trajectories, while family cohesion and children’s depressive symptoms predicted intimacy and conflict trajectories with both parents, respectively.
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 | 0.000 | 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".