Conflict Interactions and Negative and Positive Affect in Parent-Adolescent Dyads’ Daily Lives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of parent-adolescent conflict on emotional well-being has been well-documented. However, daily processes related to conflict and positive and negative affect have been overlooked. We tested the mutual effects between parent-adolescent conflict and affect in daily life. Parent-adolescent dyads (N = 171) completed daily diaries between 14 to 21 days to rate their positive and negative affect, and conflict interactions between October 2021 and August 2023. The participants were mostly from families with high socioeconomic status, most of the parents were biological mothers, and over half of the parents were Caucasian. Adolescents were between 13 and 17 years (M = 14.37, SD = 1.28). We tested the daily associations between negative/positive affect and conflict interactions in one dynamic structural equation model (DSEM). Contrary to our expectations, greater adolescent negative affect on a day was associated with lower parent-reported conflict next day. Further, both within- and between-family level correlations between adolescent and parent negative and positive affect were significant. Greater parent and adolescent conflict was related to lower positive and greater negative affect for parents and adolescents. Thus, while both same-day and mean-level associations over time indicate that conflicts are linked to poorer affective well-being, and parents may have made efforts to improve their affect the following day in an attempt to compensate for the conflicts experienced the day before. Further, this effort was appeared to be driven by the adolescents’ rather than the parents’ emotional experiences.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".