PARENT APPROACH AND AVOIDANCE TEMPERAMENTS AND PARENTING BEHAVIORS: CHILD BEHAVIORS AS MODERATING MECHANISMS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parents’ temperaments are assumed to be involved in their parenting behaviors, but empirical evidence is limited. Using self-determination theory (SDT) as a guiding framework, this study examined the associations between parents’ approach and avoidance temperaments and parenting behaviors over a 7 month period. Children’s manifestations of inattention and prosociality were explored as moderators. A sample of 101 parents (79% mothers) with a child in Grade 4 or Grade 6 participated in this study. Findings indicate that approach temperament positively predicted autonomy-supportive and structuring behaviors, while avoidance temperament positively predicted controlling behaviors. Distinct association patterns were also observed for involvement and structure depending on the children’s behavioral characteristics: approach-oriented parents were more likely to engage in structuring behaviors with low prosocial and highly inattentive children. Moreover, avoidance-oriented parents, although less likely overall to employ structuring behaviors, were also more prone to adopt those behaviors when engaging with low prosocial children. Results suggest that SDT-based parenting responses (autonomy support, structure, involvement) as well as controlling responses to children’s behaviors may be driven by parents’ approach and avoidance dispositions. Implications for theory, research, and the prevention of negative parenting behaviors are presented.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".