Socioemotional Flexibility in Mother-Daughter Dyads Across Multiple Time Scales: A Longitudinal Follow-Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Socioemotional flexibility involves shifting in and out of emotion states, and the range of emotional states expressed during interpersonal interactions (Hollenstein et al., 2013). Previous research has shown that socioemotional flexibility is associated with greater psychosocial functioning, and its counterpart, rigidity, is associated with poor psychosocial functioning (van der Geissen, et al., 2014; Lougheed & Hollenstein, 2016; van der Geissen, & Bogels, 2017). In a longitudinal follow-up (Time 1, Lougheed & Hollenstein, 2016), we examined socioemotional flexibility of in 54 mothers and their adolescent daughters (M age = 16 years old) at three different timescales: (1) within positive and negative contexts (dynamic flexibility), (2) across contexts (reactive flexibility), and (3) across 2 years (developmental flexibility), and associations with psychosocial functioning. Mothers-daughter dyads completed the Emotional Rollercoaster task—a series of five 3-minute discussions on times they felt the following strong emotions towards each other: (1) Happy/Excited, (2) Worried/Sad, (3) Proud, (4) Frustrated/Annoyed, and (5) Grateful. Findings support the Entrenchment hypothesis, as mother-daughter flexibility remained consistent over two years. In general, greater daughter psychosocial functioning was associated with greater dynamic and reactive flexibility in mother-daughter dyads. Contrary to findings at Time 1, mother psychosocial functioning was not associated with flexibility at Time 2. The changes that characterizes mother-daughter relationships in late adolescence (i.e., decreased mother authority, increased daughter autonomy, and increased internalizing symptoms) are explored as possible explanations for the shift in the associated factors of socioemotional flexibility from Time 1 to Time 2.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".