An investigation of parenting responses to toddler distress: Interactions between parent physiology, behaviour, and socioemotional context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation examined physiological, behavioural, and psychological aspects of parents’ responses to children’s distress across infancy and toddlerhood through a series of three studies. Study 1 is a systematic review and narrative synthesis of the literature that characterized parents’ physiological responses to infants’ and toddlers’ (0-3 years) distress during experimental and naturalistic distress paradigms and examined concurrent associations between parents’ physiological and behavioural responses. General trends in parents’ physiological responses varied as a function of methodological factors including the physiological outcome (i.e., cortisol, cardiac outcomes, skin conductance, salivary alpha amylase), distress paradigm (e.g., fear-related distress, frustration-related distress), and baseline comparison condition used. Studies 2 and 3 used data from a sample of caregiver-toddler dyads (N=234) studied in a naturalistic high-distress context (i.e., toddler routine vaccination) to address the limitations and gaps in the literature identified in Study 1. Study 2 described the validation of a measure of insensitive (i.e., distress-promoting) caregiver behaviour during routine vaccination. Measure validity and reliability were investigated with correlations and autoregressive cross-lagged path analysis. Study 3 characterized the trajectory of caregivers’ physiological (i.e., high-frequency heart rate variability) responses during routine vaccination and associations of the trajectory with parents’ concurrent behaviour and psychological stress. Findings across all three studies are discussed in the context of the extant literature and relevant theoretical models. Clinical implications and directions for future research are offered.
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 | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".