Co-regulation between mothers and children over time and in different risk contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation explored the development and outcomes of mother-infant co-regulation of communication in low- and at-risk dyads. Interactions between mothers and their children were observationally coded for co-regulation when children were 6-, 12-, 18-, and 48-months-old based on their level of engagement and contribution to the interaction. Further information was gathered about parenting stress, demographics, and children’s internalizing and externalizing symptoms (at 4 and 7 years of age). \n The participants in both studies comprised three groups of mother-infant dyads with varying levels of risk. They included the low-risk full-term group, the at-risk very low birthweight (VLBW)/preterm group, and the psycho-socially at-risk group whose mothers had childhood histories of adversity. In both studies, free-play interactions between mothers and their infants were coded for patterns of co-regulation. \n Longitudinal results from multi-level modelling in Study 1 indicated that for low- and at-risk groups, dyads generally became increasingly synchronous and less asynchronous over time. However, VLBW/preterm boys whose mothers reported higher levels of parenting stress interacted more asynchronously over time. In contrast, psycho-socially at-risk dyads whose mothers reported more parenting stress interacted less asynchronously over time. \n The interaction of co-regulation and parenting stress and its association with children’s internalizing and externalizing symptoms in early and middle childhood were explored in Study 2, using moderation analyses. Results showed that co-regulation had different moderating effects in low- and at-risk groups. Among low-risk dyads who engaged in more asynchronous patterns of co-regulation, parenting stress was associated with more child internalizing symptoms. However, among both groups of at-risk dyads who engaged in low levels of asynchronous patterns of co-regulation, parenting stress was associated with more child internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Further investigation of the psycho-socially at-risk group in middle childhood revealed that this moderation effect extended longitudinally. \n Findings from both studies are discussed in the context of Dynamic Systems (Fogel, 1993) and Transactional Models (Sameroff, 2009) approaches to social-emotional development. These results make significant contributions to our understanding of co-regulation in adverse circumstances and highlight its contribution to fostering healthy parent-child relationships. Importantly, this dissertation underscores consideration of context in the development of co-regulation.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".