Mixed Methods Examination of Mothers’ and Fathers’ Emotion Socialization-Related Self- Efficacy and Links to Emotion Socialization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parental self-efficacy (PSE) – i.e., parents’ beliefs about their competence to parent (Teti & Gelfand, 1991), robustly predicts parenting behaviours (Albanese et al., 2019). Limited research has examined PSE in managing children’s emotions (i.e., emotion socialization-related PSE) and links to emotion socialization practices, notwithstanding its impacts on child outcomes (Gentzler et al., 2015). My thesis qualitatively investigated parents’ beliefs about their competence to teach and handle their children’s emotions and quantitively examined parent and child gender influences on emotion socialization-related PSE. Lastly, this work longitudinally examined the relations between emotion socialization-related PSE and parents’ reactions to children’s emotions. In a SSHRC-funded project, 82 parents discussed PSE in focus groups and one year later, 66 parents completed measures of emotion socialization. Content analysis explicated emotion socialization-related PSE, yielding six supporting and detracting factors. Emotion socialization-related PSE was greater among mothers and parents of daughters as compared to fathers and parents of sons, respectively. Fathers’ PSE positively predicted expressive encouragement of children’s negative emotions. Implications were discussed.
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 | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".