Relationship between Alexithymia, Parenting Style, and Parental Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on the relationship between parental alexithymia and parenting is relatively scarce. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships between parental alexithymia and three styles of parenting (authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive) and the relationships between parental alexithymia and two domains of psychological control (dependency and achievement). The participants were 946 parents ages 29-60 years (mothers: n = 473, M age = 44.6 yr., SD = 4.7; fathers: n = 473, M age = 48.1 yr., SD = 5.1) of children ages 11-18 years. All participants completed a sociodemographic questionnaire, the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 (TAS-20), the Parental Authority Questionnaire-Revised (PAQ-R), and the Dependency-Oriented and Achievement-Oriented Psychological Control Scale (DAPCS). Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used to examine whether alexithymia could predict the three parenting styles (authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive) and the two domains of psychological control (dependency and achievement). The first model showed that alexithymia was a positive predictor of authoritative and permissive parenting and a negative predictor of authoritarian parenting in both paternal and maternal data. The second model showed that, in both paternal and maternal data, alexithymia was a positive predictor of both dependency-oriented psychological control (DPC) and achievement-oriented psychological control (APC).
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".