Parental Mediation of Media Messages Does Matter: More Interaction About Objectionable Content Is Associated With Emerging Adults’ Sexual Attitudes and Behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An online survey of undergraduates explored the effects of recalled parent-child interaction regarding media on their critical thinking skills, beliefs about alcohol and sex, and current reports of attitudes and risky sexual behaviors. Students from a northwestern university completed the questionnaire three times during the fall of 2011. Effective parental mediation was found to be a protective factor against the negative effects of objectionable content on sexual attitudes and behaviors through its effect on critical thinking toward media content and expectancies. Participants whose parents critiqued media portrayals reported a higher level of critical thinking. More critical orientation toward media decreased the effects of objectionable content on expectancies and sexual behaviors. On the other hand, participants whose parents endorsed media portrayals reported lower levels of critical thinking. Developing critical thinking toward media is an effective approach to helping young people make good decisions about their health. Although viewers' understanding of media content may be biased by the emotional aspect of decision making, critical thinking was shown to decrease the appeal of mediated messages on behaviors. Parents play an important role in developing children's critical thinking skills, and those who mediate their children's media use can establish behaviors that will prove beneficial to their children later in life.
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 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".