PERCEIVED PARENTING STYLES AND DISORDERED PERSONALITY TRAITS IN ADOLESCENT AND ADULT STUDENTS AND IN PERSONALITY DISORDER PATIENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To examine the relationship between perceptions of parenting and personality, the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI; Parker, Tupling, & Brown, 1979) and the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology – Basic Questionnaire (DAPP; Livesley & Jackson, in press) were administered to 167 adolescent and 422 adult students, as well as to 198 patients with personality disorders. Principal component analysis of the PBI yielded 3 factors in all three samples: Care, Freedom Control, and Autonomy Denial. Chinese personality disorder patients perceived less parental Care than did adolescent and adult students, more paternal Freedom Control than did adults, and more paternal Autonomy Denial than did adolescents. Most regression coefficients between PBI and DAPP scales were moderate, but consistent with previous literature. These findings are similar to those found in the non-Chinese samples, suggesting that parental bonding is important in the development of personality disorders across different nations.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".